Vorkosigan

Even in Christianity, god did not die. How could god die? It was just AWOL for 3 days.

And god was a victim of a process it launched itself. Are you saying god did evil?

Also, haven't seen you in a while. Good to see you around again.

Michael

luvluv

Okay, I usually just skip that chapter and get on with what I take to be the main arguments of the book, being:

a) It is not possible for God to give human beings freedom of choice and ensure that all of those choices are only used for good. Freedom necessarily means the freedom to do evil, therefore God cannot conceivably make a world of free moral agents in which evil is impossible.

b) That real love desires more of it's object then that it is free of suffering. Most fathers would rather have their children be uncomfortable in their moral failings than be carefree scoundrels. Most women would rather their husbands have tormented conscious than to be an uncaring adulterer. When someone really loves someone, they are not indifferent to their moral behaviour, and would rather that behavior cause their loved one pain than for that loved one to become corrupted. God loves us in this way, so he allows our evil to have evil effects on us and others, so that in the end we may change.

Specifically, what do you think of Lewis's statement that we do not want a Father in Heaven we want a "Grandfather in Heaven". A great, jolly chap who does not care what we do to each other so long as at the end of the day "A good time was had by all"?

Malaclypse the Younger

luvluv

The free will rebuttal to the POE is deficient on a number of grounds.

You are equivocating "freedom of choice" and "free moral agents"; these terms represent two different concepts. I can be a free moral agent without having freedom of choice in some areas: I have no freedom, for instance, to ignore gravitation or inertia.

Contrawise, I can have freedom of choice without being a free moral agent. I could still make choices, just not moral choices.

It is obviously analytically true that we could not be free moral agents without the ability to choose evil. However it is logically possible for a benevolent god to simply not give us moral freedom. Even more so, were we to not have moral freedom, we would necessarily evaluate this lack as good.

It is also possible that we are not free moral agents. It is possible that the actions and conditions that we evaluate as "evil" are not truly evil; it is possible our evaluations (and not our actions) are in error. In such a case, we might simply be given the "freedom of choice" only to define or evaluate actions.

It is possible that our only moral compulsion is to obey natural law. In which case, we are obviously not free moral agents--we are constrained to obey natural law.

This is partially true. But there is also a matter of degree here. As a parent, I would frankly rather see my children be carefree scoundrels than savagely tortured to death. As it is a fact people are routinely savagely tortured to death, both my human and natural causes, the analogy fails. Your conception of God is not analogous to parental feelings.

Parents do constrain his children's moral choices, and most explicitly and directly so. They take active responsibility for their children's moral behavior and beliefs. They do so by explicitly and unequivocably explaining what is considered right and wrong; they coercively prevent opportunities to do wrong; and they actively punish wrong actions.

The parent analogy again fails on every point. There is no evidence that any god acts in the manner of a parent. The presence of multiple, mutually contradictory works that purport to be the ethical pronouncement of a god is equivocal in contrast to the univocality of the parents' instructions. It appears that god makes no effort to consistently deny opportunities to do evil. And it is certainly not proven that a god consistently punishes wrong actions; were he to do so, we would have no need of police, courts, prisons, executioners, etc.

Even if true, good parent analogy directly contradicts the free-will argument. Using both arguments seems as ludicrous as the theif who claims, "I didn't take the money, and besides, it was just lying there."

What is argued is not what we want, but how a hypothetical god factually behaves. Even if a god were to exist, he does not appear to act as a "good father", and it is argued (by the free will argument) that it is logically impossible for him to do so. Not only are these two arguments mutually contradictory, one is fallacious and the other false-to-fact.

It is no wonder that christian ethical philosophy is viewed with such suspicion.

ManM

Pompous Bastard,
I personally don't believe that God can be reduced to a formula. Is God omnipotent? I don't think we have any business speculating. God revealed Himself to us through the incarnation. This is the true source of theology.

turtonm,
It is good to be back. Hopefully I'll have time to get into a few more good discussions.

"Even in Christianity, god did not die."

No, the Christian claim is that God died and resurrected, and through this death was defeated. As St. John Chrysostom spoke in his beautiful homily on Pascha, "Let no one fear death, for the Savior's death has set us free. He who was held prisoner of it, has annihilated it. By descending into Hell, he has made Hell captive." The power of the Christian message is that God loves us so much that He died for us. Without the reality of the death of Jesus, Christianity is nothing.

"And god was a victim of a process it launched itself. Are you saying god did evil?"

I would not grant that God created evil. Theophilus of Antioch wrote in his letter to Autolycus, "The tree of knowledge itself was good, and its fruit was good. For it was not the tree, as some think, that had death in it, but the disobedience which had death in it; for there was nothing else in the fruit but knowledge alone, and knowledge is good when one uses it properly." Death came into the world through mankind's misuse of the gifts of God. Genesis 2:17 was a warning, not a threat as Augustine interpreted it. When Adam and Eve separated themselves from God through disobedience, they separated themselves from life. And so the whole of human history is a tragedy where God tries to save us, not from His wrath, but from ourselves. God wishes to save us so badly that He died for us. He is a victim of a process we launched.

As an aside (and to make this appropriate for the morality forum), is this really so hard to justify and believe? We can see countless examples of similar things today. We take the resources of this planet and put them to use building grenades which we then toss at innocent people. Was the material used in making the grenade evil? Of course not. We misuse what we have. How are we going to save ourselves from ourselves? All of our current systems simply impose restrictions on our freedom. How can we save ourselves without limiting freedom? Is it even possible?

-ManM

luvluv

"It is obviously analytically true that we could not be free moral agents without the ability to choose evil. However it is logically possible for a benevolent god to simply not give us moral freedom."

So if God gave you no moral freedom, if he made you essentially an automotan, you would then consider him good? Because some people abuse freedom, you think it would be the right thing for God to make all men at best robots, or at worst, slaves?

"Even more so, were we to not have moral freedom, we would necessarily evaluate this lack as good."

I don't get this. How do you know?

And if God were to program us to be good automatically and then program us to like it, would you then call God just?

I guess you would in that situation, because you'd have no choice, but I'm asking hypothetically.

Also, extending the parent analogy, you seem to be saying that God would be a good God if he took away bad choices from his children. What do you think of human parents who rather than punishing children for making the wrong decision, simply do not allow them any freedom to make any choices? And not just when they are adolescent, but throughout their entire lives?

Also, with the parent analogy, I was not trying to say that God Himself constantly punishes every wrong action. That in itself would be an infringement upon free will. I am merely refuting the notion that if God were good he would eliminate all suffering. I was saying that we would not consider a parent good on those grounds. A parent who would cover up for his kid's cheating on his test, so that he won't suffer. Or a parent that would off a judge if his kid murdered somebody, so he won't suffer. What I mean by the parent analogy is that God will not intervene to spare mankind from the natural consequences of their own bad choices. If we decide to build nuclear bombs and use them on each other, he won't just bail us out of our bad decisions. I believe He does this out of respect for our freedom and in the hopes that if we actually have to deal with consequences we will take our moral responsibility seriously. A child who is constantly bailed out of trouble by his parents never takes his actions seriously (why would he? Daddy will bail him out if he makes a mistake). Similarly, if humans were constantly bailed out of every bad decision by God, we would never become fully responsible adult beings, we would be eternal children.

Certainly, freedom entails the risk of evil, but it also holds the only grounds on which real love, real sacrifice, real friendship, and real life can occur. I think the risk is worth taking.

lpetrich

I am a computer programmer, which makes me something of a creator, if only a very limited one.

To me, it would be simple for an omnipotent being to make all of humanity behave completely virtuously, by imprinting an irresistable tendency to do so.

And as to the free-will argument, I respond by quoting the Bible:

Mt. 5:29-30, 18:8-9, Mk. 9:43-47

If some body part leads one astray, then it is best to cut it off.

We even find in Mt. 19:12 a recommendation to apply this strategy to one's sex organs.

So if free will causes trouble, then it is best to be rid of it.

Also consider what Heaven is supposed to be like -- does anyone ever commit sins in Heaven?

Malaclypse the Younger

luvluv

Your points are both flawed.

First, freedom does not entail the possibility of doing evil. Only moral freedom entails that possibility. It is still possible to be free without the freedom to do some specific thing; even without the ability to do evil, I am still free to express my tastes. You may be enamoured of the ability to do evil, but those on the receiving end of its actuality might not feel the same way. How would you feel explaining your position to the parents of a murdered child? I doubt that you would be so cold-hearted as to even bring up the subject.

To coercively interfere with someone's freedom to do evil either is or is not morally right. Either way, it is the same whether I do it, a police officer does it, or a god does it. This presents a dilemma. If coercively interfering with someone's ability to do evil is morally good, then god fails to do a moral good, and is thus not omnibenevolent. If it is morally wrong, then our governments and law-enforcement are guilty of a vast moral wrong.

And, of course, the argument from personal evil completely fails to address natural evil.

The parent analogy fails completely. In the abstract, the parent offers his children consistent and direct moral indoctrination using the most effective means possible, because 1) moral beliefs are not self-evidendent and 2) the parent believes it is beneficial to the child to have moral beliefs. This statement is true even of the moral subjectivist.

I don't know if you're a parent, but I am. The goal of the parent is to coercively indoctrinate good moral standards in his child. Acceptance of those standards is considered success, rejection is considered failure. The attitude towards morality is different from the attitude towards taste. I wouldn't dream of trying to force my child to like science fiction or choosing a career in engineering, but I consider it not only acceptable but compelled that I teach him that stealing is wrong. And not only to teach him that it is dangerous because it is disapproved of, but to internalize the prohibition and have him refrain from stealing even when he knows he wouldn't get caught.

Indeed, it is demanded that a parent indoctrinate moral standards into his child. To do so is morally right, to fail to do so is irresponsible and morally wrong. Also, an omnipotent god is not limited as to means. That means that a god is not limited to indirect methods (such as protection and punishment) to indoctrinate moral standards.

So again, we have a dilemma. Coercively indoctrinating moral standards is either morally right or morally wrong. If it is morally right, then god is failing to do something right, which is a wrong. If it is morally wrong, then parents are perpetrating a vast moral wrong on their children. Indeed, the indoctrination of moral standards in children appears to be necessary for a society to function, which means that the entire concept of society is built on a moral wrong.

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: Malaclypse the Younger ]</p>

Jon Curry

How closely are people reading Lewis here? Everybody seems to think the tri-lemma is absurd. But let's look at what Lewis is saying.

So in other words, if you accept that Christ existed ("I believe he was a great moral teacher" presumes that Jesus existed), and if you accept that the gospels accurately record his teachings (the claim that Christ is a good moral teacher is based upon his teachings as recorded in the gospels) then do not deny that he is God. If he is not God, then he is either a liar or an evil man. Of course this is not a proof that Jesus is God. Perhaps Jesus never existed. Perhaps the gospels don't record his history accurately. Fine. But if you admit that they do, then don't call him a good moral teacher and deny that he is God. Huge liars are not good moral teachers. What is so absurd about that? I agree completely.

MadMordigan

Huge liars are not good moral teachers. What is so absurd about that?

But huge liars can sometimes teach good moral lessons. Just because someone is wrong in one thing does not mean they are wrong about everything. There is an equivocation between a 'A teacher who teaches great morals' and 'A greatly moral teacher.' This is an artifact of
the English language, and is exploited by Lewis as an argument.

Pomp

Jon Curry,

Hi. I haven't seen you around in awhile.

As I mentioend to luvluv, I can think of at least three broad categories of objection to the trilemma. Let me outline them here:

• 1) As luvluv correctly noted, the most obvious objection is that many of us see no good reason to consider the Gospels good history.
• 2) There are possibilities other than the three described by Lewis. Perhaps Jesus really said the things he is purported to have said, really believed what he was saying (thus, he was not a liar), had what he considered good reasons to believe them (thus, he was not insane), but was simply mistaken.
• 3) The definition of "great moral teacher" is rather subjective, and it is not at all clear that such a person would never lie, or could not be considered insane.

You've successfully dealt with objection #1 by noting that the trilemma is directed at those who already accept the Gospels as objective history and believe the character of Jesus to be a "great moral teacher." The other two categories of objection still stand, even for the target audience.