theyeti

I'm sure your book has discussed this adequately: Divine Command Theory fails not because God doesn't exist, but because we humans can't agree on what he commands and forbids. DCT is just an argument from authority by using the ultimate authority (unless God has parents), and it depends absolutely on our ability to unambiguously determine what that authority says. But no one agrees on how to do this.

Sure, there are various sects that are quite confident that they and only they are in the priviledged position of knowing exactly what God does and doesn't want. But then this other sect over here believes something completely different, and with just as much confidence. There's just no way to resolve differences like this, unless God would come down and speak to us en masse. The Bible is of course no help, because it's with differences in interpretation that cause all of these rifts in the first place.

Authoritative systems like DCT obviate the need for ethical reasoning, but instead of resolving ethical dilemas and giving us confident answers, they give us instead a useless debate over subjective interpretation. That's why ethics must be derived from reason, regarless of whether our reasoning abilities are natural or God-given.

[edited to add some E/C relevance]:

I should point out that legitimizing DCT is exactly the mission of the ID movement (and, to a certain extent, that of other creationists). This is their whole plan with "cultural renewal" and using ID theory, whatever it is, for guiding morality and law. You can find this sort of thing by reading their manifesto (the Wedge document) or pretty much anything by Philip Johnson. The whole point of the ID program is to "prove" that God exists, so that DCT therefore becomes more plausible (or mandatory) and can be used to support socially conservative political ideology. That ideology is authoritarian, and thus it totally depends on DCT for its intellectual legitimacy.

The problem is, as I wrote above, the DCT fails even if God exists. Even if the IDists are right, DCT and their mission of "cultural renewal" still wouldn't be justified. Why does God's mere existance make certain laws better than others? What if God approves of liberalism, as a plain reading of the Bible would lead me to believe? What if God doesn't care?

And of course, my favorite: According to the IDists, we don't really know who this designer is in the first place. It could be apathetic space monsters for all we know. So just how the hell are you going to justify DCT if you can't even know if the designer is God?! Their intransigence on this point may be politically useful, but it completely destroys their stated mission of "cultural renewal". Either they should give up their silly pretense of being religiously neutral, or they should admit that ID "science" is completely incapable of supporting their socio-political goals. These people just boggle the mind.

theyeti

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: theyeti ]</p>

scigirl

Hello DNAunion (heh can I call you "ligase" now? )

My question is - if you never really thought about or investigated the basis of your church's ethics, then they really weren't your ultimate foundation were they?

Note that you said, "I had those ethics before going to church." I would think that your reasons for having ethics before you started going to church were your "ultimate" foundations, right? So any similarities that your personal ethics had to your religious teachings was a coincidence.

I would think that the cause of your ethics is/always will be the cause of your ethics, whether or not you realize it.

Does this make sense? Do people see now why I don't post in philosophy?

scigirl

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p>

Lizard

scigirl,

I think you made an excellent point. Don't hesitate to post about philosophy. You have a clear mind. That's what it takes.

Lizard

DNA Union posted:

The basic fallacy of the above statement is that "science" never declared there was no God behind what we see in nature. Certain scientists have declared so, based on their own opinions, but there is no scientific evidence either for or against the existence of God.

Dawkins, Gould, Provine and others have been quite vocal about their personal opinions that there is no God. Note, however, that they were not stating those in scientific papers, with evidence to support them, but in popular writings or debates. Anyone, scientist or non-scientist, is entitled to his or her opinion about whether a Deity exists and interacts with physical matter; however, the nature of scientific investigation being what it is, there never will be conclusive evidence one way or the other.

Steven Carr

This is all very true, but it is *Christians* who stated that it was a fact that 'The Heavens declare the Glory of God'.

In which case, they cannot object when people claim the opposite.

If they prefaced the statement with 'It is only our opinion, and there is no evidence to back it up, but the Heavens declare the Glory of God', then Christians could indeed object to people looking at the Universe and concluding the opposite.

pangloss

Pretty sad that all it takes is reading a book to alter one's ethical standards...

Rick has been posting this stuff at another board, too.

Looking for a new home after getting banned from ARN again...

MrDarwin

Two quick thoughts:

First, morality and ethics are purely human concepts. Does anybody doubt this? We certainly don't talk about other animals being "moral" or "ethical". So why should we look to the natural world to formulate our ideas about ethics or morals?

Second, Christians don't have a monopoly on morality or ethical behavior. There are and have been plenty of cultures and societies in the world that have developed concepts of ethics and morality completely independently of Judeo-Christian concepts. What do these human societies and cultures have in common? That they are human societies and cultures. This is what separates us from the other animals, not belief in some deity that has handed down the law.

bluefugue

To the extent that there are limits on normal behavior in other species -- i.e. things a chimpanzee will and will not tend to do -- it seems to me we might call these prototypical "ethics." There is no particular reason why they should correspond with, or inform, human ethics, of course.

MortalWombat

Would that be the scholarly "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0028643259/qid=1032385028/br=1-14/ref=br_lf_b_14//104-4539256-8928737?v=glance&s=books&n=11427" target="_blank">The Complete Idiot's Guide(R) To Understanding Ethics</a>" by the same authors?