Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Spirit Branded · 05-05-2002, 05:38 AM

Helen

You said it better than I could have myself.

No physical anything in hell ... eternity is a place of spiritual separation from or closeness to God ... as I advised the Pope and he agreed with me

[Weekly audience on Hell - Rome, July 1999]

Why would people who avoid God in this life be displeased about being separate from him in the next?

Thanks for your other kind remarks Helen ... I always found you rational and sharp as a razor ... so if you could manage that while ill I had better look out now that you are better

Blessings and Peace

Spirit Branded

[No longer Hilarius since you chided me to be more serious]

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: Spirit Branded ]

Spirit Branded · 05-05-2002, 06:07 AM

To any past or future charge that anyone who does not interpet the whole Bible absolutely literally can not possibly be a Christian ... I point out that on a world scale only a tiny theological minority treats such books as Genesis and Revelation in a literal manner.

The vast majority of mainstream Christians treat them as truthful allegories.

To the absurd charge of picking and choosing which always follows ... find me a Christian who still believes that the death penalty should apply for working on the Sabbath or that slavery should be approved today, just becaue that was once believed right. We ae not bound by the cultural mores of the past merely because scripture records them.

On another separate but related issue Christ himself repudiated the OT scripture that commended an eye for an eye.

The historical Gospels and teachings of Christ are by contrast perfect and timeless ... the OT idea that God is a God of Revenge and a victor in earthly military campaigns should be seen for what it was ... a total misunderstanding of God's nature.

Christ said "my father's kingdom is not of this world".

Christ is made the sure foundation.

Blessings and Peace

SB

Metacrock · 05-05-2002, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rainbow walking:
I propose to demonstrate the inherent fallacy of the Christian apologists’ argument that God is good in spite of the suffering of innocent victims in a world He allegedly created.

The argument, as set forth by the Christian apologist, is often expressed in one of two ways, and more often switched in mid-stream to justify not only that God is good but that free moral agency is proof of His goodness. The arguments are expressed thusly:

Argument 1

1. Free moral agency is a good thing (in spite of the plethora of evils it makes available as choices)

2. God created man as a free moral agent

3. God is good.

Argument 2

1. God is good

2. God created man as a free moral agent

3. Free moral agency is a good thing

Meta => RW that's only one of many possible arguments. The better argument is the "Free will Defense." In that argument free will is not a proof of God's goodness, but the justification for evil; since evil is done my humans with free will, and free will is necessary to have a moral universe, it stands to reason that God can be good and still allow evil in the world; because its necessary to have a moral universe via free will.

That Good is good is just an apparent fact. We don't have have to prove it, if God exists God is good a priori. Not so because God says so and God is God, but because since God created us and set in our hearts the basic urge to make moral codes, God is the author of moral codes and thus is the soruce of goodness, or in fact is the The Good itself.,

Quote:

Let me just say that I concur with premises 1 and 3 respectively, that free moral agency is a good thing.

The Fallacy Exposed

The inherent fallacy of these arguments are not only in their assumptions but in the improper usage of free moral agency and the ramifications this holds for the Christian.

1. The proper definition for a free moral agent is: one who is free to dictate his own moral prerogatives. Thus one who cannot create his own moral prerogatives is constrained to live by a moral code not of his own making and therefore is not free to alter it. The apologists’ version of free moral agency limits itself to one who has the free will to choose between compliance or rejection of a moral stricture inspired by God as defined in the scriptures. As we can see his definition is self-limiting in scope and does not accurately reflect the realistic boundaries of humanities prerogatives. Men can, and have, created their own moral codes independent of God.

Meta => No your defition of free moral agency is totally wrong! First see Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology and also Antony Flew's Philosophical Dictionary and almost every moral philosopher I've studied in Graduate school. I used to be the Teaching assistant for ethics classes. A moral agent is merely the actor, the person trying to be moral. "Free" moral agency merely means that the person is capable of understanding moral codes and of internalizing them and thus has responsiblity.

If your only understanding of morality is that one follows rules or makes up his own then you are stuck in the adolenscent phase or the rule keeping phase of Koleberg's hierarchy and I suggest you need some personal growth (but I don't think that's the case, I think you are capable of understanding the idea of internalizing moral concepts).

Quote:

2. The Christian, by virtue of his commitment to God, is constrained to live by a moral code not of his own making and is not free to alter it without drastically altering the very foundation of Christianity.

Meta => that's an absurd argument RW. No one lives by a code of his own making! Everything we think or believe comes to us through culture. We do not invent anything from whole cloth. Now we internalize it and make it our own, and when we do that then we become capable of diciding between alternatives and changing our minds about conflicting moral values and so forth. No one says Christians can't do that, we do it all the time. That is the limited, shallow, fundamentalist version of Christianity. Anyone who thinks that is just not withit in terms of spirtual growth.

Quote:

3. Following this logic to its bitter conclusion we see that Christians are not free moral agents and thus are either:

(a). not good or

(b). not created by God

Except that you misconstrue the meaning of the term.

Quote:

4. It is a fallacy for Christians, who are not free moral agents, to argue free moral agency as justification for a claim that God is good yet created a world where the innocent suffer.

One is a free moral agent because one has internalize a set of moral values and is thus capable of actually deciding for one's self to follow those values in ceratin situations. It doens't matter if that set of values is given to one by society or a religious tradition (and in fact they cannot help but be given by a culture because we cannot think apart form culture).

Now, by expanding the apologists’ argument further thusly:

Quote:

1. God is good

2. Free moral agency is a good thing

3. God created man as a free moral agent

4. Man, endowed with free moral agency, is a good thing

We begin to see that the apologetics in defense of Christianity are then problematically multiplied.

The fallacy there is that you forget that people can also misue or refuse to use their moral agency.

As the argument form suffering goes your argument does nothing to answer the free will defense.

Quote:

So the next time an apologist pulls the free moral agency argument out of his hat in defense of an all good God your best response would be:

“Then why are you a Christian?”

Yea show them how ignoarnt you are! You what? I've studied ethics at the graduate level and even taught it in college. I've also studied it in seminary with one of the top ethicists in the country. I find very people on these boards, on either side, who know jack about ethical theory. Usually all that happnes is both sides just display their ignoarnce. NOw I know that makes me an arrogant slob, but heck man it's my profession! I have an expertise in it, I' have credentials. What is your job? If you say you know your job does that make you arrogant?

I wish both sides would put a moratorium on discussions of ethical theory until they can take some ethics classes.

Metacrock · 05-05-2002, 07:15 AM

[quote]Originally posted by HRG:
Originally posted by Tercel:

Because here we reach the stage where our opinions clash, you wrote "As we can see his definition is self-limiting in scope and does not accurately reflect the realistic boundaries of humanities prerogatives. Men can, and have, created their own moral codes independent of God."
Can they? I would deny that anyone has created their own moral codes independently of God.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

This is of course one of those statements which is not falsifiable, but for which - short of an universal revelation by said God - no objective evidence can be brought.

To me, it looks like saying "every time my cat dreams about mice, it causes a muon to decay", "every time we see lightning it means that Thor is angry", or - (remember?) - "miracles can happen when the PHI-field is switched on". In all those cases, the antecedent (God, my cat's dreams, Thor or the PHI-field) cannot be independently observed, and postulating it has no predictive power (God is inscrutable, my cat doesn't tell us when it dreams etc.).

I doubt whether such claims even have any objective meaning at all.

Moral philosophy is usually not open to falsification, and the argument in the original post by RW is no exception.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe that wherever men have care about morals, there God has been revealing His will. Morals created independently of Christian revelation? Sure. Independently of God Himself though... ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

[/What about the evolutionary advantages of altruism and cooperation (Robert Axelrod) ?

What about it? If there is a God, and if God created humanity, then obviously "he" used evolution to do it. So why would that disprove God? It just means that God uses evolution to do things. Now it might make things more tricky for the moral argument as a proof of God's existence, but that is not the issue here, and I never liked that argument much anyway.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ultimately I think, the only "Morals" that are created independently from God are the negative "Morals" that conveniently say the particular sinful behaviour that the maker likes indulging in really isn't immoral at all. And of course, for such a person: if God's morals happen to say different,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Please present an objective procedure for determining what God's morals happen to say.

That's easy! the hard part would be proving God anyway, but that's not so hard either. Anyway, the way to do that is to look for moral universals in cultures around the world. They do exist. They are not found so much in details but in general principles. But we can assume that if God exists, and if God created humanity (for the sake of argument OK?) then God gave us moral motions, those that are universal would be them.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

, then God's existence can be denied too...

Holy Fillacious consclusion Batman! that doesn't enable anyone to deny God's existence. That's silly. It's called the genetic fallacy to be more accurate. You think that by showing the nature of moral motions and how they are rooted in human genetics (which you can't falsify) that you've proven "No need for God." But That's just the genetic fallacy, if you say where an idea comes from then it must be wrong. What that proves is merely how God did it...

Metacrock · 05-05-2002, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sighhswolf:


Tercel,
I realize this is an old argument, but how do you account for societies, cultures that had no introduction into the world of christianity, and therefore had no knowledge what so ever about god and his dictated moral directives?

Meta => God put the moral law in the hearts of all people. This is what Paul says (see Romans 2). That atheists like HRG think that it is a natural evolutionary devleopment doesn't disprove that, it merely shows one way God could have done it. That's like saying "God gave us eyes," "No eyes evolved in this manner (give discription) so therefore God didn't create eyes." But that's just a fallacy, God created eyes (and moral motions) by creating evoution.

I don't believe in the evoutionary theory of morality anyway, because it usually just reduces moral philosophy to one two ideas that they can fit into some kind of evoutionary framework. Be that as it may, the argument that morality is borader than Christian tradition is no better. God gave us all moral motions from the begining, we came up with religious traditions in response to that.

Quote:

A rudimentary moral code can and does exist outside of the world of organized religion.
If mankind had not developed some form of moral code, the human race would, in all probability not have survived.

Meta => See how thoughtful God is! He causes it to rain on the just and the unjust.

Quote:

Consider our very early ancestors and the extremely dangerous world they lived in. They lived in a hostile enviornment and were barely able to find sufficient food and shelter and protect themselves from predators.
If they had not developed a system of working together as groups, sharing the burden of finding food and shelter, and caring for the young, it is doubtful that the race would have been able to sustain itself.
Now it is just my opinion but, a communal living arrangement necessitates a rudimentary moral code.
The idea that as a human being you are better off
with others of your own kind, rather than being alone to face all of the terrors, would indicate a conscience action to think not only of the individual, but of others as well.

Meta => that's an example of what I said, reducing moral thinking to one or two ideas that one can find a basis for evoution in. That hardly sums up the nature of moral motions. Moreover, I don't see why one need be moral to work together (working togehter is not necessarily a moral thing). Facists can work togther, people can be compelled to work togther through imoral means. IN fact it seems to me that morals get in the way of survivle becasue if you are worried about what is right and what is wrong you limited your responses to sitautions.

Quote:

The idea of a moral code is based in part on the premise of thinking and reacting in a positive way within the cultural boundries of a group,
in an effort to be civil and help each other survive.

Meta=> That's a defition that is hand crafted to fit your ideology. As a catch all defition of morality its totally lacking. Moral codes are more than just following social norms.

Quote:

So I cannot agree that "morals" or "moral codes" could not have been developed independently of a supreme being.

Meta => I don't know about that, but I don't see why humanity had to come up with the concept of the moral at all. Why not just come to the conclusion that we will survive if we work together?

Quote:

I would go farther and say that the advent of organized religion, has actually destroyed the "moral codes" of our ancestors in many instances by promoting an elitist attitude and seperating humans by religious beliefs.

Meta => To quote my friend HRG "that assumption cannot be falsified." It certainly can't be verified by history either.

Quote:

A moral code that allows one to murder their neighbor with the sanction of a divine being is not what I would consider as morality.

Meta => But if we all team up and worth together to murder our neighbor we will survive, so since that's your defition of morality what's wrong with it? After all if morality is just following social norms then hey, in a facist state murdering the neighbor is the norm. If you think there is something intrensically wrong with it, please show what that is, apart from survivle because we can murder our neighbors and survive.

Quote:

I dont want to get into the whole objective and subjective morality thing that has been done to death but, I would not have expected a divine being who loves his creations, and who is by the definitions of christianity the author of all things good and moral, would have instructed his
earthly representatives to murder, rape and to engage in all forms of attrocities on their fellow man with his specific instructions on the methods to use.

Meta =>Neither would I, who says he did?

Quote:

My personal thoughts about this very subject
lead me to the non-believer status I now have adopted.

Meta -> perhaps you would be willing to think again?

HelenM · 05-05-2002, 08:40 AM

mistake post

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]

HelenM · 05-05-2002, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spirit Branded:
Thanks for your other kind remarks Helen ... I always found you rational and sharp as a razor ... so if you could manage that while ill I had better look out now that you are better

Blessings and Peace

Spirit Branded

[No longer Hilarius since you chided me to be more serious]

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: Spirit Branded ]

Hi SB

I hope you realize I didn't want to stop you having fun...

All I wanted was that no-one perceived you as 'making light' of their own issues...

I sensed negativity against you that your posting style seemed to be stirring up...I was concerned.

But hey, have fun...just so long as no-one perceives you as making fun of them...that's the point at which I get concerned.

But even then it's up to you, of course!

Now I'm less ill (fairly well?) I hope I can be more chilled out and bug people less. Who knows...it might even be an improvement!

love
Helen

Panta Pei · 05-05-2002, 09:03 AM

Well, since SB is apparently an 'SB defined' christian, I will count SB among the mystic, non-fundy liberal vein.

No point in arguing with one who may obfuscate and vascillate on a whim. I support all the Eckhart's, Amoseses, St. Franciseses, Buddhas, etc. as among those of the rebel cause who are here just to have fun

May the farce be with you

My thanks again to HelenSl for inspiring clarification from within the sundry 'masks' of theism.

HelenM · 05-05-2002, 09:40 AM

Steve

Here is the 'sales pitch' of the liberal Christian: "Come believe what I believe! There's no hell, there's no "Jesus is the only way", there's no inerrant Bible...see how all your problems with Christianity are taken care of by not having those beliefs!"

But...then, why be a liberal Christian and not just an agnostic or atheist?

Maybe it comes down to the existence of God...

love
Helen

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]

Photocrat · 05-05-2002, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenSL:
But...then, why be a liberal Christian and not just an agnostic or atheist?

Maybe it comes down to the existence of God...

love
Helen

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]

Well said :]

05-05-2002, 05:38 AM	#31
Spirit Branded Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 36	Helen You said it better than I could have myself. No physical anything in hell ... eternity is a place of spiritual separation from or closeness to God ... as I advised the Pope and he agreed with me [Weekly audience on Hell - Rome, July 1999] Why would people who avoid God in this life be displeased about being separate from him in the next? Thanks for your other kind remarks Helen ... I always found you rational and sharp as a razor ... so if you could manage that while ill I had better look out now that you are better Blessings and Peace Spirit Branded [No longer Hilarius since you chided me to be more serious] [ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: Spirit Branded ]</p>

05-05-2002, 08:40 AM	#36
HelenM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Ill Posts: 6,577	mistake post [ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]</p>

05-05-2002, 09:40 AM	#39
HelenM Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Ill Posts: 6,577	Steve Here is the 'sales pitch' of the liberal Christian: "Come believe what I believe! There's no hell, there's no "Jesus is the only way", there's no inerrant Bible...see how all your problems with Christianity are taken care of by not having those beliefs!" But...then, why be a liberal Christian and not just an agnostic or atheist? Maybe it comes down to the existence of God... love Helen [ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-05-2002, 06:07 AM	#32
Spirit Branded Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 36	To any past or future charge that anyone who does not interpet the whole Bible absolutely literally can not possibly be a Christian ... I point out that on a world scale only a tiny theological minority treats such books as Genesis and Revelation in a literal manner. The vast majority of mainstream Christians treat them as truthful allegories. To the absurd charge of picking and choosing which always follows ... find me a Christian who still believes that the death penalty should apply for working on the Sabbath or that slavery should be approved today, just becaue that was once believed right. We ae not bound by the cultural mores of the past merely because scripture records them. On another separate but related issue Christ himself repudiated the OT scripture that commended an eye for an eye. The historical Gospels and teachings of Christ are by contrast perfect and timeless ... the OT idea that God is a God of Revenge and a victor in earthly military campaigns should be seen for what it was ... a total misunderstanding of God's nature. Christ said "my father's kingdom is not of this world". Christ is made the sure foundation. Blessings and Peace SB

05-05-2002, 09:03 AM	#38
Panta Pei Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: in the middle of things Posts: 722	Well, since SB is apparently an 'SB defined' christian, I will count SB among the mystic, non-fundy liberal vein. No point in arguing with one who may obfuscate and vascillate on a whim. I support all the Eckhart's, Amoseses, St. Franciseses, Buddhas, etc. as among those of the rebel cause who are here just to have fun May the farce be with you My thanks again to HelenSl for inspiring clarification from within the sundry 'masks' of theism.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.