Metacrock

That's not moral realitiveism. By defition its moral absolutism. You can't treat God like just another with an opinion.

Is There A God?

Philosoft

If it's possible that God's moral laws could have been something other that what they are, then God's decision was either arbitrary or based on his character. Neither one entails metaphysical absolutism in any way.

Alternately, if God was incapable of defining moral law otherwise, there must be a metaphysical something, separate from God, that limited God's choices.

HRG

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Metacrock
[B]That's not moral realitiveism. By defition its moral absolutism. You can't treat God like just another with an opinion.

OK. He is - if he exists - another one with an opinion and the power to make people suffer for eternity if they act against his opinion.

This still doesn't make his opinion into absolute morality which we are morally obliged to follow.

All he can say is "Or else!", But Stalin was able to say the same.

Regards,
HRG.

Bill Snedden

Actually, no. It's only evidence that I haven't yet been shot...

Remember, I'm arguing against a conception of god that I don't hold myself. If I really believed as appear to, then its very possible that I would be, as you put it, a "pissed off theist."


But denial of "his existence" isn't in question. Satan certainly recognizes that God exists. It's denial of his authority that's in question here. That's what really earns perdition, no? It just happens to be part of the package: denial of existence supposedly also entails denial of authority.

Of course, such a conflation glosses over even the possibility of epistemic confusion or uncertainty. If we're unable to determine whether or not god exists, how can we be said to reject him or his authority? So an unbeliever's rejection of your god is done without knowledge of the metaphorical gun held to her head. Her knowledge of that gun would make it much more likely that she wouldn't reject him.

So, you're right. If I knew that god was holding a gun to my head, it would certainly reduce the likelihood of my rejecting him. That's progress; we seem to agree that the presence of the gun constrains free choice. Now, if you will only allow yourself to see your situation as it is, instead of as you wish it to be...

I've seen this analogy many times before, but unfortunately it's inadequate in that you've left out several crucial factors. In order for the analogy to be truly complete, it would have to run more like this:

I suddenly find myself walking along a path in a forest. I didn't choose to be here, but here I am anyway. As I'm walking along, I meet a man who tells me that there are only two ways out of the forest. One path will lead me safely to the other side, but the other leads to a den of bears. When I ask him how he knows, he says that he has a book written by the Park Ranger that says so. He shows me the book, and indeed, it does say that there are two paths, just as he said. However, it's also got a lot of other stuff in it that doesn't really make a lot of sense. Some stuff that's really nice and poetic and other stuff that's just plain nasty. It also has a bunch of rules that I have to follow in order to take the safe path, some of which seem kind of nonsensical. All in all the book is somewhat less than persuasive. It also tells me that the Ranger made the forest and everything in it, including the bears and the two paths.

This is really an analogy much closer to the situation as it actually obtains.

The salient points to note are:

1) the Ranger made the forest and everything in it.
2) the Ranger, and not I, placed me in the forest.
3) the Ranger, and not I, determined that there were only two ways out of the forest.
4) the Ranger, and not I, determined that the safe path was only available to me if I agree to follow his rules.
5) the Ranger, and not I, determined that the only other available path entailed certain death.

Let's assume for a moment that the Ranger's existence is not in question. I've seen the book, I believe he does exist. The question is, of course, which path should I choose, knowing that in order to take the "safe" path, I must submit to the Ranger's rules. What are my choices? Submit or die. Now, how does your analogy avoid the reality of the metaphorical gun? You've already agreed that threats constrain freedom. It seems undeniable that there is a threat here and therefore no true freedom.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Metacrock

I don't see why. In the case of being consistant with charater. That's not an external standard, it's God's character.

Anyway my point was that its not relativism.Is The Bible the Word of God?

Bill Snedden

True enough as moral relativism is the view that everyone's opinions are equally valid. With this particular moral absolutist view, we are told that only God's opinion is valid.

Why, however, should we accept that? What makes his opinion on morality any more or less acceptable than our own?

It can't be that he's bigger, stronger, more knowledgeable, etc. because we wouldn't accept those in the case of other humans either. It also can't be, "because he's God" because that would be begging the question.

In short, what is the principle that justifies abandoning our own moral judgement and substituting God's?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Dr. Retard

If the idea is that God's preferences, affections, or whatever dictate moral truth, then it's subjectivism. I think that's true by definition.

If, instead, the idea is that some fact about God's nature dictates moral truth, then I don't understand it. What kind of fact about God's nature could make full-blooded moral facts true, could load us with the responsibility to behave in certain ways? Future discoveries in theology could put the status of morality in question? I don't get it.