(I need a break from Russell, and I've meant to cover this topic for some time...)
Wikipedia describes this logical problem as "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"
This is partly misstated (logically self-contradicting) and partly a false dilemma (not either/or but both/and). At the same time, I believe I can avoid the tautology cited ("God is good, and good is God").
The first part is that "morality" is too vague a term. Modern man has divorced himself from morality, and thinks only in terms of legal and illegal. A more simple term is "good" (which I believe maintains the original argument).
So "Is what is good commanded by God because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God?"
The opposite of good is evil. But what is evil? Is killing evil? What about self-defense? Murder is killing, misused. Is sex evil? Rape is sex, misused. Is speaking evil? Lying is speech misused. Etc.
The notion of evil exists only as compared to what is good. That is, good exists. Evil cannot exist on its own. It exists only as a twisting or perversion of what is good. God is good, God exists. We exist, and demonstrate evil by disobeying God.
God's commands are good. Not just because God says so, or because they exist outside of God, or are the totality of God. The Law (the Ten Commandments) reveals God's nature. "Thou shalt not lie", because God is truth. "Thou shalt not murder", because God is life.
But God is more than the moral law. The law demands payment for infractions. God is merciful, in delaying punishment. God is gracious and loving in providing payment on our behalf.
In summary, "good" (or "moral") is what it is because it is a part of God (not all of God).
Further, without a notion of an absolute good (God), the notions of "good" and "evil" are meaningless.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Dance and dance and never answer the dilemma....But, you are just falling into one arm of the trap. Morality comes from god, so if god were to say that rape is good, then it would be good, which is NOT absolute morality, which you claim it is. So, by your own argument, since there is no good and evil without absolutes, your relative morality argument counters what you say in the last sentence.
Of course, you are wrong. We don't need to have a god in order to determine good or evil, as I've pointed out to you many times now. It seems you are not interested in actually addressing what I say; would you rather I discontinue commenting here? If you ask me to leave, I will. Otherwise, it would be nice to see you actually acknowledge some of my arguments - although I grant you did sort of try to tackle Euthyphro's dilemma. What I mean by this is that I've already made arguments countering what you've said, yet you continue to simply spew out the same words as if I've said nothing to challenge your words and show why they are wrong. If you disagree with my refutations, then at least address the refutations and show why they are lacking. Otherwise, you just come out looking rather dishonest. Of course, it's not an uncommon thing for people to lie for Christ, but do you really want it to be so obvious?
My question for you is, why are you posting on my blog? I am not here to entertain you. You complain that I am trying to convert you. Of course I am. I hope that is clear. If you are trying to convert me, I hope I have made that clear that is not possible.
If you have honest questions you want answered from a Christian perspective, I am glad to answer them.
If you just want to defame God and mock Christianity, you are wasting my time.
"You complain that I am trying to convert you."
When have I ever complained about that? What I complain about is your seemingly dishonest tactics of repeating things that I've already refuted as if I've said nothing on the subject.
"If you are trying to convert me, I hope I have made that clear that is not possible."
Yes, you've made it clear that you are unable and completely unwilling to consider any arguments against your position, even when it's pointed out to you that your position is completely illogical, impossible, makes no sense, is contradictory, etc. This, is not something you should be proud of, yet you seem to be.
"If you have honest questions you want answered from a Christian perspective, I am glad to answer them."
And yet you don't answer my questions.
"If you just want to defame God and mock Christianity, you are wasting my time."
I would like to actually hold a conversation/debate where the other person supports Xianity and actually cares about logic and rationality. It seems you don't. C'est la vie. I've yet to meet a Xian who truly does, so it's no surprise to me.
Ned,
That's some great writing and great conclusions.
GCT, a blog is a pretty poor forum for a debate. I'd prefer an interface with "threaded" conversations. You used to be able to get that with Usenet, but Usenet has pretty much died. I'm not aware of any threaded web forums, besides "Ace's Hardware", and they seem to be down now (it redirects to a PhpBB forum).
I'm not really much interested in a debate. We differ in our presuppositions, I've tried to show yours are illogical; you've done the same for me. Given the disparity, it's a wonder we can communicate at all.
In closing, if you have an honest question, go ahead.
"I'm not really much interested in a debate. We differ in our presuppositions"
What presuppositions?
"I've tried to show yours are illogical; you've done the same for me."
You can't show mine are illogical until you actually define some that I hold. I have shown yours are illogical. For instance, you hold to an omni-max god, which in itself is illogical in that it's self-contradictory. You also hold that this god is omni-benevolent but created hell, which is once again self-contradictory. The same holds for omni-just and the creation of hell.
"In closing, if you have an honest question, go ahead."
All my questions are honest.
I assume it is possible that God exists, and that if He does, His revelation is the basis of truth.
You assume that your senses and reasoning are the ultimate authority on truth.
"All my questions are honest."
But what is your motivation? Are you trying to come to a proper understanding of God and Christianity? Or are you seeking justification for your continued irrepentance?
As to the reason I am not interested in debate, I should let Paul have the last word: 1 Corinthians 2:4 "And my speech and my preaching [was] not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power"
What is the contradiction in an all powerful God who is demonstrating His glory; both in mercy upon some, and justice for others?
"I assume it is possible that God exists, and that if He does, His revelation is the basis of truth."
Do you think that I don't think it's possible that some god exists? That would be strange considering that I've explicitly said that it's possible on this very blog. Your conception of god is contradictory and therefore impossible, but some version of a god is possible. The problem is that there is no evidence for said god. Why do you make the assumption that this god exists? And, isn't this just an admission that no evidence does exist, because you're reduced to assuming his existence? Also, does that not make all your claims about god an exercise in begging the question? (Answers are yes and yes BTW.)
"You assume that your senses and reasoning are the ultimate authority on truth."
How did you come to that conclusion, which is incorrect? There's no assumptions going on in that regard. I don't need to assume that our senses and scientific study is the best known way to understand our world. In fact, I know of no other way to come to know something, except maybe by learning from someone else who has done these things or by a chain of teachers spouting from the person or people who have done the science. Ultimately, however, our knowledge is advanced by our process of using our senses and testing those senses and our perceptions. If you have another way of knowing, please let me know, and show how it is efficacious. Prayer and revelation do not rise to this level.
Of course, what you probably meant to say is that I "assume" that there is no such thing as revelation. The fact is, again, I have no need to assume that. There is no evidence for such things, so no assumption is necessary. Until one can demonstrate some evidence for these things, I can safely exclude them from any models of the world without making any assumptions.
I do have to ask, have you been trying to prove that the assumptions you think I hold are invalid? I don't recall you saying anything to counteract those supposed assumptions.
"But what is your motivation? Are you trying to come to a proper understanding of God and Christianity? Or are you seeking justification for your continued irrepentance?"
I don't need to seek justification for irrepentance for a couple reasons. There's no need for repentance, there's no god to repent to, if there were a god he would not be worthy of repenting to (if he is the Xian god at least), and I don't consider mankind to be inherently evil and base as your theology teaches. My motivation, apart from a general interest in logic and religion, is to engage in discussion about god and show how illogical and contradictory it is. Considering that I've pointed out contradictions on most of the posts that I've commented on is a pretty good track record, IMO. I also dislike when people distort what others have said or think, as you did with Russell or the steady state univers and as you tend to do when talking about atheists.
"As to the reason I am not interested in debate, I should let Paul have the last word: 1 Corinthians 2:4 "And my speech and my preaching [was] not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power""
Yet, your theology teaches that god does not reveal himself to all (else we would all believe) so once again we find a contradiction.
"What is the contradiction in an all powerful God who is demonstrating His glory; both in mercy upon some, and justice for others?"
You obviously have not been reading my comments, since I've laid out the contradictions for you multiple times now. There is an inherent contradiction between a supposedly all-loving, omni-benevolent god and hell where this god sends individuals to be tortured for eternity. It's undeniable. And, no, it is not justice to create people that can not possibly live up to expectations that are placed impossibly high and then torture them for it. The word for this is sadism. This is inherently contradictory to your claims of an omni-benevolent and omni-just deity.
Post a Comment