RE: God and Morality: Separate Issues
February 7, 2011 at 12:43 am
(This post was last modified: February 7, 2011 at 12:53 am by Captain Scarlet.)
Oh dear Ryft, perhaps you should climb down from that pedestal of intellectual hubris you've erected for yourself. We've heard these arguments a thousand times and you've heard the reverse, I'm sure.
To say good is grounded in the very nature of a being is an intelligible sentence but is still meaningless. Of course you have to argue this to avoid the meta-ethical argument for atheism.
As a rough sketch goes a little more detail would be nice (not too much). Specifically I am looking for how a god transmits goodness (or whatever term you wish to use) into the universe. All you have provided is "divine immanence", which just replaces the word trasmit without defining what you mean. I can only think of 4 fundamental ways (there may be variations on a theme or others of course):
1) it was instantiated at t0 of the universe and is a necessary quality
2) it is radiated out somehow into the natural realm (from the supernatural?) without an action from a diety and is necessary quality
3) it is coded into certain beings by miraculous intervention, will, incantaion or similar action and is a contingent quality
4) it is ushered in, in real time by miraculous intervention, will, incantaion or similar action and is a contingent quality
Just something like this, you seem to suggest something like 2). I'm sure my poor mind and hand waiving dismissals will grasp it.
If a god is not capable of lying then he lacks omnipotence. Being able to tell lies or only speak the truth are emergent qualities of a being. This seems to apply to your god too. Using scripture, we can determine that the Abrahmic god lied to Abraham to get him up that hill and prove his devotion didn't he? as he really wasn't going to ask him to sacrifice his son. Jesus also lied to his followers, apparently not wanting to return during their lifetime after all. He was certainly a little 'economical with the truth' to Jepthah and neglected to mention that he would end up slaying is own child. Seems like this god is a distance away from the one your trying to sketch for us.
You don't feel the need to justify that Morality exists, as its axiomatic to your case. I was pointing out that in my view it cannot be axiomatic to any case, as it is an abstract concept. The view that morality exists would be false under the views that I hold.
You seem to be narrowing this debate to an argument just of the chrstian meta-ethic. This is just one view of morality, one to which I'm sure you subscribe. The title of the thread did not specify this. I feel justfied in pointing out that others have equally valid and differing views to yours (including natural explanations for morality), and that this is an argument for an atheistic perspective, in much the same as religious confusion is.
To say good is grounded in the very nature of a being is an intelligible sentence but is still meaningless. Of course you have to argue this to avoid the meta-ethical argument for atheism.
As a rough sketch goes a little more detail would be nice (not too much). Specifically I am looking for how a god transmits goodness (or whatever term you wish to use) into the universe. All you have provided is "divine immanence", which just replaces the word trasmit without defining what you mean. I can only think of 4 fundamental ways (there may be variations on a theme or others of course):
1) it was instantiated at t0 of the universe and is a necessary quality
2) it is radiated out somehow into the natural realm (from the supernatural?) without an action from a diety and is necessary quality
3) it is coded into certain beings by miraculous intervention, will, incantaion or similar action and is a contingent quality
4) it is ushered in, in real time by miraculous intervention, will, incantaion or similar action and is a contingent quality
Just something like this, you seem to suggest something like 2). I'm sure my poor mind and hand waiving dismissals will grasp it.
If a god is not capable of lying then he lacks omnipotence. Being able to tell lies or only speak the truth are emergent qualities of a being. This seems to apply to your god too. Using scripture, we can determine that the Abrahmic god lied to Abraham to get him up that hill and prove his devotion didn't he? as he really wasn't going to ask him to sacrifice his son. Jesus also lied to his followers, apparently not wanting to return during their lifetime after all. He was certainly a little 'economical with the truth' to Jepthah and neglected to mention that he would end up slaying is own child. Seems like this god is a distance away from the one your trying to sketch for us.
You don't feel the need to justify that Morality exists, as its axiomatic to your case. I was pointing out that in my view it cannot be axiomatic to any case, as it is an abstract concept. The view that morality exists would be false under the views that I hold.
You seem to be narrowing this debate to an argument just of the chrstian meta-ethic. This is just one view of morality, one to which I'm sure you subscribe. The title of the thread did not specify this. I feel justfied in pointing out that others have equally valid and differing views to yours (including natural explanations for morality), and that this is an argument for an atheistic perspective, in much the same as religious confusion is.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
