God is not a...

[e_c]

Maybe you will be surprised, but people evaluate God all the time. Especially his “non-actions”.

Now you are starting to see the central issue.

A domani.

 

[exnihilo]

If you were the hungry, you would disagree. I use my imagination and empathy to identify with the hungry people, so I choose share food with them, instead of exterminating them. Looks like your mileage DOES vary. But, then again, you are a Christian, and I am just an immoral heathen.

You are assuming that the hungry person won’t suffer more from being fed rather then simply being exterminated. You seem to be advocating a value of human life that isn’t at all obvious absent objective morality.

Strange, but certain animals, dolphins, elephants, apes and such do recognize that it is “better” to help their brethren, without recognizing God. After all they don’t even have a “rational” soul. They do not have the “words” themselves, but they practice what the words are all about. Some of the higher apes understood the slogans of the sixties, and they practice “make love not war”.

How do you know animals recognize moral principles? Can you read the thoughts of animals? The obvious problem of materialism is that it uses words like purpose, help and better while advocating a metaphysics that renders those words meaningless.

Very strange, again. I have never met atheists whose only aim in life was to exploit others, to rob and scrounge as big a slice of the pie as they can. Maybe there are such atheists. But they are a minuscule minority. The different wordings of the golden rules predated Yahweh by a few millennia. No one even contemplated the “Christian God”, and yet they understood the concept and followed it.

I think morality exists and that even atheists have an understanding of morality. If morality doesn’t exist then the word exploit is meaningless. You keep using words that only have meaning if morality or teleology exists.

If you wish to “emulate” what us, abominable heathens “should” think and “should” do, it would be a great idea to investigate our mindset, instead of making unsubstantiated utterances about us. Let me show you how does it feel, when the shoe is on the other foot. Believers behave “morally”, because God commanded them to do it. They follow the commands, because they want the reward for being good, little scouts, and because they are afraid of the eternal punishment, if they don’t. That is your “morality” in a nutshell. Now, I am pretty sure that you will be upset to see this “caricature”. Don’t be. As long are you dish out your views about what non-believers “think” or “should think”, be prepared to be answered in kind. My characterization is exactly as unfair as yours was.

I don’t think I’ve said anything about atheists other then the fact they have, based on their own philosophy, no reason to act morally beyond a personal desire to. There are plenty of atheists who act morally despite their philosophy.

I’m not upset by your caricature at all. If there is morality and God then it would be a very sensible thing to do as he commands. These isn’t anything foolish about that. In fact Catholicism recognizes being motivated by fear of Hell and motivation by love of God. Motivation by fear of Hell is not ideal but sufficient.

Then lucky for us that you think He does.

That is true enough. If I thought there were no consequences to my bad actions, which wouldn’t really be bad absent morality, I’d seek whatever pleasure I could find at the exspense of others in this life. That seems sensible given such a philosophy.

 

[Bradski]

That is true enough. If I thought there were no consequences to my bad actions, which wouldn’t really be bad absent morality, I’d seek whatever pleasure I could find at the exspense of others in this life. That seems sensible given such a philosophy.

What an admission…that there can be actions that are immoral which would have no consequences and ‘wouldn’t really be bad’. Yet still actions that are at the expense of others.

That’s about as confused a definition of morality that I think I have ever seen.

 

[e_c]

What an admission…that there can be actions that are immoral which would have no consequences and ‘wouldn’t really be bad’. Yet still actions that are at the expense of others.

That’s about as confused a definition of morality that I think I have ever seen.

You’ve begged the question.

 

[Lucretius]

That is true enough. If I thought there were no consequences to my bad actions, which wouldn’t really be bad absent morality, I’d seek whatever pleasure I could find at the exspense of others in this life. That seems sensible given such a philosophy.

But humans naturally take pleasure in helping others, specifically their friends and family, as well as take pleasure in crushing their enemies and using whoever they deem inferior! This sounds like a secular version of total depravity.

I agree that nihilism has decayed morality in our culture to sentiment and emotions, but humans don’t just possess sentiments to go out and just hurt others, but also to help others.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

I don’t think humans can make sense of morality without mythology (I think Plato and even Nietzsche actually makes the same point). There is a rational dimension for ethics, and there is a mythological dimension. For example, modern liberals tend to base their mythology of ethics on bits and pieces of the old Christians mythology, and on the quasi-Hegalian progression to “freedom,” especially through political reform and technological advancement. The second is why they take consent as the golden key to ethics.

Or that is how I see it

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Bradski]

You’ve begged the question.

That makes no sense in relation to what I posted.

Perhaps you can clarify your position by telling us what you consider to be something you could do that is immoral yet have no consequences and, to quote you again, ‘wouldn’t really be bad’.

 

[oldcelt]

It actually was first written down by Aristotle, who was none of these things.

Also, deism is the belief in a god, not God. Deists reject the framework of common sense, and reduce everything to artifacts. The Unmoved Mover isn’t a god. Buddhists would also reject the argument, because of another kind of metaphysics.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Huh?

John

 

[Lucretius]

Huh?

John

Deism, as defined by the English deists of the 1800s, used the modern view that all natural things were reducible to artifacts and mechanics, and then proposed the need for a god to create the artifact going.

I say this is against common sense because natural things are obviously not reducible to artifacts. It took Einstein, quantum mechanics, and chaos theory to get deists to rethink this.

Or more simply: I oppose the mechanical metaphysics in which Deism stems as based on arbitrary distinctions and blindness to obvious facts about the natural world.

However, many modern people call anyone who accepts any sort of natural theology yet rejects all known claims of Divine Revelation a deist. You might consider yourself of the this sort

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[oldcelt]

Deism, as defined by the English deists of the 1800s, used Newtonian physics view that all natural things were reducible to artifacts and mechanic, and then proposed the need for a god to create the artifact going.

I say this is against common sense because natural things are obviously not reducible to artifacts. It took Einstein, quantum mechanics, and chaos theory to get deists to rethink this.

Or more simply: I oppose the mechanical metaphysics in which Deism stems as based on arbitrary distinctions and blindness to obvious facts about the natural world.

However, many modern people call anyone who accepts any sort of natural theology yet rejects all known forms of Revelation a deists. You might consider yourself of the this sort

Christi pax,

Lucretius

And rethink they did…Deists today accept that it is most likely that a greater force than we can truly comprehend set creation in action. This is not a personal god, but a creative force. The obvious facts about the natural world are that no outside intervention is either apparent or necessary.
When one looks at the revelations upon which Theism is based, they often contradict what is evident here and now i.e. Noah’s Flood, bats listed as birds, supernatural intervention. When one finds no evidence to back an event or a belief and still holds to that…that is what I would view as a rejection of common sense.

John

 

[e_c]

That makes no sense in relation to what I posted.

Perhaps you can clarify your position by telling us what you consider to be something you could do that is immoral yet have no consequences and, to quote you again, ‘wouldn’t really be bad’.

You’re not quoting me again. It was not my post.

Anyway, you’ve simply assumed the character of immorality in a given action, which is exactly what was undergoing examination.

I don’t want to get into all this again. The issue was dealt with amply in the other thread, especially by Peter Plato.

Please, please, please let it die. I will start flagging posts about the grounds for moral systems as off topic. The way it is going here is unhelpful for addressing the original thesis because it is a distraction.

 

[Lucretius]

And rethink they did…Deists today accept that it is most likely that a greater force than we can truly comprehend set creation in action. This is not a personal god, but a creative force. The obvious facts about the natural world are that no outside intervention is either apparent or necessary.

I agree with you, but the idea that “no outside intervention isn’t either apparent or necessary [in the natural world]” doesn’t contradict all forms of theism, and especially not Catholicism.

When one looks at the revelations upon which Theism is based, they often contradict what is evident here and now i.e. Noah’s Flood, bats listed as birds, supernatural intervention. When one finds no evidence to back an event or a belief and still holds to that…that is what I would view as a rejection of common sense.

My two cents :twocents:

1. the witness of the writers of the Scriptures is evidence too,
2. the scientific evidence might contradict one interpretation of the Scriptures, but that doesn’t mean that it contradicts all possible interpretations compatible with the Faith.
3. the Hebrew world English people translated as bird can mean any flying thing. To the architects of the Hebrew language, there was no need for categories like “mammal” and “aviar,” but there was a need for a category of “animals that fly.” I actually love this example, because it reminds me that language is a human artifact, and that different languages can open up one’s mind to concepts they were not aware of

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[e_c]

When one looks at the revelations upon which Theism is based, they often contradict what is evident here and now i.e. Noah’s Flood, bats listed as birds, supernatural intervention. When one finds no evidence to back an event or a belief and still holds to that…that is what I would view as a rejection of common sense.

John

Goodness, are these your hang ups? Think of the events of today! (And the Resurrection was indeed probably March 27th.)

I will actually use this as an introduction to the central problem in my post tomorrow.

 

[Solmyr]

You are assuming that the hungry person won’t suffer more from being fed rather then simply being exterminated.

We could test this, quite easily. Let’s put you into an empty room and deprive you of food for a few days. Then let’s offer you some food. If you accept, then you admit that having a well-fed stomach is preferable to an empty one. So simple.

You seem to be advocating a value of human life that isn’t at all obvious absent objective morality.

Maybe to you it is not obvious.

How do you know animals recognize moral principles? Can you read the thoughts of animals? The obvious problem of materialism is that it uses words like purpose, help and better while advocating a metaphysics that renders those words meaningless.

The atheistic metaphysics is simple: “lack of belief in a god or gods”. NOTHING else follows from it, no matter how hard you try to make a logical “leap-of-faith”.

I don’t think I’ve said anything about atheists other then the fact they have, based on their own philosophy, no reason to act morally beyond a personal desire to. There are plenty of atheists who act morally despite their philosophy.

I already explained several times that belief in some god or teleology is irrelevant to one’s behavior. It would really be helpful, if you tried to find out what motivates atheists, instead of performing some navel-gazing and come to a “conclusion” how should one behave in the world without a belief in some god. What do you mean “despite”? If that would be an irrational behavior, you would find a disproportionate percentage of psychopaths and sociopaths among atheists… and there is no such statistical evidence.

I’m not upset by your caricature at all. If there is morality and God then it would be a very sensible thing to do as he commands. These isn’t anything foolish about that. In fact Catholicism recognizes being motivated by fear of Hell and motivation by love of God. Motivation by fear of Hell is not ideal but sufficient.

You misunderstood the point. To follow a command makes the act devoid of moral content. If you are commanded by some mafia-type people to commit some “immoral” act, you will not be found culpable, because you acted under duress. Conversely, if you follow God’s command, you will not be found “moral”, because you acted under threat - of eternal punishment in hell. In a very good sense, Christians cannot be “moral”, as long as they expect an eternal reward, and/or fear an eternal punishment.

That is true enough. If I thought there were no consequences to my bad actions, which wouldn’t really be bad absent morality, I’d seek whatever pleasure I could find at the exspense of others in this life. That seems sensible given such a philosophy.

I have heard this kind of argument before. Strange that only believers advocated to act as psychopaths and sociopaths, if they would learn that God does not exist. I have yet to hear an atheist, who would happily torture others if they would not have to fear the repercussions of the government (though I would presume that such people exist). So who is “moral”?

You guys have this amazing misconception about the “eternal” result of actions. Just one simple explanation. Whatever you eat today will not satisfy your hunger tomorrow. The filling up your stomach is very short-lived, very temporary. And yet, despite this it is not without value. Just think about it. The lack of “eternal” consequences does not make decisions meaningless.

---

By the way… did the expression “Supreme BEING” become meaningless? You are really expected to give a response.

 

[oldcelt]

Goodness, are these your hang ups? Think of the events of today! (And the Resurrection was indeed probably March 27th.)

I will actually use this as an introduction to the central problem in my post tomorrow.

Just a few examples…my biggest hangup, The idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, all-present God who creates sentient individuals to die horrific deaths (children especially bother me) and then judges whether they are worthy to be with Him in some sort of eternal bliss.
That’s my biggest…despite my 50 some years as a Catholic Theist.

John

 

[oldcelt]

I agree with you, but the idea that “no outside intervention isn’t either apparent or necessary [in the natural world]” doesn’t contradict all forms of theism, and especially not Catholicism.

My two cents :twocents:

1. the witness of the writers of the Scriptures is evidence too,
2. the scientific evidence might contradict one interpretation of the Scriptures, but that doesn’t mean that it contradicts all possible interpretations compatible with the Faith.
3. the Hebrew world English people translated as bird can mean any flying thing. To the architects of the Hebrew language, there was no need for categories like “mammal” and “aviar,” but there was a need for a category of “animals that fly.” I actually love this example, because it reminds me that language is a human artifact, and that different languages can open up one’s mind to concepts they were not aware of

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Despite the writing in the NT and other early documents…I have observed nothing in my life to indicate that they are factual. So far as the old testament…the problems go much deeper that any language barrier can excuse. The entire Book of Leviticus for starters.

John

 

[Lucretius]

Despite the writing in the NT and other early documents…I have observed nothing in my life to indicate that they are factual.

I haven’t observed a lot of things about European history either, but I still believe Lord William the Conqueror performed a reverse Invasion of Normandy One might see this argument as against the study of history in general.

I also want to point out that not all things in the text should be taken factually, or were even intended as such. The theological and figurative Jews didn’t write at all like the literalistic and philosophical Greeks.

So far as the old testament…the problems go much deeper that any language barrier can excuse. The entire Book of Leviticus for starters.

I’m curious, what is wrong with Leviticus? Are you rejecting it’s approach to ethics, or its specific commandments?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Lucretius]

You guys have this amazing misconception about the “eternal” result of actions. Just one simple explanation. Whatever you eat today will not satisfy your hunger tomorrow. The filling up your stomach is very short-lived, very temporary. And yet, despite this it is not without value. Just think about it. The lack of “eternal” consequences does not make decisions meaningless.

But what it does mean is that the desire will never be fulfilled. And meaning is connected essentially to fulfillment. It is true that these things have value, but only as imperfect temporary means to perfect, timeless fulfilment. Otherwise, in humans the desire becomes too big for the licit temporary to sustain it, which ends up creating perversions like BDSM, greedy corporate leaders, and human sacrifice.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[oldcelt]

I haven’t observed a lot of things about European history either, but I still believe Lord William the Conqueror performed a reverse Invasion of Normandy One might see this argument as against the study of history in general.

I also want to point out that not all things in the text should be taken factually, or were even intended as such. The theological and figurative Jews didn’t write at all like the literalistic and philosophical Greeks.

I’m curious, what is wrong with Leviticus? Are you rejecting it’s approach to ethics, or its specific commandments?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Both… add in Deuteronomy .I also find it to be strange considering that the Hebrew God went to all the trouble to give Moses 10 perfect laws (later taken down to two by Jesus) and then “Inspires” someone to write several thousand more. It would be like us including the civil code for my state in the Canon. Killing animals because some human sexually abused them…? Executing children who curse their parents?
So far as much of history, we do not have anyone claiming that William the Conqueror, Elizabeth I, etc. was the incarnation of the living God. We have graves, some clothing, sites a verifiable line of descent (or not) and sources that both praise and deride them. It’s the same for most historic figures of the last 1,000 years or so. Much beyond that I understand your point precisely…some historic figures are based on very little…but they tend to be called legends.

John

 

[Solmyr]

But what it does mean is that the desire will never be fulfilled.

Please do not speak for others. Atheists have no “eternal desires” to be fulfilled. The point was that some apologists argue that “temporary” fulfillment of “temporary” needs are meaningless and valueless, and they are refuted by their own actions when they are happy to fill their stomach with temporary foods.

And meaning is connected essentially to fulfillment. It is true that these things have value, but only as imperfect temporary means to perfect, timeless fulfillment.

So what? Death is unavoidable, just like taxes… but at least for the time being they are mutually exclusive. Only believers hope for timeless and perfect fulfillment.