Objective Morals, Free Will, Afterlife

[CalmDownWisWins]

No. I mean that even if there is a god that does not necessarily mean that there is objective and absolute morality. That would be a point that needs to be established.

To the Christian, morality is a derivative “thing” which flows naturally FROM God of necessity, so because there IS God there must BE objective absolute morality.

By saying that objective absolute morality might not exist even if there is God is to say that one is a non-Christian.

So, we’re down to a basic axiom about which we can agree to disagree!

Hoorah, yet another opportunity to agree with someone! I’m on a roll today!

 

[Joyousguard]

Richard Powers;3182499]I actually had something longer posted that went through some minor objections I had, but I think it might be better to just start here.

I think we both agree that without a god there can be no absolute and objective morality. (I would still say there can be subjective morality.)

I think our biggest disagreement will be that it is my position that even with a god that does not get us absolute and objective morality.

The premise is this (my words but still put in quotations": “If there is a God who created the universe and everything in it He must be able to give us absolute and objective morality and He must be the only one capable to define what is morally good and what is morally bad.”

Would you accept the proposition that if we could prove that “God was absolute truth with infinite power that everything he declared to be good would be good and that everything he declared to be bad would be bad”?

 

[Richard_Powers]

Would you accept the proposition that if we could prove that “God was absolute truth with infinite power that everything he declared to be good would be good and that everything he declared to be bad would be bad”?

I am sure that works exactly, but first I would like to get a better understanding of some the terms and how you using them. I am not sure what it means to say that God is absolute truth or what it would mean for a being that actually exists to have infinite power. Perhaps you could flesh these out a bit.

The premise is this (my words but still put in quotations": “If there is a God who created the universe and everything in it He must be able to give us absolute and objective morality and He must be the only one capable to define what is morally good and what is morally bad.”

Your premise assumes the answer to the question at issue. It assumes too much.

 

[freesoulhope]

any agent can create their own moral standards. So what makes the morals of the agent God so special?

Because God is believed to be the defining reason why a thing is wrong or right. If something is opposed to perfect being(God), then it necessarily follows that anything which is opposed, is imperfect.

Or to put it another way is not the position that objective morals are given by God just a might makes right position?

I can see why it is tempting to think this. However, if God is the foundation of all being, then if we perceieve something to be wrong, or think that there is such a thing as right or wrong, then its truthfullness is dependent on the foundation of your being. This means, that you can only conceieve of what your given capacity will allow. So to think that something is wrong, is either true or false. If something is trully wrong, then it is wrong, only because it is contradicts the foundation of reality which is God. But God, is not believed to be some being that thinks a thing is right, or selfishly desires a kind of act through the fret of punishment. The nature of God, is Good, and if you contradict Good, then it necessarily follows that you are objectively wrong, or objectively imperfect; for God is the objective measure of man. It also follows that you will be punished. Not because God is some kind of hard *** who does not really have to punish you; but because punishment is the natural inescapable result of opposing the perfect Good.

If you oppose the perfect good, one cannot expect to be good or experience the perfect good; though we might in this life experience some pleasures that God said are good as a condition of being in this world. If there is no such thing as an objective perfection which lay outside of are own opinons, then there is no good or bad; there is only evolution. Both sides of the debate lack absolute evidence either way. But considering that we have a natural tendecy to percieve the nature of acts as either evil or good rather then neutral, and that we have a concept of morality, does suggest that there may well be an objective standard by which we can judge the nature of an act; what that is, is relative to whether or not God exists. Concepts of morality exist relative to rational understanding, and are only understood through the existence of a rational mind and personal will. If one can show that the rational mind and personal will of a human being, is not the result of nature, or is unlikley to be the result of nature, then the arrow is at least pointing in the direction an objective standard of morality.

 

[Richard_Powers]

Because God is believed to be the defining reason why a thing is wrong or right. .

Just because some people believe that does not make it true. You need to establish this position.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joyousguard
Would you accept the proposition that if we could prove that “God was absolute truth with infinite power that everything he declared to be good would be good and that everything he declared to be bad would be bad”?

I am sure that works exactly, but first I would like to get a better understanding of some the terms and how you using them. I am not sure what it means to say that God is absolute truth or what it would mean for a being that actually exists to have infinite power. Perhaps you could flesh these out a bit.

If I proposed that all the laws of the universe, known by us and unknown, were constituted such that they were simply inviolable, meaning “not capable of being broken”, would you accept that as an axiomatic premise?

That IS the premise of science (and true religion [Catholic] as well, which most people don’t [or refuse] to know and accept), and under this “omnipotent and most wise entity (‘thing’)” there is in fact an objective and absolute morality of action of all subordinate “things”.

What I suspect you object to is the word “being”. You limit “being” to something much less than it is capable of “being” (pardon the pun), just as you limit God as “being” to something that violates the very word “God”.

“Absolute Truth” can not be defined meaningfully EXCEPT as the description soley of God, just as with the term “Infinite Power”, and to attempt to do so creates nonsense.

Now, since your definition of “being” is faulty, and your definitions for “omnipotence” and “truth” are nonsense as you NEED to have them defined, perhaps we should concentrate on WHY your definitions are as they are?

 

[freesoulhope]

Just because some people believe that does not make it true. You need to establish this position.

Evidence?

God’s true nature is a matter of “Divine Revelation”, not human reason. I cannot prove to you what can only be known through revelation. What you choose to believe, is ultimately your choice.

If you think that God is not the measure of man; you are welcome to that belief. I believe that being a rapist or a murderer is immoral in its nature; it feels immoral, and it looks immoral, and I believe that God is the reason why those things are immoral. I refuse to think that something is immoral, when I know in my heart that it is not; which is the case if God does not exist. One must be real with ones self if one is to think himself a reasonable creature.

Objective moral value, objectively fullfills Human dignity

I cannot accept the non-existence of God and Objective-Moral-values, partly because, if he doesn’t exist, then those things which I consider to be immoral and evil are simply natural and cannot be judged by any objective standard, let alone subjective. I suppose I could say to somebody, I don’t like that behavior, but if there is nothing objectively wrong with it, then my desire to stop it is ultimately a matter of chemical reactions in my brain; not reason. In other words, the only reason I dislike such and such a behavior, is because my brain is wired differently to those who enjoy such behavior. Otherwise, I would like it, and would not think anything of it. Some people enjoy murdering, raping, abusing and using; I can use force, control or bribery to try and stop them, but to demand that they should stop doing the thing that gives them joy, on the basis of there actions being immorally wrong or irrational, is not logical, since there is no objective measure that defines human behavior or defines “normality”; and if the people that I am accusing of sin, have any reasoning in them, then they will know that my appeal to ethical standards is meaningless and without foundation, since there is no objective reason why they should think that there behavior is wrong. In other words, somebody is lieing when they say, such and such is immoral.

Continued…

 

[freesoulhope]

A world Lost to animal instinct

Some people are happy to live in such a world, pretending that life has a purpose; and i am sure that people get along fine using methods such as force, brainwashing, lies, pretense and all the rest of it. But me, I cannot believe what I know to be a fantasy, tell lies, and then claim that somebody is immoral. I cannot spend my life inventing my human dignity, pretending that I am worthy of being respected and loved, and that those around me are obligated by my own subjective moral standard to love me and treat me with respect. Some can do it, but I cannot; which is why I refuse atheism, since one is left with pure fantasy, in return for rejecting a healthy faith in God; a God which presents to me(through Jesus Christ)the real possibility that life has an objective meaning, purpose and value.

Nilism

Personally I don’t see that choosing atheism is very reasonable considering what one is left with; because once people realise that human dignity, humanistic obligations, and human rationality, is nothing but an insercure human fantasy of which they are not objectively obliged, an age of Nilism and animalistic drive will replace the so called humanity which we placed on an pedestool. Power and control will give-way to the iirationality of life, which we where trying to escape from through God. In other words, we are going backwards instead of forwards. People disbelieve in God, on the bases, that they do not what to believe in make belief, yet in rejecting God, they are left with exactly that if they perceive themselves as any higher or more worthy and objectively voluble then any other living organism in existence. If I am to believe atheism, then my existence is no more relevant then a maggot. I see it as a very intelligent trap, in which we reduce ourselves to self-deluding animals. It’s like cutting of ones nose to spite your face. It’s a trap; for at least with God there is some hope; some real dignity.

I refuse to believe that my reality is nothing more then somebody’s potential object; I find this an offence to my human dignity. My true dignity is fully revealed in the revelation of Jesus Christ; and it is in this I hope and believe that my life should be respected and valued by those around me. It is by that authority that I claim something to be immoral. A world with out God, is absurd and irrational, so it can only do me good to hope for something more.

Naturalism becomes a fools tale when those within that life, try to be anything but a pleasure driven animal; and assert themselves as being more rational and more intelligent then those who hope for more, as if to say they have an objective reasons or proofs to think that this is true. It is not a matter of proof, it is a matter of perspective and what one is willing to live with. If I want my life and existence to have objective value, meaning and purpose, then God is the only hope of realizing that reality. It is upon this bases that one has faith and belief in objective moral values. What others want to do and believe, is up to them, but they are no better, or any more reasonable then me, for not believing; and if God is real, then at least I believe in something that’s possible, rather then something I know to be a human fantasy.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by freesoulhope
Because God is believed to be the defining reason why a thing is wrong or right. .

Just because some people believe that does not make it true. You need to establish this position.

That position IS established, as a definitive (definitional, by definition) axiom, just not AGREED to by you.

Why do you continually insist on not seeing axioms as axioms? No one is asking you to accept the axiom as an axiom, just that you treat it as an axiom so as to “flesh out” what the consequences of that axiom are so as to more fully understand the holder of that axiom.

Otherwise any discussion degenerates into the usual “YES it is! NO it isn’t! YES it is! NO it isn’t!” nonsense.

 

[itinerant1]

First, even if there is a God that has a set of morals, what does that get us? Assuming that individuals have some form of freewill (and if they don’t the moral issue is pretty much moot) even if there are objectives morals, individuals are still free to disregard these standards and establish their own. Thus, any agent can create their own moral standards. So what makes the morals of the agent God so special?

Morality, properly understood, must involve the right concept of human nature. The essential nature of man is that of a ‘rational animal’. Man is an animal who possesses the power of reason. Reason or intellect distinguishes man from the lower animals.

The possession of reason entails the faculty of free will, which can obviously be abused. However, a being that possess free will is of much greater dignity than beings that do not, such as rocks and snakes.

Consequently, though, man must choose what is good for his nature. Man has a hierarchy of needs. The lowest level of needs pertain to body’s requirements for food, water, shelter, and so on. At higher levels, there are needs for living in community, friendship, etc. Furthermore, all men desire happiness. We often disagree, though, as to in what happiness consists. Some think happiness consists in a life of sense pleasure, others wealth, or power, or virtue, and so on. However, the unchangeable laws of man’s nature determine that in which genuine happiness actually consists. A life spent pursuing wealth, for instance, cannot make a person happy.

By means of free will, we make particular choices concerning those goods that will contribute to our happiness. We can choose what is only apparently good instead of what is objectively good for our human nature. For instance, a person may choose to snort crack cocaine. However, he has not chosen what is objectively good. Indulging in the pleasures of crack cocaine will not contribute to genuine happiness.

An act that is not objectively good for our nature is immoral, while an act that is objectively good for us, is a moral act. When we freely choose what is immoral, such as adultery, we incur moral guilt.

The moral laws revealed by God are not arbitrary laws, as if He could have revealed a very different set of laws. The Divine moral law is based exclusively on the requirements of human nature.

Objective moral law is contained in Scripture. It also exists in human nature itself. Man can discover this natural moral law by reflecting on his own nature: “For when the Gentiles who do not have the Law by nature observe the prescriptions of the Law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the Law. They show that the demands of the Law are written in their hearts;* Romans* 2:14-15”

Also, here is an example of a reference to the natural moral law by the ancient Greek tragedian, Sophocles:

"Nor do I deem
Your ordinance of so much binding force,
As that a mortal man could overbear
The unchangeable unwritten code of Heaven;
This is not of today or of yesterday,
But lives forever, having origin
Whence no man knows: whose sanctions I were loath
In Heaven’s sight to provoke, fearing the will
of any man. —Antigone*,* II; 441 B.C.

itinerant1 :tiphat:

 

[itinerant1]

YHWH’s only answer to Job seems to be shut up. I am. I am more powerful than Behemoth and Leviathan. So do what I say because I have unlimited power. Is this really moral position or it is really more of a power position? Or is there no real difference between morality and power?

Human acts are not good or evil because God says they are. Rather, God says so because they are good or evil. In post 189, I explained why this is.

In reference to the Book of Job, it is interesting that you use the tetragrammaton, YHWH. Is this an indication of some Judaism in your upbringing? In any case, did you find it interesting that the Book of Job does not represent Job and his friends as Israelites?

Here is another way to look at the Book of Job:

The Book of Job addresses the problem of evil. Job is a pious and wealthy man. All of his wealth is taken from him, and he is left with a fatal disease. Job’s refusal to curse Yahweh is evidence of his great virtue. Nonetheless, Job’s interlocutors Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar bring all the traditional wisdom of Israel to bear upon the situation, in an attempt to explain why all of these evils have befallen Job. Every explanation is offered. The explanations range from Job has sinned, to he must have some secret sin, and so on.

Finally, Yahweh rebukes Job’s friends. None of their explanations for Job’s suffering apply to Job. Yahweh vindicates Job as a righteous man.

But why, then, does evil befall the righteous? There are reasons why people suffer evil, and correct answers can be given in certain situations. However, no explanation will work as a rule of thumb. The traditional explanations did not apply to Job’s situation. The wisdom of Israel is shown to be bankrupt. Man is not capable of fully understanding the problem of evil. So, Job must not be presumptuous. He must bow to Yahweh’s wisdom.

Yahweh’s wisdom and power transcend human comprehension. All we can do is keep our faith and trust in Yahweh. Job regains his fortunes and then some. This gives a happy conclusion to the story. However, we cannot expect happy endings in this life in every situation wherein the righteous suffer calamities. And we are incapable of understanding why that is.

It may sound paradoxical, but the Book of Job takes Israel to a higher level of understanding by revealing that the problem of evil is ultimately beyond man’s ability to understand.

itinerant1:tiphat:

+++

The Iliad is only great because all life is a battle, the Odyssey because all life is a journey,
the Book of Job because all life is a riddle. —G.K. Chesterton

 

[AndyF]

You will have to forgive me if this wrong, but it all seems it all rests on the assumption that God is perfectly good and that all goodness flows from God. But that does not seem to be the position that is taken by YHWH when questioned by Job. YHWH does not say that he is prefect goodness or prefect anything. YHWH just tells Job that Job should not question him and that man is incapable of understanding and that he is really powerful so Job should shut up and do as Job is told.

The emphasis on fearing God in the OT reinforces your theory I feel, added to this, inconsistancies, an antiquated monarchal justice system hidden from the subjects, double standards in treatment of social(collective) entities and individuals, stigmatizing a species because of a characteristic built into them on creation, etc. So this environment more accurately is a coerced one, with the occasional attempts to simulate otherwise.

Another way of stating the same position is to ask the question, “Could God obtain the same results in the administration of His Kingdom on coercion alone.?” and of course this would be true. He is capable because our first instinct is self-preservation. The foundation of fear is the basis for a development into love, this describes the maturation of faith.

A concentration camp warden can do wonderful things for it’s occupants, and can promise them a very real utopia,wealth and allow life, but he can also administer terrible punishments. Free choice in his environment would then become a joke, as the options are not real options. If the commandant would allow return to a previous state(analogy: return home)/(argument:non-existence) then the options become valid.

This is why no option for existing creates a predicament, and the lack of this option which is a very crucial point, *the first satisfaction of the creator *should in this recognition either 1/Cancel hell. 2/allow for remaining non-existent.

Job 38,4 “Where were you when I founded the earth?”

A true answer.

Ans: “Unaffected and content in non-existence, as distant an annoyance to all creation as any non-entity could be, and in this state it is assured that in the future no one would find it necessary to say about me, “it would have been better he had never been born”, because I would have been asked if I want to be.”

AndyF

 

[Joyousguard]

Richard Powers;3183507]I am sure that works exactly, but first I would like to get a better understanding of some the terms and how you using them. I am not sure what it means to say that God is absolute truth or what it would mean for a being that actually exists to have infinite power. Perhaps you could flesh these out a bit.

God is absolute truth:

The best way to describe this would be to say that everything in this world that is true, was always true and will always be true is of God. Absolute truth would incorporate everything that is good as well as everything that is declared to be wrong, right or anything that is true. God is the source of absolute truth and only he can declare anything to be true. (This is a very general definition and more like a draft than set in stone for now but it should give us a decent starting place although this defintion will almost certainly be modified and expanded upon)

Infinite power: Human understanding is obviously limited and finite. The power of God on the other hand is without limit and has no restrictions upon it other than it does happen within His nature. (This is a good starting point although I think we need to hash out some of the specifics. There have been numerous questions asked over the years in objection to the concept of infinite power and related thiings “If God has infinite power, can He create a rcok that even He can’t lift?” Questions like that. Ask away and I will try and answer them as best I can so we can get a working definition.)

Your premise assumes the answer to the question at issue. It assumes too much.

Not in the least. Getting to the realm of Theology from our starting point was the hard part. Once we are within the realm of Theology it become much easier because much of the work has already been done, it is just a question of being able to find it. (Of any structure/institution etc. that has ever existed in human history, the catholic hcurch is not only the strongest but it also contains the largest concentration of intellectuals and scholars. The avergae priest, by eductaional standards, all have a post doctorate degree and the Jesuits go even further.)

Again, these defintions are by no means in stone right now and are just a loose framework. You don’t have to agree or disagree with the defintions right now but lets simple get an idea of where we stand on the wording and the understanding first.