On the Goodness of God

[Charlemagne_II]

Spock

So it is possible to have a world without any of these “evil, human acts”. Why did God not to create it? God is supposed to be omnipotent, meaning that he can create anything, which is not logically contradictory. There is no logical contradiction in a world without atrocities. So…???

This is a peculiar argument to be used by an atheist. Most of the atheists I have known insist that one thing atheism does is make us free to choose our own moral systems, rather than be slavishly obedient to a religious pre-packaged morality.

Can you have it both ways? Can atheists insist on being freed from religious domination, and then turn around and say that the world would be infinitely better off if it were dominated by the will of God so slavish that we are not free to choose?

 

[Spock]

Well I sure don’t agree with your understanding of the Golden Rule as a quid pro quo.

Don’t take the “quid pro quo” in a narrow sense. In your example you did not help that old lady out, because you expected her to reciprocate it. You don’t even expect someone else to do you a favor. Think about it as an “insurance”. You spread the good deeds around you, and most people will learn from those acts. Most people will act in a similar fashion, and the good will spreads. If you would fall on hard times (I hope it will not happen, of course), there is a better chance that you will recieve selfless help, since the “goodness” in the society will grow, due to your good actions. It is not a direct “quid pro quo”, rather a generalized form of it.

Btw, do you believe some acts are objectively evil, independent of what human’s have declared them? Is there a objective Right and Wrong, in the Platonic sense i.e. Plato’s abstract realm of idealized forms?

No, I don’t accept Plato’s ideas. I can always concoct an example where any act can be justified, given the right circumstances. You may disagree, of course.

For instance, under your Golden Rule as a quid pro quo, we would likely say that the reason we consider murder to be wrong is because we don’t want anyone murdering US. So let’s have an agreement as a society that murder is “wrong”, that way through quid pro quo I won’t murder you and you won’t murder me. We could have a society where murder wasn’t considered “wrong”, sure there’d be a lot less people, but it would be possible. Is this a correct summation of your position?

It is. Robert Sheckley (another favorite sci-fi writer of mine) wrote quite a few books and short stories about a future society where people can sign up for “duels” (it is not mandatory), once as a hunter, next time a victim, and they are allowed to kill each other, if they can. If someone survives 10 battles, they get a special reconginition joining an exclusive club of survivors. There is a very serious penalty for killing bystandards. It is a perfectly viable society.

 

[Spock]

I meant to put a question mark. I meant to ask, “Even if we are talk about an attribute of God, we cannot use our understanding of God?” More or less… I forgot the actual statement but the question mark was supposed to follow. It was the restrictions you imposed that I was talking about. You are saying that we cannot use theology to explain the nature of God. Hence, the question. I hope that helps. I need to start proof-reading.

Ok. Let me clarify. It all depends on the purpose of the conversation. If you simply wish to present the catholic stance, by all means, use the cathectism, use the dogmas, use anything and everything you consider pertinent. However, if you wish to convince the other party, and want to substantiate that you are right and he is wrong, your opitions are limited.

Suppose you conduct a conversation with a protestant. It is futile to bring up the infallibility of the pope, because he does not accept it as a valid argument. You are “restricted” to Sola Scriptura, because that is the only argument a protestant will accept. When you talk with an atheist, use only fully secular, rational arguments, do not mention the Bible, the cathecism, the infallibility of the pope, etc - because for an atheist these are irrelevant.

An example. Let’s not go into a discussion about it, because I bring it up for illustration purposes only. Suppose the topic is birth control. I know the catholic objections to it, and those objections are irrelevant for me. If you would wish to convince me that birth control should not be practised, then you should bring up (for example) medical arguments, which would prove that birth control will cause harmful side effects. Or psychological arguments which would prove that birth control will cause the couple to drift apart. Or something along those lines. Under no circumstances should you say that birth control is immoral, because the catholic church says so. I already know it, and I could not care less. Do you see my point?

Agreed… Unfortunately, it even happens within the Church. I also completely agree that there is no logical contradiction in a world without atrocities. And God did create that world. Adam and Eve just screwed it up for us. All Adam needed to do was admit that what he did was wrong and it was his fault and perhaps there would be no need for this conversation. Again, I agree that it is possible for the world to be free of evil acts. But, it is not possible in this world unless the world realizes this. And by realize, I mean do something about it.

There is one very simply way, which would have had the desired results. Not to put that “ominous tree” there. Or have it inaccessible. Or do not command not to eat from it.

Free will does explain the problem of evil quite well. Excuse the corniness… But, God created us for love, both ways. One cannot force one to love someone. THAT would be a logical contradiction considering the nature of what love is. Would you agree? In any case, love is all He asks. Nothing more. Nothing less.

To wipe out even the possibility of evil in this world, He would have to do one of two things:

1. Take away our evil acts which reduces to taking away free will.
2. Force us to love Him which also reduces to taking away free will.

Either way, it is a logical contradiction. Perhaps, there are more ways that I am missing, but it will reduce to taking away free will.

Yes, you miss something. The solution is again simple. You and I both have perfectly free will. We are capable of committing rapes and murders. But we do not want to do it. There is no “external force” which would prevent us from doing it. Even if we could get away with such acts we would not want to do it. Call it a “good disposition”, or well “formed conscience”, if you want to. To have free will would logically lead to the possibility of evil, but not to the actuality of it.

I do accept that having a good disposition would allow us “not to love God”. But I do not accept that simply “not loving God” is evil any sense of the word.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Don’t take the “quid pro quo” in a narrow sense. In your example you did not help that old lady out, because you expected her to reciprocate it. You don’t even expect someone else to do you a favor. Think about it as an “insurance”. You spread the good deeds around you, and most people will learn from those acts. Most people will act in a similar fashion, and the good will spreads. If you would fall on hard times (I hope it will not happen, of course), there is a better chance that you will recieve selfless help, since the “goodness” in the society will grow, due to your good actions. It is not a direct “quid pro quo”, rather a generalized form of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronnie bonigli
Btw, do you believe some acts are objectively evil, independent of what human’s have declared them? Is there a objective Right and Wrong, in the Platonic sense i.e. Plato’s abstract realm of idealized forms?

No, I don’t accept Plato’s ideas. I can always concoct an example where any act can be justified, given the right circumstances. You may disagree, of course.

Originally Posted by ronnie bonigli
For instance, under your Golden Rule as a quid pro quo, we would likely say that the reason we consider murder to be wrong is because we don’t want anyone murdering US. So let’s have an agreement as a society that murder is “wrong”, that way through quid pro quo I won’t murder you and you won’t murder me. We could have a society where murder wasn’t considered “wrong”, sure there’d be a lot less people, but it would be possible. Is this a correct summation of your position?

It is. Robert Sheckley (another favorite sci-fi writer of mine) wrote quite a few books and short stories about a future society where people can sign up for “duels” (it is not mandatory), once as a hunter, next time a victim, and they are allowed to kill each other, if they can. If someone survives 10 battles, they get a special reconginition joining an exclusive club of survivors. There is a very serious penalty for killing bystandards. It is a perfectly viable society.

OK, now I’m thoroughly confused, I feel as if I’ve followed Alice down that rabbit hole. You say here that you DO NOT believe in an objective morality, not in a Platonic sense, or any other. That even murder isn’t objectively wrong, it’s more of a human construct, sort of a social convention.

*And yet *. . . throughout this thread you been *indicting *God for creating a world where these “heinous evil acts” occur, and there is no “morally justifyable” reason for the human and animal suffering we see, that this God clearly is not “good”, because he has clearly created an “evil” world.

Spock, are you really a closeted Christian pulling our legs here? You seem to believe a objective morality when you are indicting God. You had us going for a while there, I really thought you were an atheist.

 

[Spock]

OK, now I’m thoroughly confused, I feel as if I’ve followed Alice down that rabbit hole. You say here that you DO NOT believe in an objective morality, not in a Platonic sense, or any other. That even murder isn’t objectively wrong, it’s more of a human construct, sort of a social convention.

*And yet *. . . throughout this thread you been *indicting *God for creating a world where these “heinous evil acts” occur, and there is no “morally justifyable” reason for the human and animal suffering we see, that this God clearly is not “good”, because he has clearly created an “evil” world.

Spock, are you really a closeted Christian pulling our legs here? You seem to believe a objective morality when you are indicting God. You had us going for a while there, I really thought you were an atheist.

What an incredibly kind thing to say. You just made my day, and it is early in the morning here. Thank you so very much!

Indeed, I have been mistakenly thought to be a Christian many times before, based upon my actions. When I came out of the “closet”, people were astonished and shocked. But don’t read too much into it. There are many things in Christianity which I agree with. Not surprisingly, since they are good (and also secular) teachings. And there are many things I disagree with, since I find them nonsensical.

Now for the specifics in your post. Generally speaking, I think that the Golden Rule and the Inverted Golden Rule are great concepts, moreover they are the best concepts to guide us in interaction with our fellow humans. I only think that under some very special circumstances they are not the best “strategy” - in other words they are not “absolute”. I don’t think that there is “one medicine to cure all the diseases”.

For example: I hold the view that to use another human being as a means to an end is in 99.99999% of the cases unacceptable. But I also think that very rarely, under some very special circumstances it can be justified.

That being said, I do hold at least one “absolute” principle. And it is that the “end cannot justify the means”. I know that it is also a catholic doctrine, and this is one of the examples where I agree with the church. But this is such a generic idea. It must be applied to actual problems. When it is applied, then we can say that “this end, achieved by those means is a justifiable sequence of events”.

I do not “indict” God at all. Since I do not believe that there is God, it would be foolish of me to “indict” him. What I try to expose that some of the beliefs about God (professed by the apologists) are nonsensical, illogical and self-contradictory. To be precise: as far as I am concerned the word “God” is just a convenient short-hand to describe that “imaginary entity, who is believed to exist by the apologists, and who allegedly has certain atrributes”. That would be quite a mouthful to say, so I use the abbreviation “God”.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

What an incredibly kind thing to say. You just made my day, and it is early in the morning here. Thank you so very much!

Indeed, I have been mistakenly thought to be a Christian many times before, based upon my actions. When I came out of the “closet”, people were astonished and shocked. But don’t read too much into it. There are many things in Christianity which I agree with. Not surprisingly, since they are good (and also secular) teachings. And there are many things I disagree with, since I find them nonsensical.

Now for the specifics in your post. Generally speaking, I think that the Golden Rule and the Inverted Golden Rule are great concepts, moreover they are the best concepts to guide us in interaction with our fellow humans. I only think that under some very special circumstances they are not the best “strategy” - in other words they are not “absolute”. I don’t think that there is “one medicine to cure all the diseases”.

For example: I hold the view that to use another human being as a means to an end is in 99.99999% of the cases unacceptable. But I also think that very rarely, under some very special circumstances it can be justified.

That being said, I do hold at least one “absolute” principle. And it is that the “end cannot justify the means”. I know that it is also a catholic doctrine, and this is one of the examples where I agree with the church. But this is such a generic idea. It must be applied to actual problems. When it is applied, then we can say that “this end, achieved by those means is a justifiable sequence of events”.

I do not “indict” God at all. Since I do not believe that there is God, it would be foolish of me to “indict” him. What I try to expose that some of the beliefs about God (professed by the apologists) are nonsensical, illogical and self-contradictory. To be precise: as far as I am concerned the word “God” is just a convenient short-hand to describe that “imaginary entity, who is believed to exist by the apologists, and who allegedly has certain atrributes”. That would be quite a mouthful to say, so I use the abbreviation “God”.

Come on Spock, I thought you were better than that, six paragraphs there and you never even addressed the blatant contradiction in your posts on this thread, a total dodge. When you weren’t aware that you were actually refuting all your earlier arguments against a “good” God who created this clearly “evil” world, with all it’s “morally unjustified suffering”, you told us that all morality is invented by humans, social conventions and quid pro quos, that there is no objective morality. It’s a classic case of Aristotle’s Law of non-contradiction at work

 

[Spock]

Come on Spock, I thought you were better than that, six paragraphs there and you never even addressed the blatant contradiction in your posts on this thread, a total dodge. When you weren’t aware that you were actually refuting all your earlier arguments against a “good” God who created this clearly “evil” world, with all it’s “morally unjustified suffering”, you told us that all morality is invented by humans, social conventions and quid pro quos, that there is no objective morality. It’s a classic case of Aristotle’s Law of non-contradiction at work

Looks like confusion is spreading like wildfire. Would you point out the contradiction for me? Because I sure don’t see it.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Looks like confusion is spreading like wildfire. Would you point out the contradiction for me? Because I sure don’t see it.

Well, if you’re going to play dumb, rather than admit the total contridiction in your view of “morality” from start to finish on this thread, I see no point in pressing you, I’ll just accept your white flag and leave it at that. But before I go, let me quote a piece from C.S. Lewis (who I don’t normally quote because he’s kind of “Christianity for Beginners”), but anyway, Lewis was starting to notice cracks in his atheism and he kind of reminds me of your posts on the thread;

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of *just *and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too - for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. *Dark *would be a word without meaning.

 

[Spock]

Well, if you’re going to play dumb, rather than admit the total contridiction in your view of “morality” from start to finish on this thread, I see no point in pressing you, I’ll just accept your white flag and leave it at that. But before I go, let me quote a piece from C.S. Lewis (who I don’t normally quote because he’s kind of “Christianity for Beginners”), but anyway, Lewis was starting to notice cracks in his atheism and he kind of reminds me of your posts on the thread;

Typical. Wiggling out after making an unsupported accusation. And to add insult to injury “claiming” victory where there was no “race”. Oh, well. Not the first time, and not the last one.
C. S. Lewis:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of *just *and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too - for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. *Dark *would be a word without meaning.

Ok, that is an acceptable start. So I will clarify what I mean.

Light and darkness, wet or dry are objective attributes, measurable by instruments. As such Lewis’s analogy is false - or to use your assessment, it is a strawman, comparing incommensuarables.

Morality is is not about “what is”, it is about “what should be” and it cannot be measured.

Useful, beneficial are synonyms of “good”. What is useful can be measured. Harmful, malevolent are synonyms of “bad”. What is harmful can be measured. Morally good and morally evil can only be defined for conscious, rational, volitional beings. Someone is called moarally evil if that person causes harm, which cannot be justified. A harm can only be justified, if it leads to some “greater good”, which cannot be achieved without that harm, and the “good” more than balances the “harmful” part of the act. The universe is not a conscious being, it is neither morally good, nor morally bad, it is simply “indifferent”. It just is what it is. All these above are fully rational, secular definitions.

God is supposed to be a conscious being, knowing the difference between useful and harmful. If God does or allows something that is objectively, measurably harmful, and which act has no obvious, visible effect to balance it, then God cannot be judged as benevolent. It may be that there is some balancing unknown to us, but since we can only pass judgment based upon we know, the assessment will be negative.

So, I will ask you again, where is a discrepancy or contradiction in this? Which post of mine contradicted this or some other post I did? You cannot just make an accusation, and when asked to substantiate it, then trying to wiggle out, and calling me to “play dumb”. The thread is only 6 pages long. You can review all my posts and create quotes showing my alleged contradictions. Put up or shut up.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

So, I will ask you again, where is a discrepancy or contradiction in this? Which post of mine contradicted this or some other post I did? You cannot just make an accusation, and when asked to substantiate it, then trying to wiggle out, and calling me to “play dumb”. The thread is only 6 pages long. You can review all my posts and create quotes showing my alleged contradictions. Put up or shut up.

Boy, I was just having fun, no need to get angry. Anyway, some contradictions from this last post alone;

**A harm can only be justified, if it leads to some “greater good”, **which cannot be achieved without that harm, and the “good” more than balances the “harmful” part of the act.

with

Quote:
Originally Posted by ronnie bonigli
Btw, do you believe some acts are objectively evil, independent of what human’s have declared them? Is there a objective Right and Wrong, in the Platonic sense i.e. Plato’s abstract realm of idealized forms?
No, I don’t accept Plato’s ideas. I can always concoct an example where any act can be justified, given the right circumstances. You may disagree, of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronnie bonigli
For instance, under your Golden Rule as a quid pro quo, we would likely say that the reason we consider murder to be wrong is because we don’t want anyone murdering US. So let’s have an agreement as a society that murder is “wrong”, that way through quid pro quo I won’t murder you and you won’t murder me. We could have a society where murder wasn’t considered “wrong”, sure there’d be a lot less people, but it would be possible. Is this a correct summation of your position?
It is. Robert Sheckley (another favorite sci-fi writer of mine) wrote quite a few books and short stories about a future society where people can sign up for “duels” (it is not mandatory), once as a hunter, next time a victim, and they are allowed to kill each other, if they can. If someone survives 10 battles, they get a special reconginition joining an exclusive club of survivors. There is a very serious penalty for killing bystandards. It is a perfectly viable society.

Or

Here a scenario for you to consider:

Someone strapped a few bombs to his body, and blew up some people whom he considers his enemies. He also died in the process.

If you agree with the person, you will consider him a “morally upright, self-sacrificing hero”.
If you disagree with the person, you will consider him a “morally evil, horrible terrorist”.

Conclusion: the application of the adjective “moral” is the result of your subjective assessment of a fact. It has no “objective” meaning. It is just one of the feel-good, but meaningless “filler” words. Think about it.

If I wanted to I could find a dozen posts in this thread that contradict your positions in post #82 (not to mention your posts on your “Morality? What morality?” thread). It’s very clear that when you argue against “God” you DO believe in an objective morality, not the mealy-mouthed “all our morals and ideas of justice are human inventions, quid pro quos, personal opinions, etc.” position. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

and another example;

No, most emphatically no! I did not say that God’s supposed benevolence contradicts any and all sufferings. It is possible that some sufferings are morally justifyable. I said that the suffering of the animals due to natural causes cannot be justified.

Which contradicts; “No, I don’t accept Plato’s ideas. I can always concoct an example where any act can be justified, given the right circumstances.”

And from your other thread; “Conclusion: the application of the adjective “moral” is the result of your subjective assessment of a fact. It has no “objective” meaning. It is just one of the feel-good, but meaningless “filler” words. Think about it”

Believe, there’s many more from your posts earlier in the thread, but I’m typing on an IPod Touch and it’s too much of a pain in the butt to cut and paste them all

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Given the premise that pain and suffering exist in the natural world, does it follow that pain and suffering are evils built into the universal plan by a malevolent god? That is to say, does nature tooth-and-claw seem to be designed by a malevolent deity? All creatures great and small have their day in the sun. The divine plan requires that for creatures to live in the sun, they must do so at the expense of other creatures. Thus the fox may chase the chicken and the lion may devour the lamb. If the fox did not chase the chicken and the lion did not devour the lamb, and no other animal ever attacked and devoured any other animal, would there be universal famine and no animals at all left to have their day in the sun? In which case it might seem that God *is *malevolent so far as days in the sun would be concerned.

 

[Spock]

Which contradicts; “No, I don’t accept Plato’s ideas. I can always concoct an example where any act can be justified, given the right circumstances.”

And from your other thread; “Conclusion: the application of the adjective “moral” is the result of your subjective assessment of a fact. It has no “objective” meaning. It is just one of the feel-good, but meaningless “filler” words. Think about it”

Believe, there’s many more from your posts earlier in the thread, but I’m typing on an IPod Touch and it’s too much of a pain in the butt to cut and paste them all

No need. You made your point. You correctly pointed out that sometimes I made hasty posts, without properly thinking them through. That being said, I will make clarifications.

First, the thread “morality? what morality?” was made somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as I pointed it out to inocente. As a matter of fact, I did place an emoticon at the end of the post, to indicate that I am not totally serious. Maybe you missed it. Of course I accept that there is an objective definition of morality. It is the prevailing rules of conduct either explicitly codified or implictly understood in any society at a given point of time. What I do not accept that there is an “absolute” morality applicable through all societies for every time.

Now, there are some more points. When I referred to the suffering of animals in a wildfire, indeed I cannot find any excuse for allowing that. I can see that allowing those animals to perish in a wildfire can result some greater good, maybe they all have some communicable disease, which would wipe out the human race, so their death is inevitable if our survival is to be assured. But in that case, they could have been struck down in a painless manner, and then their carcasses would burn, to kill the harmful microbes.

When I was talking about finding some excuse for any act, I was thinking about some human action - not natural disasters. So, it is a different ballgame. Suppose that a terrorist would threaten to release a virus which would kill half of the human race. Suppose that the only way to stop him is to torture his child, to extract the information about the lab, where his microbes are stored. In such I case I would consider this act justifyable. Not “morally right” of course, but justifyable. Obviously such a method must be the last resort, when everything else fails.

But, enough of this. You made your point. I was careless in my posts. No excuse for that.

 

[Spock]

Which contradicts; “No, I don’t accept Plato’s ideas. I can always concoct an example where any act can be justified, given the right circumstances.”

And from your other thread; “Conclusion: the application of the adjective “moral” is the result of your subjective assessment of a fact. It has no “objective” meaning. It is just one of the feel-good, but meaningless “filler” words. Think about it”

Believe, there’s many more from your posts earlier in the thread, but I’m typing on an IPod Touch and it’s too much of a pain in the butt to cut and paste them all

No need. You made your point. You correctly pointed out that sometimes I made hasty posts, without properly thinking them through. That being said, I will make clarifications.

First, the thread “morality? what morality?” was made somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as I pointed it out to inocente. As a matter of fact, I did place an emoticon at the end of the post, to indicate that I am not totally serious. Maybe you missed it. Of course I accept that there is an objective definition of morality. It is the prevailing rules of conduct either explicitly codified or implictly understood in any society at a given point of time. What I do not accept that there is an “absolute” morality applicable through all societies for every time.

Now, there are some more points. When I referred to the suffering of animals in a wildfire, indeed I cannot find any excuse for allowing that. I can see that allowing those animals to perish in a wildfire can result some greater good, maybe they all have some communicable disease, which would wipe out the human race, so their death is inevitable if our survival is to be assured. But in that case, they could have been struck down in a painless manner, and then their carcasses would burn, to kill the harmful microbes.

When I was talking about finding some excuse for any act, I was thinking about some human action - not natural disasters. So, it is a different ballgame. Suppose that a terrorist would threaten to release a virus which would kill half of the human race. Suppose that the only way to stop him is to torture his child, to extract the information about the lab, where his microbes are stored. In such I case I would consider this act justifyable. Not “morally right” of course, but justifyable. Obviously such a method must be the last resort, when everything else fails.

Another point to make. We only have partial access to information. We do not know all the facts. Therefore, we must make our assessments based upon the facts we know. It is possible that there are mitigating circumstances which we cannot know about. If there is no visible excuse for God allowing some seemingly atrocious event to take place, then there are two possible approaches. The believers say that since we don’t have all the information, it is prudent to give the benefit of doubt. I say, that I will use the “duck principle”, meaning: “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, tastes like a duck, then there is no reason to assume that it is a horse, disguised as a duck”. If there is no reason to assume some ulterior good outcome, then we shall not assume an ulterior good outcome, and it is unjustified to call God “benevolent”.

But, enough of this. You made your point. I was careless in my posts. No excuse for that.

Adding something: I was careless in more than one way. I participated in too many threads and lost the line of thought in some of them. No excuse for that either.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

No need. You made your point. You correctly pointed out that sometimes I made hasty posts, without properly thinking them through. That being said, I will make clarifications.

First, the thread “morality? what morality?” was made somewhat tongue-in-cheek, as I pointed it out to inocente. As a matter of fact, I did place an emoticon at the end of the post, to indicate that I am not totally serious. Maybe you missed it. Of course I accept that there is an objective definition of morality. It is the prevailing rules of conduct either explicitly codified or implictly understood in any society at a given point of time. What I do not accept that there is an “absolute” morality applicable through all societies for every time.

Now, there are some more points. When I referred to the suffering of animals in a wildfire, indeed I cannot find any excuse for allowing that. I can see that allowing those animals to perish in a wildfire can result some greater good, maybe they all have some communicable disease, which would wipe out the human race, so their death is inevitable if our survival is to be assured. But in that case, they could have been struck down in a painless manner, and then their carcasses would burn, to kill the harmful microbes.

When I was talking about finding some excuse for any act, I was thinking about some human action - not natural disasters. So, it is a different ballgame. Suppose that a terrorist would threaten to release a virus which would kill half of the human race. Suppose that the only way to stop him is to torture his child, to extract the information about the lab, where his microbes are stored. In such I case I would consider this act justifyable. Not “morally right” of course, but justifyable. Obviously such a method must be the last resort, when everything else fails.

Another point to make. We only have partial access to information. We do not know all the facts. Therefore, we must make our assessments based upon the facts we know. It is possible that there are mitigating circumstances which we cannot know about. If there is no visible excuse for God allowing some seemingly atrocious event to take place, then there are two possible approaches. The believers say that since we don’t have all the information, it is prudent to give the benefit of doubt. I say, that I will use the “duck principle”, meaning: “if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, tastes like a duck, then there is no reason to assume that it is a horse, disguised as a duck”. If there is no reason to assume some ulterior good outcome, then we shall not assume an ulterior good outcome, and it is unjustified to call God “benevolent”.

But, enough of this. You made your point. I was careless in my posts. No excuse for that.

Adding something: I was careless in more than one way. I participated in too many threads and lost the line of thought in some of them. No excuse for that either.

Thanks for your honesty, you almost never see someone on an Internet Forum admit a mistake, it shows some character to do so, and most check character at the door to the Internet. That said, I don’t think you realize the problems your postion on the Golden Rule as a quid pro quo and especially your post # 82 created for your earlier positions or the morally justifiable suffering of animals or people. Now if we take the position that we have come to define murder as wrong merely because of a quid pro quo “I won’t murder you, if you won’t murder me”, then are we not saying THAT’S the basis of why we consider murder “morally” wrong? So for example, where does that leave us with animal suffering? We don’t murder each other as kind of a Golden Rule “gentlemen’s agreement”. Animals aren’t part of that agreement, why would it be “wrong” for Micheal Vick to kill his dogs? We may find it depressing and not agree with it, but that’s just you or I’s subjective opinion, under the moral code of post # 82. And that subjective opinion would apply to all the animal suffering discusses earlier in the thread. Man, I wish I could get to a computer this IPod is killing me.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Thanks for your honesty, you almost never see someone on an Internet Forum admit a mistake, it shows some character to do so, and most check character at the door to the Internet. That said, I don’t think you realize the problems your postion on the Golden Rule as a quid pro quo and especially your post # 82 created for your earlier positions or the morally justifiable suffering of animals or people. Now if we take the position that we have come to define murder as wrong merely because of a quid pro quo “I won’t murder you, if you won’t murder me”, then are we not saying THAT’S the basis of why we consider murder “morally” wrong? So for example, where does that leave us with animal suffering? We don’t murder each other as kind of a Golden Rule “gentlemen’s agreement”. Animals aren’t part of that agreement, why would it be “wrong” for Micheal Vick to kill his dogs? We may find it depressing and not agree with it, but that’s just you or I’s subjective opinion, under the moral code of post # 82. And that subjective opinion would apply to all the animal suffering discussed earlier in the thread. Man, I wish I could get to a computer this IPod is killing me.

 

[Spock]

Thanks for your honesty, you almost never see someone on an Internet Forum admit a mistake, it shows some character to do so, and most check character at the door to the Internet.

Thank you. I will go one step further, I am grateful to you for pointing out my errors. You helped me to realize my mistake, and I mean it very seriously.

That said, I don’t think you realize the problems your postion on the Golden Rule as a quid pro quo and especially your post # 82 created for your earlier positions or the morally justifiable suffering of animals or people. Now if we take the position that we have come to define murder as wrong merely because of a quid pro quo “I won’t murder you, if you won’t murder me”, then are we not saying THAT’S the basis of why we consider murder “morally” wrong?

Sure. We respect each other, and treat each other accordingly.

So for example, where does that leave us with animal suffering? We don’t murder each other as kind of a Golden Rule “gentlemen’s agreement”. Animals aren’t part of that agreement, why would it be “wrong” for Micheal Vick to kill his dogs? We may find it depressing and not agree with it, but that’s just you or I’s subjective opinion, under the moral code of post # 82. And that subjective opinion would apply to all the animal suffering discusses earlier in the thread. Man, I wish I could get to a computer this IPod is killing me.

Well, my view is this. Animals are not part of the “gentleman’s agreement”. Yet when it comes to dogs we feel empathy for them, they are “close” to us. They exhibit pain reaction, which we can associate with. When someone is close to starving, and it is the only way to survive to kill and eat their dog, it would still be a terribly hard thing to do. And even if such an act would be the only way to survive, we would never dream of torturing that dog. All because of empathy. So it still makes sense to treat animals with compassion. It might not be rational, but no one is 100% rational all the time.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Well, my view is this. Animals are not part of the “gentleman’s agreement”. Yet when it comes to dogs we feel empathy for them, they are “close” to us. They exhibit pain reaction, which we can associate with. When someone is close to starving, and it is the only way to survive to kill and eat their dog, it would still be a terribly hard thing to do. And even if such an act would be the only way to survive, we would never dream of torturing that dog. All because of empathy. So it still makes sense to treat animals with compassion. It might not be rational, but no one is 100% rational all the time.

I agree we feel empathy for dogs, and feel compassion for them, but under atheist paradigm, as you pointed out, there are no objective morals and all “right” or “wrong” are conventions that have evolved along with quid pro quos involved in a “Golden Rule” and other societal agreements. And just as we could have a society where murder is not what the society calls “wrong” or “morally unjustified”, with animals there’s even less reason to claim torturing them is truly “morally unjustified”. We personally may find it repugnant, but again, under the “subjective society created morals” paradigm it is just a feeling in us personally, no different than my preference for chocolate ice cream is not “right” and your preference for strawberry is “wrong”, thus we’re left with no standing on claims on morally unjustified suffering.

 

[Spock]

I agree we feel empathy for dogs, and feel compassion for them, but under atheist paradigm, as you pointed out, there are no objective morals and all “right” or “wrong” are conventions that have evolved along with quid pro quos involved in a “Golden Rule” and other societal agreements. And just as we could have a society where murder is not what the society calls “wrong” or “morally unjustified”, with animals there’s even less reason to claim torturing them is truly “morally unjustified”. We personally may find it repugnant, but again, under the “subjective society created morals” paradigm it is just a feeling in us personally, no different than my preference for chocolate ice cream is not “right” and your preference for strawberry is “wrong”, thus we’re left with no standing on claims on morally unjustified suffering.

One correction is due. You used the word “objective” in your post. I do believe that the social agreements are “objective”, however, they are not “absolute” or “universal”. They are objective, because they are independent from the views of individuals, but they are not “absolute”, since they change from place to place, and from time to time.

So we can say that public nudity (or cannibalism, for that matter) is wrong from our perspective in our current time, but it was right in the places and ages when it was practised. It does not mean that their objective (but not absolute) system must be accepted or even respected by us. We are free to disagree even with our current set of “morals”, and can use “civil disobedience” or the legal system in our efforts to change it.

Now we do see certain rules and morals as more pervasive in their existence than others. Pretty much all societies accepted some form of the Golden rule, simply because it makes so much sense. We all wish to be left alone, so we agree that we shall leave others alone. We all appreciate to be helped form time to time, so we agree to help others, when warranted. This comes as close to “universal” or “absolute” as it can get.

And it is founded in our biological traits, since biologically we are both individuals and social beings. A different race, consisting of intelligent predators, would have a different “moral system”. They would not care for cooperation, they would be fully individualistic. Another possible race, made up of intelligent herbivores would have a different “moral system”. They would be very cooperative, and not individualistic.

Our “morals” are not imposed on us by some external entity, they are the direct result of our biological “setup”.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

One correction is due. You used the word “objective” in your post. I do believe that the social agreements are “objective”, however, they are not “absolute” or “universal”. They are objective, because they are independent from the views of individuals, but they are not “absolute”, since they change from place to place, and from time to time.

So we can say that public nudity (or cannibalism, for that matter) is wrong from our perspective in our current time, but it was right in the places and ages when it was practised. It does not mean that their objective (but not absolute) system must be accepted or even respected by us. We are free to disagree even with our current set of “morals”, and can use “civil disobedience” or the legal system in our efforts to change it.

Now we do see certain rules and morals as more pervasive in their existence than others. Pretty much all societies accepted some form of the Golden rule, simply because it makes so much sense. We all wish to be left alone, so we agree that we shall leave others alone. We all appreciate to be helped form time to time, so we agree to help others, when warranted. This comes as close to “universal” or “absolute” as it can get.

And it is founded in our biological traits, since biologically we are both individuals and social beings. A different race, consisting of intelligent predators, would have a different “moral system”. They would not care for cooperation, they would be fully individualistic. Another possible race, made up of intelligent herbivores would have a different “moral system”. They would be very cooperative, and not individualistic.

Our “morals” are not imposed on us by some external entity, they are the direct result of our biological “setup”.

You’re correct, I do use the word “objective” as being the same “absolute” or “universal”. I do see the absolute morality as having a genuine existence independent of the “morals” of any human society. It could be seen as analogous with the abstract Platonic realm for real mathematical truths. Our society may have discovered the existence of the number pi of the square root of 2 and some other society on an island in the south pacific may have no knowledge of those mathematical truths, but just because they have no knowledge of them that doesn’t negate their truth. In some nonmaterial way pi has a real existence, waiting to be known.

I’d say that objective morality has the same relationship to men, our society may have discovered that cannibalism is evil and some other society on an island in the south pacific may have no knowledge of this universal truth, but just because they have no knowledge of it that doesn’t negate it’s truth.

When you take off your atheist thinking hat, you “remember” these universal truths and forget the materialistic “explanations” for how all morals are evolved, contingent on quid pro quos, societies, and biological traits. Earlier in the thread to forgot these reductionist materialistic explanations and spoke as if a objective moral justice is real. It’s like a cloud was being lifted from your veiw.