Relativism is Irrelevant (So is Absolutism)...Let's Talk about Justification

[MegaTherion]

Is it symbolic? I don’t know. (I understand that you’re comfortable with not knowing things, as you’ve said so in other posts, and assume you’ll extend the courtesy to me).

You accept a holy book without being reasonably sure of its meaning?

I certainly grant that you don’t know everything, but…if you’re going to take a position of belief, I would expect you to be reasonably clear about what your beliefs are.

Admitting that you don’t know is a good first step towards realizing that there are no good reasons to believe.

I do know that it is a preparation for the Gospel. Our Faith teaches that the New Covenant fulfills and surpasses the old law; it is a law of love, a law of grace, a law of freedom.

So…God changed his mind? Or he just forgot to condemn genocide back in those primitive days? That doesn’t sound like a source of Absolute Morality to me. I thought your claim was that morality was absolute and unchanging.

warpspeedpetey:

surely you arent saying that those people were less empathic, humane, or had less common sense than average?

Indeed there were and are people less humane, less empathic, and with less common sense than average.

It’s clear that not all people are humane and rational.

G-d is entirely with in His rights to treat his property in any manner He pleases.

itsjustdave1988:

If God calls upon me to slaughter, why shouldn’t I slaughter?

An absolutely chilling pair of quotes.

 

[Extempore]

Absolutes, with regards to managing human society is therefore irrelevant. It won’t get us anywhere.

Actually, what’s* really* irrelevant are relativists.

I mean, after all, if we agree with the premise of relativism, we must conclude that there are no absolutes and that the truth changes based on individual interpretation. On the other hand, if we judge the significance of one’s opinion on its ability to expound upon some absolute standard (read: Truth), then, applying the principles of relativism to refute this, one relativist’s opinion cannot be more significant in the scheme of humanity than anyone else’s.

A true relativist would be absolutely unable to convince me that I should consider their opinion to be in any way significant or worthwhile.

Instead, consider for a moment that Truth exists outside of mere human experience as an eternal and unchanging fact. It is not Truth because I, you, or the Dalai Lama says it is Truth but because it IS so, provable through reason and corroborated in revelation. Now, suddenly we have moved away from relativism and, consequently, we can discuss the subject of Truth without sounding entirely ridiculous. So, if there is only one Truth we must then agree that all human interpretation that contradicts or detracts from that Truth is a falsehood. And, as common sense would lead us to conclude, Truth cannot be mixed with falsehoods and still remain the Truth.

And, the bottom line is that this is where our modern thinking has gotten us into so much trouble. We cannot mix the Truth and falsehoods any easier than we can mix elements of Heaven and Hell because one is Truth and the other is it’s absence - a vacuum.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Unfortunately, I don’t have too much time tonight to do much Biblical digging. But here are three quick gems from the transcendental source of Absolute Morality.

www.catholic.org/bible]

Numbers 31: 7, 14-18 – Killing all Midianite men and keeping virgin Midianite women as sex slaves (none of which is ever condemned by God):

7 They made war on Midian, as Yahweh had ordered Moses, and put every male to death. 14 Moses was enraged with the officers of the army, the commanders of the thousands and commanders of the hundreds, who had come back from this military expedition. 15 He said, 'Why have you spared the life of all the women? 16 They were the very ones who, on Balaam’s advice, caused the Israelites to be unfaithful to Yahweh in the affair at Peor: hence the plague which struck Yahweh’s community. 17 So kill all the male children and kill all the women who have ever slept with a man; 18 but spare the lives of the young girls who have never slept with a man, and keep them for yourselves.

1 Samuel 15:3 – Instructions to kill all Amalekites: men, women, children, and even animals.

(The speaker is identified as God):
3 Now, go and crush Amalek; put him under the curse of destruction with all that he possesses. Do not spare him, but kill man and woman, babe and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." '

Psalms 137:8-9 – I realize that this is just figurative language, but it’s odd that this poem was inspired by the same entity who supposedly holds all life to be sacred. It’s an interesting passage for the pro-life community (along with all the baby-killing above that God seems ok with):

8 Daughter of Babel, doomed to destruction, a blessing on anyone who treats you as you treated us, 9 a blessing on anyone who seizes your babies and shatters them against a rock!

Well, I think that any rational, humane person would consider those actions evil.

Yet you all seem to consider the entity who commanded these actions to be the absolute authority on goodness. Why?

I’m not trying to offend – I’m just pointing out what’s written in your holy book.

we consider Him the absolute authority on goodness because as the author of all things, whatever He does is good. after all, he didnt have to create us, he chose to.

ones inability to understand the purposes and goals of an infinitely intelligent being does not change that.

do you have a counter argument to that?

 

[PRmerger]

Unfortunately, I don’t have too much time tonight to do much Biblical digging. But here are three quick gems from the transcendental source of Absolute Morality.

www.catholic.org/bible]

Numbers 31: 7, 14-18 – Killing all Midianite men and keeping virgin Midianite women as sex slaves (none of which is ever condemned by God):

7 They made war on Midian, as Yahweh had ordered Moses, and put every male to death. 14 Moses was enraged with the officers of the army, the commanders of the thousands and commanders of the hundreds, who had come back from this military expedition. 15 He said, 'Why have you spared the life of all the women? 16 They were the very ones who, on Balaam’s advice, caused the Israelites to be unfaithful to Yahweh in the affair at Peor: hence the plague which struck Yahweh’s community. 17 So kill all the male children and kill all the women who have ever slept with a man; 18 but spare the lives of the young girls who have never slept with a man, and keep them for yourselves.

1 Samuel 15:3 – Instructions to kill all Amalekites: men, women, children, and even animals.

(The speaker is identified as God):
3 Now, go and crush Amalek; put him under the curse of destruction with all that he possesses. Do not spare him, but kill man and woman, babe and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." '

Psalms 137:8-9 – I realize that this is just figurative language, but it’s odd that this poem was inspired by the same entity who supposedly holds all life to be sacred. It’s an interesting passage for the pro-life community (along with all the baby-killing above that God seems ok with):

8 Daughter of Babel, doomed to destruction, a blessing on anyone who treats you as you treated us, 9 a blessing on anyone who seizes your babies and shatters them against a rock!

Well, I think that any rational, humane person would consider those actions evil.

Yet you all seem to consider the entity who commanded these actions to be the absolute authority on goodness. Why?

I’m not trying to offend – I’m just pointing out what’s written in your holy book.

Firstly, I understand that you’re not trying to offend, and I respect how you present things, which is why I enjoy reading your posts. However, you must understand that atheists who post on a Catholic forum ought to word things very carefully as to not appear inflammatory.

Now regarding the verses above and the supposed commands by God to slaughter and enslave.

-I believe warpspeedpetey and itsjustdave1988 addressed these issues quite well. Essentially, God is the author of life. If he chooses to take life, it’s His to do so.

-Do you believe that this God is unjust in taking their lives, if eternal life exists after their death? Our Scriptures say, “The sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that [has been] revealed to [me].”

-It’s possible that God did not even command this, and that a literal interpretation here is unwarranted. To quote from Jimmy Akin, Catholic Answers apologist extraordinaire:

"We know that the early history in Scripture contains symbolic elements as well as literal ones, and these commands would then turn out to be symbolic.

Presumably, they would symbolize things like the need to be totally separate from pagan culture, of how radically incompatible the pagan lifestyle is with faith in God. On this theory the books of the Pentateuch would have reached their final form some time after the events they describe, and these stories about wiping out the Canaanites (which the Israelites did not actually fulfill; there were still Canaanites living later) were included to teach the later readers how they must reject paganism, and that the original audience was meant to understand the nature of these stories as cautionary tales from which they were to draw a moral lesson (i.e., don’t be pagan; stick with God).

If this is the case then God never did command the extermination of the Canaanites and we, because we are not familiar with the way literature was written at this time, tend to take as literal something that was never meant to be literal."

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Indeed there were and are people less humane, less empathic, and with less common sense than average.

It’s clear that not all people are humane and rational.

yet throughout history, reasonable, moral, humane people have justified every genocide from serbia, rwanda, to stalin and mao.

i daresay that most atheists would be pro abortion, a genocide of 50 million infants, in just this country.

i assume that you think those people are rational, moral and humane?

An absolutely chilling pair of quotes.

why? what is chilling about them?

 

[PRmerger]

You accept a holy book without being reasonably sure of its meaning?

Now, Mega, that’s just silly.

Your statement comes from the fact that I don’t know whether some texts in the Old Testament are symbolic and you then conclude that I accept “a holy book without being reasonably sure if its meaning.”??

I assure you that I am quite reasonably sure of my holy book’s meaning. Deadly certain, in fact.

Again, those verses can be summed up as it’s God right to take life as He sees fit.

The Lord giveth; the Lord taketh. Blessed be the name of the Lord!

Symbolic? Literal? Doesn’t really matter.

You, however, have based a theology on something you don’t know for certain, and, indeed, can’t know. You claim there is no god, yet admit you don’t know who or what created the universe.

I certainly grant that you don’t know everything, but…if you’re going to take a position of belief, I would expect you to be reasonably clear about what your beliefs are.

I can very clearly articulate what my religious beliefs are. Ask me.

Admitting that you don’t know is a good first step towards realizing that there are no good reasons to believe.

Corollary: Admitting you don’t know is a good first step in realizing that there might be a good reason to believe. You simply don’t know, right?

So…God changed his mind? Or he just forgot to condemn genocide back in those primitive days? That doesn’t sound like a source of Absolute Morality to me. I thought your claim was that morality was absolute and unchanging.

Did God change his mind? Nope. He simply hadn’t revealed the fullness of the gospel yet.

The thought just occurred to me, Mega–where were all the rational people when this genocide occurred? Surely there were reasonable people during this time who could discern that this was immoral! Why didn’t they stop this slaughter?

 

[MegaTherion]

I believe warpspeedpetey and itsjustdave1988 addressed these issues quite well. Essentially, God is the author of life. If he chooses to take life, it’s His to do so.

With all due respect, you’ve gone off the topic. This isn’t about your god “taking lives” or whether it’s “just” for him to do so. Nor is it about the fact that suffering exists (which is a natural part of life). What we’re talking about are actions and whether those actions are moral.

For example, let’s use genocide (since it’s on the table). The issue is not your god killing people. The issue is your god permitting genocide, something we all agree is evil.

The problem you run into is what’s called Euthyphro’s Dilemma: essentially, “does God command things because they are moral or are things moral because God commands them?”

You only have two choices:

1. Morality is whatever god says it is.
2. Morality exists and god does what is good.

If you pick option 1, you run into some big problems. If morality is just whatever god says, then that means morality is not absolute and unchanging. For example, under this option, genocide isn’t wrong in and of itself. It’s wrong when god says it’s wrong and right when god says it’s right.

Under option 1, “morality” can (and does) change depending on the whims of a supernatural being. God could say tomorrow that “genocide is now good” (as he did several times in the Old Testament) or that “rape is now good” [edited].

But option 1 also means that we have no basis for determining that god is good. God is simply more powerful than the devil, and might apparently equals right under this formulation. Under option 1, you have no way of demonstrating that god is actually morally superior to the devil.

Option 1 undermines the idea that morality is unchanging, and it undermines the very foundation of theology.

Now, under option 2, we can determine that god is good because we can measure his actions against a standard.

But also under option 2, we can determine that the Bible depicts god ordering things that are evil. For some reason, he decided not to tell the Hebrews that genocide is evil and in fact instructed them to go for it several times.

So those options boil down to this. Either:

1. Morality changes as often as god wills it to change.
   or
2. Morality is absolute and unchanging and we can measure god by it.

Since we have already established in this thread that we can determine morality rationally (or at the very least determine what is evil through a use of our reason and empathy), I think 2 is closer to the truth (I don’t buy into good and evil as “essences,” but I think that broadly, a statement like “genocide is evil” is an accurate estimation of the situations we face in life…and I would say that genocide has always been evil).

Since 2 is closer to the truth, I do have a standard by which I can judge your god (and I judge him to have commanded actions in the Old Testament that are evil).

This leaves me with 2 options:

1. Your god exists and, at one time in history, endorsed evil (in which case, I would feel no reason to respect him or follow his “morals”)
   or
2. Your god doesn’t exist, and the laws and actions of the Hebrews can much more easily be explained as primitive Bronze-age morality that was not the result of a line of communication to a Divine Source of Transcendental Moral Absolutes.

It is far more logical to choose option 2 (and, given the complete lack of evidence that any gods exist – which is a separate issue – this option is more strongly supported by reality).

Note: I am really trying to word this in a way that’s not offensive, but you see the position I’m in.

 

[MegaTherion]

The thought just occurred to me, Mega–where were all the rational people when this genocide occurred? Surely there were reasonable people during this time who could discern that this was immoral! Why didn’t they stop this slaughter?

I think I’ve already indicated that we have developed our morality over time (and – hopefully, for the most part – gotten better at judging what is moral and what is not moral) as civilization advanced.

The actions of the ancient Hebrews are in accord with what the primitive people of the time thought – if you survey ancient culture, you’ll find slavery, cruel & unusual punishments, and genocide (of others) to be perfectly acceptible.

We’re left to wonder why a “chosen” race with a supposed direct line to the transcendent source of absolute values would not know that these things are wrong.

It’s really very simple – there is no transcendent source of absolute values.

EDIT: I really should be more explicit about this: I don’t think reason is some otherworldly, supernatural thing. We have developed reason over time, and we’ve gotten better at reasoning as time goes on.

This does not mean that things like genocide still don’t happen – of course bad people will always exist – but it does mean that the reaction of most people today to genocide is far different than it was in the ancient world.

No ancient Hebrew would have been morally outraged at the murder and/or enslavement of Amalekites. But today, when we hear of genocide or slavery, the general reaction of nearly everyone is outrage – we have a better moral sense today (though we still can behave in immoral ways). And we can apply that better sense of morality to our judgment of the past.

And normally, I wouldn’t judge the past by our better moral standards – but when you claim that there is an absolute transcendent source of morality that was guiding an ancient people, I think it’s pretty clear that that is false.

You, however, have based a theology on something you don’t know for certain, and, indeed, can’t know. You claim there is no god, yet admit you don’t know who or what created the universe.

Atheism is not a position of belief. It is a rational rejection of a claim based on a lack of sufficient evidence for the claim.

I don’t know whether the Hindu gods are real, either, but I don’t believe in them. I don’t know whether leprechauns are real, but I don’t believe in them. There’s no evidence for any of those things.

It’s not an act of faith to reject things that are not supported by evidence.

How many times am I going to have to type that?

 

[Dameedna]

Actually, what’s* really* irrelevant are relativists.

I mean, after all, if we agree with the premise of relativism, we must conclude that there are no absolutes and that the truth changes based on individual interpretation.

No it doesn’t mean there are no absolutes.

The statment “There are no absolutes” is an absolute. Therefore, there are absolutes. Well, at least one.

On the other hand, if we judge the significance of one’s opinion on its ability to expound upon some absolute standard (read: Truth), then, applying the principles of relativism to refute this, one relativist’s opinion cannot be more significant in the scheme of humanity than anyone else’s.

The problem is not with the concept of truth. The problem is that many people claim to have it , are unable to verify their claims and expect other’s to support their particular version of truth.

Truth is not the issue.

Instead, consider for a moment that Truth exists outside of mere human experience as an eternal and unchanging fact. It is not Truth because I, you, or the Dalai Lama says it is Truth but because it IS so, provable through reason and corroborated in revelation.

Yes, I have heard of this idea before.

And I have no doubt you’ve heard all the counter arguments. There is nothing about any religious claim that is provable. It can only be believed.

It’s why claims to absolute truths, which are unverifiable are irrelevant when we wish to work together toward common goals.

 

[Dameedna]

we consider Him the absolute authority on goodness because as the author of all things, whatever He does is good. after all, he didnt have to create us, he chose to.

You can consider God to be whatever you want. This is your determination, and your choice.

ones inability to understand the purposes and goals of an infinitely intelligent being does not change that.

You are absolutely right. And when the FDLS tells me that it is “good” to marry 12 yr old girls to 50 yr old men, it is not up to ME to try and understand what is or is not good.

Who am I , to make such a determination? What God wants is good becaue I consider him to be good. And since this is what God has commanded through revelation, it must be by default Good.

When you come across a horrifying concept I think it is right to question it. But what better way to get people accepting dreadful things, other than to claim it was God and that God is good, and that we pitiful humans could never possibly understand it so we must just accept it.

The whole “god can’t be understood, so don’t question” concept is used way too often to support terrible things.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You can consider God to be whatever you want. This is your determination, and your choice.

its not just me, its the more than half of humanity that worships the G-d of Abraham.

though numbers dont prove anything, it does say that it is not just me, its not a unique determination or personal determination at all, indeed it is a philosopky of theology so to speak.

You are absolutely right. And when the FDLS tells me that it is “good” to marry 12 yr old girls to 50 yr old men, it is not up to ME to try and understand what is or is not good.

first FDLS are not G-d, nor are they even Christains. i cannot defend the theology of other religions

but i would point out my own grandmother was 16 when she married my 36 year old grandfather, they were married for 65 years through good and bad, they loved eachother. even now she pines for him, and he has been gone for almost 6 years.

until relatively recently, my grandparents were the norm.

be careful about applying what is considerred moral here and now as what is absolutely moral. thats one of the problems of relativism, in a generation or two, there will be a completely different standard. to do so implies that the people of previous generations were less moral, or reasonable than were are, and i assure you, that is not the case.

Who am I , to make such a determination? What God wants is good becaue I consider him to be good. And since this is what God has commanded through revelation, it must be by default Good.

not because you consider Him to be good, but rather as the Creator of all things, He is the ruler against which good is measured.

nor is there some command by revelation to an individual, G-d is good as an accumulation of theology, developed by the authors of many different books, spread out across time, area, culture, and language. these books are now bound into the canon we call the bible. but they are indeed, more an encyclopedia of what we know about G-d, than the bible is one solid book.

therefore the idea that it is good by default is mistaken, it is good as a matter of convergent philosophy. other faiths have revealed texts, mormons, muslims, etc. not us.

When you come across a horrifying concept I think it is right to question it. But what better way to get people accepting dreadful things, other than to claim it was God and that God is good, and that we pitiful humans could never possibly understand it so we must just accept it.

whether its G-d or not, what can you do other than accept it? all the whining in the world wont make a bit of difference.

in your view our suffering is pointless, so why bear it? there is always the grave.

what a cold and lonely path that way leads.

just like a sheep doesnt understand the shearing, we dont understand suffering. we simply have no idea of the Shepherds reasons,

you can insist all you like that it is wrong or bad, but thats no differrent than if my kids said i was bad for putting down the dog. they dont know what i know, the dog was old and suffering, i was being humane, even as i killed.

in the same way, you and i dont know, nor can reasonably claim to know the reasons behind G-ds ways.

The whole “god can’t be understood, so don’t question” concept is used way too often to support terrible things.

its not to support terrible things, its to point out why you cannot blame G-d for bad things happening.

look, bad things are going to happen, whether your a theist or an atheist, what can possibly come from complaining about it?

indeed, G-d is a great comfort for the theist in those situations, but for the atheist. there is nothing for it but pointless suffering.

 

[PRmerger]

The issue is your god permitting genocide, something we all agree is evil.

Actually, you’re arguing that God COMMANDS genocide. Whether He permits evil is fodder for another thread.

I’ve already addressed whether God actually commands it (arguable), and if He did indeed command it, whether He has the authority to do so. As someone posted earlier, if the President of the US has the authority to command this, does God have less authority than him?

The problem you run into is what’s called Euthyphro’s Dilemma: essentially, “does God command things because they are moral or are things moral because God commands them?”

You only have two choices:

1. Morality is whatever god says it is.
2. Morality exists and god does what is good.

This is indeed an interesting dilemma. However, it’s also a false dilemma. There are NOT only 2 choices.

Of course, the Christian rejects option 1. Morality is not an arbitrary whim of God. And we reject option 2, as it presupposes that morality is anterior to God.

The 3rd option which you have not considered is that an objective standard exists, but it is not external to God. As Scott Rae argues “Morality is not grounded ultimately in God’s commands, but in His character, which then expresses itself in His commands.”

Under option 1, “morality” can (and does) change depending on the whims of a supernatural being. God could say tomorrow that “genocide is now good” (as he did several times in the Old Testament) or that "rape is now good" [edited]

Does God really say “genocide and rape are now good”? Where?

 

[PRmerger]

I think I’ve already indicated that we have developed our morality over time (and – hopefully, for the most part – gotten better at judging what is moral and what is not moral) as civilization advanced.

Ok. You credit reason. I credit Christian ethos.

(It does seem unreasonable to me that ancient civilizations had less reasoning ability than do modern civilizations, however. No evidence to support that! )

We’re left to wonder why a “chosen” race with a supposed direct line to the transcendent source of absolute values would not know that these things are wrong.

Well, an atheist has to wonder, but Christians have the answer–the fulfillment of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ.

EDIT: I really should be more explicit about this: I don’t think reason is some otherworldly, supernatural thing. We have developed reason over time, and we’ve gotten better at reasoning as time goes on.

I’m willing to be convinced of this. Can you show me how Socrates’ reasoning, for example, was less sophisticated than say, yours? From his position in time in his circumstances, I propose he was pretty rational.

Which brings me to another point: another previous poster indicated that based on your circumstances, the position you’re in, you can only rationally determine a very, (VERY) limited conclusion about the posters in this forum. Until someone reveals to you certain truths–their marital status, income, education, etc–you have no idea what’s true about an individual.

Interesting claim made by Pasacal: 2 errors–to exclude reason, and to exclude all but reason. :clapping:

Atheism is not a position of belief. It is a rational rejection of a claim based on a lack of sufficient evidence for the claim.

Ok. I have no argument with atheists who claim atheism is not a religion. Only with atheists whose rhetoric is almost indistinguishable from fundamentalist fanatics. (Of which I am certainly not accusing you.)

It’s not an act of faith to reject things that are not supported by evidence.

Hmmm…let me think about this for a while.

My first thought is that it is indeed an act of faith to say “I will only believe things supported by evidence.” You believe things not supported by evidence do not exist… Can you prove that, or are you accepting this on faith?

 

[Extempore]

No it doesn’t mean there are no absolutes.

The statment “There are no absolutes” is an absolute. Therefore, there are absolutes. Well, at least one.

Rather than nitpick, I can modify that then to say that relativists do not believe in an unchanging, static Truth. Either way you word it, the end result is the same - relativists cannot anchor their beliefs in anything outside of personal interpretation.

The problem is not with the concept of truth. The problem is that many people claim to have it , are unable to verify their claims and expect other’s to support their particular version of truth.

Truth is not the issue.

I beg to differ.

If a group of people all lay claim to different ideas labeling them all as “truth”, then the only way in which we can “identify” Truth is to assert that it exists independent from mere human experience. Put more simply, if we want to address this conundrum, the only way we can do so is to concede that human being do not and cannot create truth.

This does not, of course, mean that human beings cannot understand what is true or explain what is true. This is where the science of objective philosophy comes in - attempting to recognize Truth through the use of human logic and reason.

So, I would say that Truth is, in fact, the issue here because if you believe that it belongs in the realm of individual expression than you can never progress beyond relativism. However, once you concede that truth exists apart from human experience, you’ve opened up the door to interpretation which has become both the realm of religion and philosophy.

Yes, I have heard of this idea before.

And I have no doubt you’ve heard all the counter arguments. There is nothing about any religious claim that is provable. It can only be believed.

A good argument for why faith and reason are so closely intertwined.

It’s why claims to absolute truths, which are unverifiable are irrelevant when we wish to work together toward common goals.

If you mean the existence of God, certainly, that is something that requires an element of faith.

However, I think there are certain absolute truths that can (and should) be acknowledged by everyone such as the existence of good and evil. Introduce too much subjectivism into the human experience and chaos and disorder seem inevitable.

 

[MegaTherion]

if the President of the US has the authority to command this, does God have less authority than him?

The President has the authority to command genocide? To command that every man, woman, and child be murdered? Even if he were granted the legal right to order such evil, I think it would be immoral for him to do so.

The 3rd option which you have not considered is that an objective standard exists, but it is not external to God. As Scott Rae argues “Morality is not grounded ultimately in God’s commands, but in His character, which then expresses itself in His commands.”

Alright, so is it in his character to tell people to go into a land and kill every “man and woman, babe and suckiling”? If it is, how do you judge such a character?

[moderators please note: I am quoting directly from the holy text in question]

EDIT: Also, is this so-called “option 3” really different from option 1? Under option 3, morality is whatever god’s “character” is. If it is in his character to change positions on moral questions (such as whether genocide is an absolute evil or not), then we run into the exact same problems.

Does God really say “genocide and rape are now good”? Where?

I have quoted passages above in which your god commands genocide and in which the rape of Midianite women occurs without your god’s condemnation of the rapists or any penalty whatsoever. We know that your god punishes people in the Old Testament for not worshipping him, and he’s not shy about punishing those who do wrong in his eyes. Yet he does not condemn these evil actions or punish people for carrying them out.

I would say that in those particular passages it would appear that your god approves of (that particular) genocide and is at the very least giving tacit consent to the enslavement of virgins (the main purpose of which is obvious).

What judgment do you make about the character of such a being?

 

[MegaTherion]

(It does seem unreasonable to me that ancient civilizations had less reasoning ability than do modern civilizations, however. No evidence to support that! )

A discussion of primitive reasoning would lead us very far from the topic – I do think my idea could be supported by evidence, but I have neither the time nor inclination to flesh out this argument…and it is not directly relevant to demonstrating that you’re wrong.

Which brings me to another point: another previous poster indicated that based on your circumstances, the position you’re in, you can only rationally determine a very, (VERY) limited conclusion about the posters in this forum. Until someone reveals to you certain truths–their marital status, income, education, etc–you have no idea what’s true about an individual.

This is silly beyond words. In the first place, if any of those points of revelation ever became really important (important enough for me to follow the commands of someone else on the forum), I would want to obtain independently confirmable evidence that these revelations are true (that is, not just take someone’s word for it). And in the second place, I can form an assesment of the character of posters depending on what they reveal. If there’s a poster who professes a support of genocide (for any reason whatsoever), I think I would be well within reason to ignore anything that poster may “reveal” and anything that poster has to say about morality (as it is clear that such a person is immoral in the highest degreee).

My first thought is that it is indeed an act of faith to say “I will only believe things supported by evidence.” You believe things not supported by evidence do not exist… Can you prove that, or are you accepting this on faith?

I can prove that I only believe things supported by evidence and reason, yes. I only have beliefs that are supported by those things.

The reason we should only believe things supported by evidence and reason is that by its very definition, “objective reality” relies on evidence.

Remember, things that are “objectively real” are things that exist for everyone…if something is objectively real, any person (regardless of belief) should be able to examine evidence for that things’s existence and conclude that it exists.

If you want a more pragmatic reason, beliefs supported by evidence and reason are the things that yield actual results. Human history has indicated that following where evidence and reason lead produces results – sending men to the moon, curing disease, inventing computers.

In other words, it’s not a position of faith that “we must believe things supported by evidence” – it’s a necessary fact supported by the experience of every single living person and by the very nature of the world itself.

 

[cpayne]

In other words, it’s not a position of faith that “we must believe things supported by evidence” – it’s a necessary fact supported by the experience of every single living person and by the very nature of the world itself.

As we discussed on another thread (or maybe it was this one, I don’t know ), “evidence” encompasses a great deal more than “scientifically demonstrable” evidence. The believers on this forum would accept a wider spectrum of evidence for their beliefs than you, evidently, would allow for. Their position is quite a bit different than “having no evidence.”

 

[NonCatholic]

Hi All,

To not believe in a single absolute standard for right and wrong that exists “out there” for human beings to conform to is not the same thing as saying that there aren’t better and worse ways for human beings to behave. Pragmatists just say that true and false and good and bad are understood in relation to some human purpose and can only be understood in practice. This view is opposed to the theist view of Goodness as an essence, but both views are rightly called morality since they are concerned with right and wrong.

The issue that I’m trying to bring out here is that even if you believe that there is a single standard of human behavior that all humans need to conform to, how could we ever evaluate one person’s claim of knowledge of this standard with another’s claim of knowledge of this standard when the two people claim to know different things? I think we all know that this in not a mere hypothetical. This is part of the human condition.

These competing claims are either born out in human experience or not. These claims need to be justified to others in the same ways that we try to justify all our beliefs when we want our private beliefs about morality to become public projects. We need to get other people on board. How do we do that? In other words, the interesting question is not about whether we think our knowledge has an absolute foundation but how we can hope to justify our beliefs to others.

Even if you feel that you have a rock solid foundation for your beliefs, it simply isn’t the sort of foundation that is philosophically interesting because it can’t supply us with knock-down arguments in support of your positions that will be convincing to anyone else.

So my question (a pragmatic one) for theists is, how could it possibly be helpful in any way to make the claim in the public sphere that your beliefs about morality come from God rather than from human experience? Aren’t you still going to need to justify your beliefs in terms of human experience when you want others who may disagree with you (which will include other believers with different beliefs) to join in with your project of creating the sort of world that you would like (or that you believe that God would like)?

How is it different in practice to say, “this is the sort of world that I think would be better for us for these reasons…” compared to “this is what God wants”? I think the answer is that the first question is useful and the second is completely useless. It is merely a conversation stopper. Someone can either agree or disagree with all the premises behind that claim, but the conversation can go no further because no one is thought to have the final say about what God wants. So God is really only relevant to private beliefs about morality and is completely irrelevant in a pluralistic society to getting others behind our public projects for creating the sort of world that we think is morally good. From the pragmatist perspective it is not that God talk is right or wrong so much as it is just unhelpful idle talk for our public moral purposes.

Best,
Leela

Hello -I’m little late entering this thread, so pardon me if I am being redundant here. It all starts with the view you have of the Bible. That starts with reading it first; because no one can refute it’s truth without first reading it.

Romans 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for **God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. **

Man is the only creature on earth who has a built in conscience that tells him right from wrong; this is some of the evidence God put into every human being.

 

[PRmerger]

The President has the authority to command genocide? To command that every man, woman, and child be murdered? Even if he were granted the legal right to order such evil, I think it would be immoral for him to do so.

Well, I can see, Mega, that you’re a man who takes things literally. (I’m assuming you’re male, but unless you *reveal *your gender to the forums, I’ll never know. But more on that later! )

No, the president does not have the authority to command genocide. The point being made was that there are those who have the authority to send men and women out to kill (yes, perhaps slaughter, as happened in WWII). So…extrapolate that out to the Infinite Creator of the Universe. Perhaps this entity has a wee bit more authority than the president? After all, this is the God who “ordains the sun to rule the day.” (Note: do not take that literally, Mega. I know the sun does not literally *rule *anything.)

Alright, so is it in his character to tell people to go into a land and kill every “man and woman, babe and suckiling”? If it is, how do you judge such a character?

Taken by itself, its horrifying! (if, indeed, this is what God commanded). But, thankfully, I have the entire revelation of God at my disposal, and I can see where this revelation has transformed the Israelite’s understanding of the One True God, and how the fulfillment of this Gospel lies in the person of Jesus Christ.

So I take into account the culture, the genre of literature, the message the inspired writer is making and I am not horrified.

EDIT: Also, is this so-called “option 3” really different from option 1? Under option 3, morality is whatever god’s “character” is. **If it is in his character **to change positions on moral questions (such as whether genocide is an absolute evil or not), then we run into the exact same problems.

But that’s exactly the point, Mega! You posit, *“if *it’s in his character…” The answer is, it’s not. His character, that is, God’s essence, is holiness.

I have quoted passages above in which your god commands genocide and in which the rape of Midianite women occurs without your god’s condemnation of the rapists or any penalty whatsoever. We know that your god punishes people in the Old Testament for not worshipping him, and he’s not shy about punishing those who do wrong in his eyes. Yet he does not condemn these evil actions or punish people for carrying them out.

I would say that in those particular passages it would appear that your god approves of (that particular) genocide and is at the very least giving tacit consent to the enslavement of virgins (the main purpose of which is obvious).

What judgment do you make about the character of such a being?

Again, if II take into account the culture, the genre of literature, the message the inspired writer is making and I am not horrified.

 

[PRmerger]

A discussion of primitive reasoning would lead us very far from the topic – I do think my idea could be supported by evidence, but I have neither the time nor inclination to flesh out this argument…and it is not directly relevant to demonstrating that you’re wrong.

Oh, dern it! I would so enjoy hearing your argument proving primitive reasoning was so inferior to our modern abilities. It would interesting to hear how he “primitive” reason offered by Socrates’, Augustine’s, Aquinas’ was so unsophisticated.

This is silly beyond words. In the first place, if any of those points of revelation ever became really important (important enough for me to follow the commands of someone else on the forum), I would want to obtain independently confirmable evidence that these revelations are true (that is, not just take someone’s word for it). And in the second place, I can form an assesment of the character of posters depending on what they reveal. If there’s a poster who professes a support of genocide (for any reason whatsoever), I think I would be well within reason to ignore anything that poster may “reveal” and anything that poster has to say about morality (as it is clear that such a person is immoral in the highest degreee).

Come on, now, Mega! You must concede that your knowledge of posters on the forum is severely limited if you refuse to accept information that can only be known through revelation. That’s the point of the post. No one is going to command you to do anything here. The point is: we are all handicapped and have a poverty of information if we only rely on evidence, not revelation.

I can prove that I only believe things supported by evidence and reason, yes. I only have beliefs that are supported by those things.

LOL! I’m sorry. I did not mean that you should prove that you only believe things supported by evidence and reason. (As if you could prove that anyway!).

I meant that you (or science, or reason) cannot prove that reason is the only way to understand things. **You take that on faith. **

The reason we should only believe things supported by evidence and reason is that by its very definition, “objective reality” relies on evidence.

Who said anything about “objective reality”? I’m talking about all of reality. That is, the entire spectrum of Truth. What actually is.

Human history has indicated that following where evidence and reason lead produces results – sending men to the moon, curing disease, inventing computers.

Yup. But that’s science. What the answer to philosphical questions…why are we here? what’s the meaning of life?