Theism and Morality

[EnterTheBowser]

Gilbert Keith:

BOWSER

Because if I do, I will be rewarded - NOT because it is a good action. That’s why the moral system you’ve presented is a form of egoism.

Doing a good action because it is the action God wants us to do necessarily results in reward. Why not? This too is part of God’s plan, that we be rewarded by holding up our end of the moral contract. If it is egoism, it is an egotism that plays into God’s hands, where He holds us safely from ultimate harm. But if we do not hold up our end, there is no egotism because there is assurance that the alternative to heaven is not one that will puff us up with good feelings about ourselves.

With atheism there is no ultimate mercy or justice. Just fate. True, this doesn’t seem egositic. It really seems more resignation to ultimate despair and defeat when the chips are down and you have no option left but to die and enter eternal nothingness.

In the short run, then, the atheist is egoistic because all morality is defined by his own whim, not God’s. The ego gets to decide what is right and wrong. But in the long run that egoism turns and swallows itself as the snake swallows its own tail.

I think you misunderstand what ethical egoism is. It does not say much about puffing oneself up with good feelings (about oneself), which is perhaps the normal meaning of egoism. Ethical egoism simply states that it is moral to act in one’s own self-interest.

Now, you stated that theism can provide for morality whereas atheism cannot because theism has a heaven to reward those who obey God’s commands and a hell to punish those who do not. Under that system, why should I subscribe to God’s moral code? Only because he will punish me if I don’t (and reward me if I do), not because there is something “good” or “moral” about the code apart from egoistic concerns.

Now, it’s true that under such a system, and in a theistic world, ethical egoism would have much better consequences than ethical egoism would in an atheistic universe. But it’s still ethical egoism.

I also previously noted that in general (that is, if we’re not ethical egoists), the prospect of reward or punishment is not a moral justification for taking an action. In other words, this heaven/hell reward system does not provide a moral justification for the code God puts out (only a prudential one). So it seems that in this case, theism gets us no further towards a non-nihilist, egoist, relativist morality than atheism does.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Gilbert Keith:

BOWSER

Is the charge then that because there is much disagreement in ethics that do not include God, there is no real truth in atheist ethics? Is that the argument you are making?

No.

The argument I am making is that there is no certainty of ethics in the atheist system because there is no fixed authority for right and wrong. Just as there are many different logical systems, there are many different moral systems. Which one is the atheist to choose, and how is he to know (without the presumption of divine authority) that he has chosen the right one and not just one that suits his personal whim at the moment of choosing it?

…

It seems that this is what I called the metaethical problem of justification in a previous post. Now, I went on to contend that God does not provide a way out of this problem. To tell the truth, I don’t know a way out myself (but perhaps that’s because I haven’t taken Ethics 3 yet). Anyways, if even God can’t resolve this particular problem, we’re left with two options:
-There is no justified ethical system
-It is unreasonable to think that ethical systems must be justified in this manner
I don’t know which one is true.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Is this your claim: God has reasons for the moral system he grounds/commands/whatever, but these reasons are incomprehensible to humans, so in an atheistic universe, we could never gain any ethical knowledge?

No, it is not.

God has reasons for morals to exist, otherwise they would not exist; just as God has reason for US to exist, otherwise WE would not exist. Being implies reason. Morality is and can be comprehended by human beings, even by very young children, at some level, but full comprehension and, moreover, full understanding of the complete picture, is comprehensible only to God.

Therefore we can have someone who comprehends “doing good to others” as behavior which is good for society as a whole, good for him as a person, good for particular reasons which can range from anything like -if I am good to Joe he’ll buy things at my store to --if I am good to Joe he’ll be more willing to help me or a friend–or even, if I am good to Joe I’m doing what God wants me to do, and knowing I am doing what He wants–loving my neighbor–is “reward” for me, whether I experience it here, or whether I ‘never’ experience it at all. Each individual has her or her life to use to develop his or her intellect and will to use for God, and for neighbor, in the best way. Just because one person understands his moral imperative as a simple “scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” does not necessarily mean, as well, that he is necessarily lacking. Depending on his personal gifts, his society, etc. such seemingly simple morality–if done for the reason of pleasing God and doing good for others–can be quite as worthwhile as another person, living perhaps a more “luxurious” or “intellectual” life whose morality involves high altruism and more “knowledge” of God.

We don’t “earn heaven” by x number of “good deeds” but we also can’t “find heaven” so to speak if we NEVER do anything outside of our own self.

So while you fret that you think Christians ONLY do good to get a “heavenly reward”. . .do you think that is the only,or even the MAJOR part of the picture? Such thinking is very narrow and ignores the fact that most human people, and certainly their actions, exist in a very multifaceted world, and that people are individuals who live unique lives.

Intellect and will are God’s gifts to us. Knowledge is something we can ALWAYS strive for. . .but it is not the sine qua non of existence. When you come right down to it, as Hamlet says, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy”. There is more to life and death than what we “know” or think we know. That’s where Faith comes in. Faith isn’t blind, and it isn’t stupid. Faith looks at knowledge, sees where knowledge has driven itself into a corner where there is no more answer, and takes a deep breath and says, “Thy Will be done”.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Tantum ergo:

No, it is not.

God has reasons for morals to exist, otherwise they would not exist; just as God has reason for US to exist, otherwise WE would not exist. Being implies reason. Morality is and can be comprehended by human beings, even by very young children, at some level, but full comprehension and, moreover, full understanding of the complete picture, is comprehensible only to God.

[discourse on notion that motives are not essential to moral action]

[attack on idea that Christian morality is built on a heavenly reward]

[discourse on faith and reason]

I’m not sure how the faith/reason discussion bears on this particular topic. I don’t really think that all Christian ethics is built on a heavenly reward, but Gilbert Keith stated that a heavenly reward is what theism has on atheism, so I attacked that notion.

I’m not exactly sure what the point about motives is, exactly (how it bears on the present discussion).

All that aside, I do have some things to say about that last (or is it first?) point. First of all, I myself might produce a code of conduct and ensure that my children follow it, but my reasons for doing so might be entirely non-moral (egoistic reasons, perhaps; or maybe I just like making rules).

Anyways, I guess my questions are (to clarify your position):
Are the reasons that God has for setting down whatever rules he has set down a moral justification?
Would these reasons be good reasons in the absence of a God?
Are these the sorts of reasons that humans have epistemic access to?

 

[Sherlock]

EnterTheBowser:

Which way do you answer the Euthyphro question?

With a third answer that Socrates was not able to conceive: God IS good.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Sherlock:

With a third answer that Socrates was not able to conceive: God IS good.

As I pointed out previously, to say that “God IS good” is simply to take the answer which states “These things are good because God commands them.” I have several posts on this subject.

 

[amanuensis]

I think that it is clear that things are good because God says that they are good. For example, in the Hebrew Bible, eating milk and meat mixed together is declared morally reprehensible and in that same bible it says that the only reason for this is that God has declared this behavior to be wrong. A number of other commandments including those governing the red heifer have this same feature.

Alright, so if we answer this euthyphro dilemma in this fashion, it seems that Atheism can’t possibly work as theism does.

First, if we define something as being good because God a perfectly good being declared it so, how can one possibly find out if something is good if there is not god? i.e. if something is good because makes it good and that is the definition of good, then with no god nothing is good because there is nothing to make something good. This is a problem because it necessarily leads to a lack of absolute morality and therefore the moral relativism/nihilism etc. that you want to avoid. Theism by definition has an answer to the Euthyphro problem that makes sense because of the way god is defined.

 

[bear06]

EnterTheBowser:

First: I am willing to discuss the charge that atheism is morally bankrupt, but it would be good if you’d make an argument to that effect first (as opposed to just making an assertion).

I’m trying to say that the individuals that make up the Church can, in fact, mistake true guidance for false guidance. Moreover individuals can mistake the meaning of statements made by the Church. Moreover individuals can misremember statements made by the Church. The point is that epistemic uncertainty remains.

Ahhhh, but I did not say atheism is morally bankrupt. Actually, due to moral relativism it would be impossible to use a blanket discription to describe atheism other than to say that they don’t believe in God. There may be some atheists who have morals. They are not moral because they are atheists. They are moral because they abide by God’s laws whether or not they perceive them to be God’s laws. They just happen to think that a certain moral would be good to incorporate into their lifestyle because they agree to it. Now, the odds of an atheist agreeing to all of God’s laws is pretty slim to none because they see morality from their eyes which is completely subjective.

As for you latter point, I’d agree with this but you asked:

what does theism have to offer with regards to justifying morality?

To this many have answered that simply a belief in God’s existence really doesn’t offer much with regards to justifying morality. The justification of morality can only be found in God’s Truths (Doctrines) which are protected by Him in the teachings of the Catholic Church on Faith and Morals. In these teachings, whether adhered to or not by us completely fallible humans, there is no epistemic uncertaintly. Our failings do not negate Truth.

 

[amanuensis]

Just to further clarify my previous point: Theism does not have to provide a justification for why god says something is moral because morality is defined as what god says. For example, as an anology we have the absolute king bob. now bob says one day that table s are bad. From now on everyone must eat on the floor. Bob could just as easily have forbidden anything else. However, all of Bob’s subjects obey because this was Bob’s edict.

Now an atheist has to justify her morality because when one omits God from the picture, there are a number of different possible ethical viewpoints and the only way to distinguish between them is by providing some sort of reason, etc. As an analogy, we have an elected leader who has to justify her edicts in order to remain in office.

 

[john_doran]

EnterTheBowser:

Given that, I guess you would agree with the point I’m trying to make: that theism does not get us anywhere (morally) that we can’t get with atheism.

with one qualification: i believe that religion is a basic good (and also the unifying good) for human beings, so there is one element of human fulfillment that atheism necessarily abandons.

but insofar as you’re simply trying to point out that atheism need not be committed to moral relativism or moral bankruptcy, then yes - i agree and have made the point many times on this board.

 

[Sherlock]

EnterTheBowser:

As I pointed out previously, to say that “God IS good” is simply to take the answer which states “These things are good because God commands them.” I have several posts on this subject.

No, it’s not the same thing. If something is good BECAUSE God says it’s good, then God is arbitrary. The Muslim understanding of God, by the way, does in fact take the “these things are good because God commands them” approach, which is why they say that blowing up innocents is good.

That God IS Good is different.

 

[Contarini]

EnterTheBowser:

Now, this atheist, being the curious sort, asks why God has “picked” these standards and not some other. “God,” she says, “what if this were a different world, and there was a different God, and this other God grounded a completely different standard of morality?” Now, if God were silly, God might reply “I am the only possible God, so that’s not a problem.” But God wouldn’t say this, because God is not silly, and it is more or less impossible to show that this particular God is the only logically possible God. “Why this particular transcendent ground of morality, and not some other?”

This is the key to why our discussion is going nowhere. You don’t understand theism–at least not the classical Christian version thereof. The God we believe in is the necessary ground of all possible versions of morality. When you speak of the possibility of “a different God,” you demonstrate that the “God” whose existence you are debating is not the God we believe in.

It’s as if you were arguing with a creationist, and in the middle of the argument the creationist were to say, “But you’re assuming that evolution takes millions of years–on the hypothesis, which I believe to be possible, tat the world is only six thousand years old, evolution is absurd, therefore your theory is no better as an explanation of the universe than creationism.” To which your only response would have to be: of course. But one of the basic premises of evolution is that life has evolved over a very long period of time. Of course the creationist rejects this. But the creationist doesn’t get to insert that part of his world view into your world view and thus say that your view makes no sense. That’s what you are doing. Of course you don’t believe that God is the necessary ground of all possible realities, because you don’t believe in God. But it makes no sense for you to say “it’s possible that there could be a different God, therefore your view makes no sense.” “God” as we define it is a being who cannot not exist, or be other than He is, in *any *possible universe.

If you want to dialogue with people who think God is one possible God among many possible gods, then don’t come to a traditional Christian discussion board.

For us, God is the Necessary Being. That’s the only God whose existence we are interested in defending. Morality depends ultimately on the eternal, unchangeable, ontologically necessary essence of God. That is why your criticisms of divine command theory and your posing of the Euthyphro dilemma are going nowhere. If you are going to attack traditional theism, you ought to take the trouble to understand it first.

Edwin

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

BROWSER

*Now, you stated that theism can provide for morality whereas atheism cannot because theism has a heaven to reward those who obey God’s commands and a hell to punish those who do not. Under that system, why should I subscribe to God’s moral code? Only because he will punish me if I don’t (and reward me if I do), not because there is something “good” or “moral” about the code apart from egoistic concerns.
*
There is something good or moral apart from egoistic concerns. There is a sense in the theist’s universe that justice prevails in the end. In the atheist system there is no assurance of justice because there is no assurance of Someone who administers it.

Those who commit consummate evils in the world and die without being caught or without repenting, in the atheist’s system, may be said to have prevailed because being good or bad has no ultimate meaning in the long range of universal history. Not so in the theist (Christian) system. Justice will out.

Likewise, the man who is falsely accused and sentenced to die and wrongly executed gets no consolation or justice in the atheist system. He simply has bad luck. In the Christian system he has a chance to be redeemed in the next life. His wrongful death may even be the instrument by which he is saved. This belief makes his death meaningful rather than meaningless.

You may, if you like, call this more egoism. But how can we talk about morality at all without talking about the positive or negative effects of morality upon the human ego?

There is nothing more transparent in the gospel than the power of love to heal and comfort the human ego (self ). But this healing and comfort is something Christ wants for us, not just what we want for ourselves.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Contarini:

This is the key to why our discussion is going nowhere. You don’t understand theism–at least not the classical Christian version thereof. The God we believe in is the necessary ground of all possible versions of morality. When you speak of the possibility of “a different God,” you demonstrate that the “God” whose existence you are debating is not the God we believe in.

It’s as if you were arguing with a creationist, and in the middle of the argument the creationist were to say, “But you’re assuming that evolution takes millions of years–on the hypothesis, which I believe to be possible, tat the world is only six thousand years old, evolution is absurd, therefore your theory is no better as an explanation of the universe than creationism.” To which your only response would have to be: of course. But one of the basic premises of evolution is that life has evolved over a very long period of time. Of course the creationist rejects this. But the creationist doesn’t get to insert that part of his world view into your world view and thus say that your view makes no sense. That’s what you are doing. Of course you don’t believe that God is the necessary ground of all possible realities, because you don’t believe in God. But it makes no sense for you to say “it’s possible that there could be a different God, therefore your view makes no sense.” “God” as we define it is a being who cannot not exist, or be other than He is, in *any *possible universe.

If you want to dialogue with people who think God is one possible God among many possible gods, then don’t come to a traditional Christian discussion board.

For us, God is the Necessary Being. That’s the only God whose existence we are interested in defending. Morality depends ultimately on the eternal, unchangeable, ontologically necessary essence of God. That is why your criticisms of divine command theory and your posing of the Euthyphro dilemma are going nowhere. If you are going to attack traditional theism, you ought to take the trouble to understand it first.

Edwin

I think that it is true that you might believe that the Christian God is a necessarily existent being. But whether that belief is justified is another question (entirely). To show that it is, you’d need to run (most likely) the ontological argument, which is a really, really bad argument (if this becomes an issue I’ll start a new thread on it). It is very difficult to show that the Christian God is the only possible God - that the Christian God exists in every possible world.

Furthermore, it seems odd to say that this particular God could ground morality, but no other God could. Why is that so?

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Gilbert Keith:

BROWSER

*Now, you stated that theism can provide for morality whereas atheism cannot because theism has a heaven to reward those who obey God’s commands and a hell to punish those who do not. Under that system, why should I subscribe to God’s moral code? Only because he will punish me if I don’t (and reward me if I do), not because there is something “good” or “moral” about the code apart from egoistic concerns.
*
There is something good or moral apart from egoistic concerns. There is a sense in the theist’s universe that justice prevails in the end. In the atheist system there is no assurance of justice because there is no assurance of Someone who administers it.

Those who commit consummate evils in the world and die without being caught or without repenting, in the atheist’s system, may be said to have prevailed because being good or bad has no ultimate meaning in the long range of universal history. Not so in the theist (Christian) system. Justice will out.

Likewise, the man who is falsely accused and sentenced to die and wrongly executed gets no consolation or justice in the atheist system. He simply has bad luck. In the Christian system he has a chance to be redeemed in the next life. His wrongful death may even be the instrument by which he is saved. This belief makes his death meaningful rather than meaningless.

You may, if you like, call this more egoism. But how can we talk about morality at all without talking about the positive or negative effects of morality upon the human ego?

…

The problem is that on the view you proposed there really isn’t such a thing as justice, not in the classical sense. If ethical egoism is true, then it is silly to talk about people “getting what’s coming to them.”

 

[Contarini]

Darn it! I really need to stay off the discussion boards (I have too much other stuff to do), but I keep coming back for one more round. . . .

No, I’m not making the ontological argument. The ontological argument attempts to prove God’s existence by proving that God is logically necessary. That is not what I’m saying. (I don’t think the ontological argument is “a really bad” argument–I think it’s intriguing and I can’t make up my mind whether it holds any water or not. But that’s another issue.) What I’m saying is that the God in whom we believe is the necessary ground of all reality. If you want to discuss the evidence that this God exists, start a new thread. That’s not what you said you were discussing here. Your argument (that theism provides no superior basis for morality compared to atheism) rests on the hypothesis (for argument’s sake) that God exists. You are saying, if I understand you correctly, that *if *God existed we would have no better basis for morality than if God did not exist. But the God whose existence you hypothesize is not the Christian God, because He is the God of one possible universe. The Christian God, if He exists, is the God of all possible universes and cannot be other than He is. This is not an argument for God’s existence. It’s a statement of what Christians mean when they say “God exists.” Your argument fails because it does not even hypothesize the existence of the traditional Christian God in the first place.

Edwin

 

[EnterTheBowser]

amanuensis:

Just to further clarify my previous point: Theism does not have to provide a justification for why god says something is moral because morality is defined as what god says. For example, as an anology we have the absolute king bob. now bob says one day that table s are bad. From now on everyone must eat on the floor. Bob could just as easily have forbidden anything else. However, all of Bob’s subjects obey because this was Bob’s edict.

Now an atheist has to justify her morality because when one omits God from the picture, there are a number of different possible ethical viewpoints and the only way to distinguish between them is by providing some sort of reason, etc. As an analogy, we have an elected leader who has to justify her edicts in order to remain in office.

I am reminded of another theistic argument: the “classical” cosmological argument, which runs like this:

1: Everything that exists must have a cause
2: The universe exists
3: Therefore the universe must have some causeless cause, which is God.

The argument hinges upon a sort of special pleading. When atheists point out that if everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause, some theists reply, “Well, God isn’t the sort of thing that has to have a cause.” But why should we think this is so? It is just exempting an entity from a general rule by definitional fiat. We can just as easily say that the universe is the sort of thing that does not need to be caused, and result with a simpler and equally adequate answer.

You’ve proposed a similar sort of special pleading for God - that because God is God, God doesn’t have to answer the question “Why this moral system and not some other one?” I can just as easily say that at some point, atheist ethicists don’t have to answer that question - just by definition.

In other words, what we’re looking at here is what I believe to be a common theistic device: taking an (seemingly?) insoluble problem, and simply declaring that God solves it, because God is God. But this really doesn’t do anything to solve the problem, or at least anything that can’t be done without God.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Sherlock:

No, it’s not the same thing. If something is good BECAUSE God says it’s good, then God is arbitrary. The Muslim understanding of God, by the way, does in fact take the “these things are good because God commands them” approach, which is why they say that blowing up innocents is good.

That God IS Good is different.

Did you read my post #46?

 

[Sherlock]

EnterTheBowser:

Did you read my post #46?

Yes, I did, and find fault with your premise that “it is more or less impossible to show that this particular God is the only logically possible God”.

 

[john_doran]

EnterTheBowser:

I am reminded of another theistic argument: the “classical” cosmological argument, which runs like this:

1: Everything that exists must have a cause
2: The universe exists
3: Therefore the universe must have some causeless cause, which is God.

where did you get this “classical” argument? i have only ever seen premise one phrased in terms of beginning to exist, or of contingent existents.