What is this "scientific method" you all speak of?

[Charlemagne_III]

Personally, I put the blame straight on Satan and his followers.

More logically the villain than God!

 

[Gregory_Olson]

You can take this seriously and think about it - in depth. Of you can throw it aside as the meaningless rambling of an old geezer.

It’s an ego-boost for me just to have my arguments be taken so seriously by an old geezer such as yourself.
And of course I do take your posts seriously, and I did give this one some thought.
In the first half of your post, I think you really have hit the philosophical nail on the head. An omnipotent creator, your philosophical God, is logically sound. (And in fact is logically necessary, as Peter Plato has already demonstrated.) The disconnect between us does occur in the jump to an omnipotent, moral creator, your theological God.

This is your claim: that a moral God, especially one that acts as Christianity teaches, is unreasonable. This is what Lem tried to demonstrate. This claim is by nature based in morality, not logic. (There is a contrast between your basic idea of morality and the actions of a supposedly moral God.)
You also say that the only counter to this claim is an appeal to ignorance, either that or self-authentication.

This is my claim: that the concept of a moral God is reasonable IF one uses the Christian idea of morality.
And it is, only if one takes into account all of Christian teaching–not just some of it, or a selection of its moral teaching, as you have been doing.

These are the bare skeletal structures of our arguments. If you read over them I think it’s pretty indisputable that: (and here’s the crux of the disconnect between us) Both our claims depend the truth of our respective moral systems.

If nothing else, take that sentence seriously.

Since, as you say, we’re playing in the secular ballpark, you would say that a group of ancient theologians have no more authority to establish a moral system than you do. “It is all self-authentication.”
But you also say that there is no objective morality–morality is just whatever we make it.
Here is a really excellent place for Peter Plato’s post #418:

Actually, the quicksand rests under the person claiming there is no way to resolve what is right because they have no solid conception of the good or goodness to ground moral activity. That is why your (specific “your”) effigy of what morality is justifies or warrants only inaction in the face of wrong.

Your inability to substantiate knowing what is right is, itself, a moral failure and one that follows directly from standing on the moral quicksand of relativism - which is clearly your moral “ground” since you cannot justify any moral action at all by claiming no one can substantiate who is right and who is wrong. Try to extract yourself from any moral dilemma based upon the ground of “no one can determine what is right.”

For one thing, you cannot with any degree of certainty claim that you are right in morally restricting interference to mere “friendly advice” since you have disclaimed all ability to determine what is morally right to begin with.

You invalidate your statement that Christian ideas are immoral with your statement that there is no objective morality.

If there is an objective morality, it would have to have been established by God. This is what Christianity teaches; and under that moral system, the actions of God are not immoral. (This is the turning point of my whole argument. All I’m going to say is, your idea of morality now is different from Christianity’s idea of morality. You misunderstand mankind’s basic position according to Christianity. Under your current system, all you’re going to be able think at the idea of hell is: Unfair! Immoral! But stop for a second and consider the fact that I and other responders have listened to your arguments, and remain unimpressed, not because your logic was lacking, or because we’re just stubborn, but because for us there is no contrast between moral and theological Christianity.)

Therefore I could not give up Christianity for any moral reason–I’m only moral because I’m Christian.

-Greg

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Therefore I could not give up Christianity for any moral reason–I’m only moral because I’m Christian.

-Greg

And because Christianity is rooted in, and agrees with, the natural law planted in us all by God.

“Christianity taught men that love is worth more than intelligence.” Jacques Maritain

 

[Hee_Zen]

The Deist type of God has tremendous problems so far as my logic is concerned.

There is a problem with your “logic” then. Of course your “aversion” is emotionally based. The deist God is logically consistent. As a matter of fact, the deist type of creator or “first cause” does not even have to be “alive”. It might be an inanimate force of nature.

I cannot abide a God who lovingly creates a universe and then abandons his creation.

And if God did not lovingly create this universe, why bother to create it?

Lots of possible reasons. Curiosity, for example. Desire to learn. Or fun, to see the struggles of the created ones. Or it could be a naughty “star-child” who likes to play and create all sorts of things. Or it could be an unintentional by-product of a totally different project. Or it could be the trash of a failed experiment. These just from the top of my head.

Of course I am aware that you will bring up “omnipotence” - knowing everything, past, present and future, including the “free actions” or “free agents”. And that is sheer nonsense.

Instead of throwing out your posts, you should read the link I provided, because the conversation is centered around it.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Very true. Still I always find it strange that people blame God for all the bad things that happen. Personally, I put the blame straight on Satan and his followers.

You forget that “Satan” works with God’s permission. A simple analogy: a human person has a rabid dog. Instead of killing it, he lets the dog loose, and then tries to wash his hands and deny responsibility for the acts of the dog - which he has allowed to roam free.

 

[Peter_Plato]

You forget that “Satan” works with God’s permission. A simple analogy: a human person has a rabid dog. Instead of killing it, he lets the dog loose, and then tries to wash his hands and deny responsibility for the acts of the dog - which he has allowed to roam free.

Not quite a fit analogy since the dog, whether rabid or not, cannot harm those who seek the protection of the owner. To those who trust the owner and act as he says, neither the dog nor the rabies can harm.

This is the Christian view, by the way. Neither the devil nor the disease of evil can harm those protected by the cross. In fact, the disease itself is the means by which anyone can know whether they are under the protection of the owner. If you feel the bite of the dog or the feverish pain of the infection you are not protected - better seek the antidote in that case.

By his grace we are healed.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Of course I am aware that you will bring up “omnipotence” - knowing everything, past, present and future, including the “free actions” or “free agents”. And that is sheer nonsense.

And you would have certain knowledge that it is “sheer nonsense,” how?

Your omnipotence, perhaps?

 

[Hee_Zen]

This is my claim: that the concept of a moral God is reasonable IF one uses the Christian idea of morality.

Why should one do that? The Christian “morality” is simply “ad hoc” , it is what God’s ***perceived ***preference might be in any given moment. Thou shalt not murder - unless God says so. Then it is perfectly fine. Genocide is a major no-no, unless God performs it, or orders it. Sexual slavery is horrible - unless God personally orders it. You should be aware that your so-called “revelation” is a two-edged sword, it can cut both ways. Of course the usual non-argument is: “you take the verses out of context”, or “you are not qualified” to interpret the bible. Sorry, that simply will not fly.

These are the bare skeletal structures of our arguments. If you read over them I think it’s pretty indisputable that: (and here’s the crux of the disconnect between us) Both our claims depend the truth of our respective moral systems. If nothing else, take that sentence seriously.

I certainly did. You are definitely a very smart guy.

Since, as you say, we’re playing in the secular ballpark, you would say that a group of ancient theologians have no more authority to establish a moral system than you do. “It is all self-authentication.”
But you also say that there is no objective morality–morality is just whatever we make it.

No, my friend, I never said that. On the contrary, I say that there is an “objective” morality, it is just not “absolute”. Do you see the difference? The secular concept of morality is quite simple: “the written and unwritten rules of socially acceptable behavior in a specific society at a specific time”. It is independent of what you or I might consider “acceptable” behavior. But it does not propagate from society to another society, and does not propagate from one timeframe to another. Some of the “moral code” is written down in the legal system, and enforced. Others are not, but if someone breaks them it carries a “social stigma”, or getting ostracized. Or they are simply considered rude or childish behavior. There are many “levels”.

Example: during the biblical times it was perfectly acceptable to keep slaves (or indentured servants). it was perfectly acceptable to sell the children of those slaves. It was perfectly acceptable to beat the slaves to pulp, as long as they did not die. These practices are all endorsed by your “revealed” text, the bible.

Before anyone hops in and expresses the tired, old nonsense: “so in the Nazi Germany was it moral to send Jews to the gas chambers?” - I will preempt this nonsense. No, it was not moral, because only a very small percentage of the Germans accepted this practice, the rest were too intimidated to protest. On the other hand, in the ancient Aztec society it was perfectly moral to perform human sacrifices, even the sacrificed ones considered it to be a great honor to be chosen.

Today such practices are considered “immoral”. This **proves **that morality changes overtime. What you consider “moral” is not objective - it is what God happens to “command” (well, supposedly commanded); and not “absolute” - God is exempt from the moral rules. By the way, one does not need to bring up any moral code to show that “eternal torture” as a punishment for “finite deeds” cannot be justified. Justice demands to treat everyone according to what his deeds “merit” and a finite deed cannot be “balanced” by an infinite punishment.

I have to observe that you concentrated on a small portion of what I wrote. Which is perfectly fine, of course. I hope you had time to read the rest, even if you did not reflect on it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There is a problem with your “logic” then. Of course your “aversion” is emotionally based. The deist God is logically consistent. As a matter of fact, the deist type of creator or “first cause” does not even have to be “alive”. It might be an inanimate force of nature.

No, that would be Pantheism, not Deism.

Get a Dictionary of Philosophy.

There is a great one titled *Dictionary of the History of Ideas *put out by Scribners.

See here at Amazon.

amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1/181-9449360-1643256?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Dictionary+of+the+history+of+ideas

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Lots of possible reasons. Curiosity, for example. Desire to learn. Or fun, to see the struggles of the created ones. Or it could be a naughty “star-child” who likes to play and create all sorts of things. Or it could be an unintentional by-product of a totally different project. Or it could be the trash of a failed experiment. These just from the top of my head.

Yeah, your head is just full of sugar plums dancing around in it this time of year, right?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Before anyone hops in and expresses the tired, old nonsense: “so in the Nazi Germany was it moral to send Jews to the gas chambers?” - I will preempt this nonsense. No, it was not moral, because only a very small percentage of the Germans accepted this practice, the rest were too intimidated to protest.

Hee_Zen this is hardly a substantial preemptive defense on your part, since it leaves you entirely vulnerable to the question of whether sending Jews to the gas chamber would be good and proper IF a large percentage of Germans accepted the practice. What if the rest were not “too intimidated to protest?” What then? By your own definition sending Jewish people to the gas chambers WOULD then have been entirely moral.

On the other hand, in the ancient Aztec society it was perfectly moral to perform human sacrifices, even the sacrificed ones considered it to be a great honor to be chosen.

Here you slip in a rather odd claim. Human sacrifice would be “perfectly moral” BECAUSE the sacrificed ones saw it as a great honour? Aside from the fact that many of the sacrificed ones were captives by conquest and not Aztec but from nearby tribes, it is not clear to me that murdering someone becomes licit if the victim were somehow convinced that their death would be an honorable one and they held in esteem by their friends. Brainwashing would then become a proper strategy for doing away with social misfits or those who pose any kind of burden on their peers.

Even if we accept your hidden assumption that human sacrifice was widespread and viewed as honorable in some sense by the culture, it does not mean the victim him/herself at the moment of sacrifice shared the belief of the culture. Your claim amounts to an in principle one that states the group of people with whom you live have some kind of moral right, merely by crowd sourcing to determine what is right for everyone within the group. Tyranny of the majority, then, since if by hook or by crook you are able to convince the mob that constitutes the majority in your society that some action is morally right, it, ipso facto, becomes morally right. No resort to actual moral thinking or sound ethical principles need occur, just getting the majority in your society to buy in is sufficient for any principle to become a moral one according to you.

Today such practices are considered “immoral”. This **proves **that morality changes overtime. What you consider “moral” is not objective - it is what God happens to “command” (well, supposedly commanded); and not “absolute” - God is exempt from the moral rules. By the way, one does not need to bring up any moral code to show that “eternal torture” as a punishment for “finite deeds” cannot be justified. Justice demands to treat everyone according to what his deeds “merit” and a finite deed cannot be “balanced” by an infinite punishment.

This proves nothing unless your underlying principle that morality is merely what the society around you believes happens to be true. We have NO REASON to think that it is true, therefore, we have no reason to think morality is changing.

It may be true that some of what people view to be sound moral thinking or behavior changes from culture to culture, from time to time but that only shows thinking ABOUT morality may change, but if morality itself changes we would have no perspective from which to judge moral thinking at all.

There would be no better or worse, but, rather, mere factual statements - this is what the Aztecs thought, this is what we think. No further claim or judgement that the Aztecs or Nazis had aspects of their beliefs that were determinably morally wrong could be made.

The claim that we could judge our own behaviour and that of the society around us as morally “wrong” in any sense would never even come up. Matters of fact would rule the day and no evaluative claims such as those would make their appearance on anyone’s mental landscape.

 

[Hee_Zen]

This proves nothing unless your underlying principle that morality is merely what the society around you believes happens to be true.

That is exactly what it is: “the written and unwritten rules of socially acceptable behavior in a specific society at a specific time”.

We have NO REASON to think that it is true, therefore, we have no reason to think morality is changing.

In the ancient times it was perfectly acceptable to practice cannibalism. In the unfortunate accident in the Andes, when a plane crashed, and the survivors had to resort to cannibalism, no one condemned them. A hundred years ago cohabitation was “frowned” upon, today no one cares. In the Amazonian jungle people walked around naked, and it was just fine. Today in New York it would be unacceptable. Publicly performed sex is not acceptable today, it was normal a few hundred years ago - in certain societies. Funny that you avoided to reflect upon the **biblically endorsed **slavery (indentured servants). Actually, not “funny” at all, you just exhibited the “pick and choose” attitude of the hypocrites.

Tyranny of the majority, then, since if by hook or by crook you are able to convince the mob that constitutes the majority in your society that some action is morally right, it, ipso facto, becomes morally right.

That is ***exactly ***what democracy is. The proper definition: “We talk about democracy when two wolves and one sheep vote to decide what will be for dinner tonight”.

My personal concept of morality rests firmly on principle of the (inverted) golden rule - namely “do not do something to others what you do not want them do to you”. Or live and let live.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

That is exactly what it is: “the written and unwritten rules of socially acceptable behavior in a specific society at a specific time”.

In the ancient times it was perfectly acceptable to practice cannibalism. In the unfortunate accident in the Andes, when a plane crashed, and the survivors had to resort to cannibalism, no one condemned them. A hundred years ago cohabitation was “frowned” upon, today no one cares. In the Amazonian jungle people walked around naked, and it was just fine. Today in New York it would be unacceptable. Publicly performed sex is not acceptable today, it was normal a few hundred years ago - in certain societies. Funny that you avoided to reflect upon the **biblically endorsed **slavery (indentured servants). Actually, not “funny” at all, you just exhibited the “pick and choose” attitude of the hypocrites.

That is ***exactly ***what democracy is. The proper definition: “We talk about democracy when two wolves and one sheep vote to decide what will be for dinner tonight”.

My personal concept of morality rests firmly on principle of the (inverted) golden rule - namely “do not do something to others what you do not want them do to you”. Or live and let live.

I see you side-stepped his question about Nazi Germany though. If the majority of the population thought it was morally right to kill all Jews, would it be morally right?

By the way have you ever heard of doing kind things for people for no ulterior motive? This is what Jesus taught us. Be good to your neighbor, love your neighbor as yourself, and love God most of all. Because God is all good: everything humans should aspire to emulate.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Hee Zen,

as usual you are in the game of avoiding the hardest questions posed to you. Just because you answer posts doesn’t mean we wouldn’t notice that. You left, for example, this unanswered:

Hee_Zen this is hardly a substantial preemptive defense on your part, since it leaves you entirely vulnerable to the question of whether sending Jews to the gas chamber would be good and proper IF a large percentage of Germans accepted the practice. What if the rest were not “too intimidated to protest?” What then? By your own definition sending Jewish people to the gas chambers WOULD then have been entirely moral.

So, what is it, Hee Zen?

 

[Al_Moritz]

Oh, I see I was beaten to it by another attentive poster.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Oh, I see I was beaten to it by another attentive poster.

He has a habit of avoiding things that he can’t glibly answer.

 

[Al_Moritz]

He has a habit of avoiding things that he can’t glibly answer.

Indeed.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Funny that you avoided to reflect upon the **biblically endorsed **slavery (indentured servants). Actually, not “funny” at all, you just exhibited the “pick and choose” attitude of the hypocrites.

By your standard, you have no warrant for calling my attitude hypocritical because you claim indentured servitude was merely what the majority practiced back then. I, however, have warrant to be critical of the practice based on absolute moral principles and can rightly question why it would have been permitted on other grounds, but you simply have nothing to say on the matter. Why bring it up?

That is ***exactly ***what democracy is. The proper definition: “We talk about democracy when two wolves and one sheep vote to decide what will be for dinner tonight”.

That may be your definition of democracy, but that definition certainly doesn’t contain within itself a justification for why democracy ought to be promoted as an optimal or even functional mode of governance - unless, of course, mob rule or might makes right are your standard for good government.

The above, by the way, ought to be taken as a reductio ad absurdum. The fact that you don’t see it as absurd, however, makes me wonder about your ability to measure significance or meaning as opposed to merely taking in facts at “face” value – whatever that entails.

My personal concept of morality rests firmly on principle of the (inverted) golden rule - namely “do not do something to others what you do not want them do to you”. Or live and let live.

The inverted golden rule does not imply “live and let live” by any stretch of the imagination and it certainly does not lead to your “mob rule” version of democracy.

Do not do to others as you would plausibly believe others to be able do to you would be more in line with your "might of the majority makes right.” In this case, you are shielded from what others might do to you by the majority standing behind you.

However, a powerful tyrant need not be consumed by what others could do to him (her?) because he has no expectations that what others could do to him would be worth any of his time or consideration. Ergo, s/he need not be concerned with speculating about what they might “want” to do because they are incapable of doing anything at all. The tyrant has circumvented your inverted golden rule and since you have no other principle upon which to obligate the tyrant, his might overpowers and nullifies the rights of everyone else who have no power to want anything.

As the tyrant rules, it is his word that becomes the social norm and what everyone does, regardless of what they want. They may even “want” to please him. In fact if the majority do, then according to your principle, his determinations are the morally “right” ones.

See the absurd implications of your view, now?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

You forget that “Satan” works with God’s permission. A simple analogy: a human person has a rabid dog. Instead of killing it, he lets the dog loose, and then tries to wash his hands and deny responsibility for the acts of the dog - which he has allowed to roam free.

I think this is a poor analogy. Satan has free will and he is very intelligent. (The rabid dog doesn’t even know what it’s doing). Satan freely chose to rebel against God and spends all his energy gathering weak souls to become like him and turn them away from God, and be in Hell. He uses temptations and trials to accomplish this.

If you stand fast to God in the midst of all of his ruses, as Peter Plato said, he can do no damage to your soul. Like Satan, humans have free will. They can chose Satan or God, (or waffle around in the middle, willy-nilly, using personal relativism to try to navigate through this world of good and evil).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think this is a poor analogy. Satan has free will and he is very intelligent.

Perhaps more crafty than intelligent?

That’s why we have to be intelligent ourselves, to figure out how crafty he is.

As in *The Screwtape Letters *by C.S. Lewis and *The Snakebite Letters *by Peter Kreeft.