Sunday, January 15, 2012
The Nature of Morality
For many the word "morality" has an intimidating ring to it. It conjures up the image of a frowning Deity. It implies a compete loss of human freedom. It suggests a "holier than thou" attitude. These are some of the stereotypes common in our culture today. But are they accurate?
The problem with the stereotypes is that they presuppose a cold, uncaring God – a God Who imposes demands but has no heart of compassion. And yet nothing could be farther from the truth. It is a complete misreading of the character of God. "God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him" (I John 4:16; NKJV).
This is why the examples of religious perfidy brought forward by Christopher Hitchens and other New Atheists are largely irrelevant. The Bible does not say that there is not evil in the world. It does not even say that there are not hypocrites in the church who bring reproach on the gospel through their ungodly behavior. What the Bible says is that it is impossible to know God Himself truly and genuinely without loving others. "He who does not love does not know God, for God is love" (v. 8). If love is an essential part of God's character, then if we have been born of God that same character will be reflected in us. And if we truly know Him, then we will conform our character to His. To know Him is to become like Him. This, then, is the first element in morality. It is not a natter of becoming a self-righteous, hyper-critical, spiritual snob. It is a matter of reflecting God's own compassionate and caring nature.
One of the best summary statements of morality in the Bible is found in the book of Micah. The prophet Micah wrote from about 740 to 690 B.C. during the period when the northern Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) was conquered by the Assyrian Empire. It was a time when both the northern and southern kingdoms (Israel and Judah) were marked by corruption, injustice, and economic oppression. In this context Micah asked a pointed question: "Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,/ Ten thousand rivers of oil?/ Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression,/ The fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" (Mic. 6:7). In other words, was God impressed with a multitude of sacrifices, with religious ceremony and ritual, in the face of oppression and injustice? The answer is a resounding "no"! "He has shown you, O man, what is good;/ And what does the Lord require of you/ But to do justly,/ To love mercy,/ And to walk humbly with your God?" (v. 8). "To do justly," in this context, means giving each person his due according to God's law. But merely giving people what they deserve is not enough. We are also "to love mercy." The Hebrew word translated "mercy" (chesed) means caring enough for our fellow human beings that we show them favor, especially when they are in need. And what should drive our relationships with others is our relationship with God Himself. We need to submit humbly to His authority and live in accordance with His will. That is the essence of morality.
Is morality, therefore, harsh and inhumane? Not at all. It is God's plan for us, and His plan is always best. Morality is what enables us to reach our full human potential. We can never find true happiness until we are in conformity with our Creator's will, and are functioning the way He intended us to. He is wise, and His purposes are good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For many the word "morality" has an intimidating ring to it.
ReplyDeleteWho?
Give a few actual examples.
Back it up with quotes.
This sound suspiciously like you are creating a strawman just to knock it down.
The "Straw Man" Fallacy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5vzCmURh7o
It conjures up the image of a frowning Deity.
Who are you talking about?
Give some examples.
Back up your examples with evidence.
It implies a compete loss of human freedom.
Ditto.
It suggests a "holier than thou" attitude.
Ditto.
The problem with the stereotypes is that they presuppose a cold, uncaring God – a God...
Oh, you were talking about your [Brand Name] all along? How convenient.
This is why the examples of religious perfidy brought forward by Christopher Hitchens and other New Atheists are largely irrelevant.
And down falls the strawman.
The Bible does not say that there is not evil in the world.
Nobody actually said that, right?
You just made that up.
Hmm.
"He who does not love does not know God, for God is love" (v. 8). If love is an essential part of etc, etc, etc...
Hmm, yes. Very deep. Let's modify that a teeny-tiny bit.
"He who does not love does not know Huitzilopochtli, for Huitzilopochtli is love" (Prayer tablet. 8). If love is an essential part of Huitzilopochtli's character, then if we have been born of Huitzilopochtli that same character will be reflected in us. And if we truly know Him, then we will conform our character to His. To know Him is to become like Him. This, then, is the first element in morality. It is not a natter of becoming a self-righteous, hyper-critical, spiritual snob. It is a matter of reflecting Huitzilopochtli's own compassionate and caring nature."
One of the best summary statements of morality in the Star Wars Franchise is found in the Clone Wars movie. The Jedi Master Yoda wrote from about Stardate 44740 to Stardate 44690 during the period when the Forces of the Old Republic was conquered by the Emperor Palpatine. It was a time when all the Galaxy Far, Far Away were marked by corruption, injustice, and economic oppression. In this context Yoda asked a pointed question: "Will the Force be pleased with thousands of rams,/ Ten thousand rivers of oil?/ Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression,/ The fruit of my body for the Dark Side of my soul?" (Yod. 6:7). In other words, was the Force impressed with a multitude of sacrifices, with religious ceremony and ritual, in the face of oppression and injustice? The answer is a resounding "no"! "It has shown you, O man, what is good;/ And what does the Force require of you/ But to do justly,/ To love mercy,/ And to walk humbly with the Force?" (Yod. 8). "To do justly," in this context, means giving each person his due according to the Force's law. But merely giving people what they deserve is not enough. We are also "to love mercy." The Wookie word translated "mercy" (ARRRGawar) means caring enough for our fellow sentient beings that we show them favor, especially when they are in need. And what should drive our relationships with others is our relationship with the Force. We need to submit humbly to the Force and live in accordance with the Force. That is the essence of morality."
Or we could go with something more Biblical:
" It is Baal's plan for us, and His plan is always best. Morality is what enables us to reach our full human potential. We can never find true happiness until we are in conformity with our Creator's will, and are functioning the way He intended us to. He is wise, and His purposes are good."
Well Cedric, when you take your foot out of your mouth you might reflect on the fact that your argument proves my point, not yours. Huitzilopochtli is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the equivalent of the God of the Bible. He was a polytheistic deity, the god of war, noted for his cruelty. His worship required human sacrifice. It is, in fact, a classic example of how pagan religion degrades people and dehumanizes them. Conversely, John's whole point is that communion with the true and living God has the exact opposite effect - it instills within them a love for others. Which is why Christianity commends itself to the human conscience and paganism does not. My whole point, precisely!
ReplyDeleteHuitzilopochtli is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the equivalent of the God of the Bible.
ReplyDeleteNo, you don't get it.
It's amazing that after all the examples I've given you with switching the labels around, you just don't get it.
Focus:
Your [Insert Brand] is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the equivalent of Huitzilopochtli.
Now pause for a moment. Re-read what I just wrote. Ask yourself why I wrote it.
NO!
Think about it.
Look at it again. Compare it to the following.
"Nor for that matter, Yoda is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the equivalent of Baal. Nor is Set, by any stretch of the imagination, the equivalent of Santa."
Did you notice anything?
He was a polytheistic deity...
(Oh, for pity's sake. So what?)
He was a monotheistic deity...
(shrug)
...the god of war...
There's this thing called the Old Testament.
...noted for his cruelty...
Yeah, there's this thing called the Old Testament.
His worship required human sacrifice.
Old Testament. Hello? Read the bit on human sacrifice.
Conversely, John's whole point...
Who?
"He who does not love does not know Zeus, for Zeus is love" (Prayer tablet. 8). If love is an essential part of Zeus's character, then if we have been born of Zeus that same character will be reflected in us. And if we truly know Him, then we will conform our character to His. To know Him is to become like Him. This, then, is the first element in morality. It is not a natter of becoming a self-righteous, hyper-critical, spiritual snob. It is a matter of reflecting Zeus's own compassionate and caring nature."
(shrug)
"It's amazing that after all the examples I've given you with switching the labels around, you just don't get it."
ReplyDeleteI'm amazed you still think you're making a point. Who wants to learn from someone who mocks them, misrepresents their reasoning, never engages with the actual subject, and unwittingly makes the author's point for them?
--Daniel
Bob,
ReplyDeleteI can't comment using my wordpress ID for some reason.
"Is morality, therefore, harsh and inhumane?"
ReplyDeleteSome people are only concerned with horizontal moral relationships (other humans), whereas others are also concerned with vertical moral relationships (with God). Without the vertical to temper the horizontal, moral misconceptions will arise and accusations of harshness and restriction toward the vertical will arise.
But, according to Christianity, you can have the best horizontal relationships in the history of mankind, but if you do not have a vertical relationship, all your actions are vain.
--Daniel
I'm amazed you still think you're making a point.
ReplyDeleteWell, it's evidently stymied you completely. All you have is hand-waving and censorship. That's the limit of your reasoning skills.
Who wants to learn from someone who mocks them...
I'm not mocking you. I'm taking your assertions and switching around the labels. If the result comes across as a mockery by doing only that tiny thing then that says volumes about your assertions.
...misrepresents their reasoning, never engages with the actual subject, and unwittingly makes the author's point for them?
Imagine how much more powerful your statements would be if they were accurate and you could back them up with examples.
No, hapless hand-waving will get you nowhere.
I have been very honest in my representation of your reasoning and the actual subject at hand.
I carefully preserved your reasoning intact and only changed around the labels.
Nothing else is changed.
That's the whole point.
If you say that [Brand Name] is your big, cuddly softy warm spot then you should be able to defend such an unusual position with greater vigour then just throwing a hissy fit and censoring comments.
Baal is your big, cuddly softy warm spot.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is your big, cuddly, warm, spot.
Zombie Elvis is your big, cuddly softy warm spot.
If your [Brand Name] was different from a false god or an imaginary character then it should be really easy to demonstrate.
It's a freebie.
Instead, you retreat into sophistry, pseudo-algebra babble and double down on the assertions.
It's woeful.
Let's open the goodie bag:
Some people are only concerned with horizontal moral relationships (other humans), whereas others are also concerned with vertical moral relationships (with God). Without the vertical to temper the horizontal, moral misconceptions will arise and accusations of harshness and restriction toward the vertical will arise.
But, according to Christianity, you can have the best horizontal relationships in the history of mankind, but if you do not have a vertical relationship, all your actions are vain.
Fish in a barrel.
"Some people are only concerned with horizontal moral relationships (other humans), whereas others are also concerned with vertical moral relationships (with Santa). Without the vertical to temper the horizontal, moral misconceptions will arise and accusations of harshness and restriction toward the vertical will arise.
But, according to Santaism, you can have the best horizontal relationships in the history of mankind, but if you do not have a vertical relationship, all your actions are vain."
"We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." – Richard Dawkins.
Cedric,
ReplyDeleteChristians do not become Christians because they arbitrarily pick a deity. They do so because they have a personal experience that leads them to the truths "there is a God", and "I am guilty before God", and so forth. Personal experience also accounts for such truths as, "God forgives my sin", "Christ has reconciled me to God", and so on.
Christians do not have personal experiences that lead them to belief in the FSM, zombie Elvis, or anything else.
But, people do not come to believe in God and his reconciliation on the basis of arguments alone. Arguments provide additional warrant for belief in God, but are not the real reason for why Christians are warranted in that belief. Personal experience (and all that's included in it) is the reason for belief.
You have not had any of these experiences and therefore cannot see why a certain deity is accepted over others like the FSM. Or maybe you have had an experience that might lead you to know that "I am guilty before God", and have since rejected that experience. Who am I to know what you have and have not experienced.
Your substitutions only deal with the additional warrant for belief and do not deal with the primary way people come to believe in God. But, since you don't really deal with the content of the arguments, you do not even understand the additional warrant for belief either. I advise you to stop playing games and drink the full potency of these arguments. More is at stake here than your mocking gives warrant for.
--Daniel
Christians do not become Christians because they arbitrarily pick a deity.
ReplyDeleteStrawman.
I am taking your claims about your magic, invisible friend and switching the labels around.
I know that your [Brand] is not "arbitrarily selected".
You don't seem to be able to get the point at all.
Focus.
Christians do not become Christians because they arbitrarily pick a deity. They do so because they have a personal experience that leads them to the truths "there is a God", and "I am guilty before God", and so forth. Personal experience also accounts for such truths as, "God forgives my sin", "Christ has reconciled me to God", and so on.
It doesn't work.
It's a terrible line of reasoning.
Any cult or religion can make the same claim.
Hindus, Mormons, Muslims, Mithraists, Anamists, etc.
No. 86: PROOF BY ANECDOTE
(1) God can be seen by those who believe in Him.
(2) If the God is seen, then He must exist.
(3) I have seen God.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
No.111: ARGUMENT FROM ANECDOTAL EXPERIENCE (II)
(1) I have experienced feelings of God's presence in my mind.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
Behold:
"Muslims do not become Muslims because they arbitrarily pick a deity. They do so because they have a personal experience that leads them to the truths "there is an Allah", and "I am guilty before Allah", and so forth. Personal experience also accounts for such truths as, "Allah forgives my sin", "The Prophet has reconciled me to Allah", and so on."
Who am I to know what you have and have not experienced.
Well ,yes.
Exactly.
Think about it!
Not much point really in going on about your personal experiences.
They are personal.
As in only inside your own head.
Not really much use as proof of anything.
Who am I to know what you have and have not experienced?
Personal experience (and all that's included in it) is the reason for belief.
Yeah but who am I to know what you have and have not experienced?
You have not had any of these experiences...
Well, you have not established that you have had any of these "experiences".
You claim that you have but there's no way to know.
Nor indeed could anybody claim that their experience was the same as someone else's experience since there's no way to verify any of it.
You could just be telling magic stories.
That would apply to any religion out there. It works equally well.
Your substitutions only deal with the additional warrant for belief and do not deal with the primary way people come to believe in God.
Maybe another example will help?
"Your substitutions only deal with the additional warrant for belief and do not deal with the primary way people come to believe in the teachings of Joseph Smith."
"Your substitutions only deal with the additional warrant for belief and do not deal with the primary way people come to believe in Krishna".
"Your substitutions only deal with the additional warrant for belief and do not deal with the primary way people come to believe in Santa."
Richard Dawkins: If Science Worked Like Religion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYigmGyN2RQ
Cedric,
ReplyDeleteMy personal experience does not just give me subjective assurance of Christianity's truth, but also objective knowledge of that truth. Man has a natural capacity to apprehend God's existence under the appropriate circumstances, just like truths of perception like "I see a tree" are appropriate under certain circumstances. The Christian specifically knows Christianity to be true through the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit. Using man's natural capacity to apprehend God in the right circumstances, the Holy Spirit will lead a person to certain truths like "Christ lives in me". The Holy Spirit's witness is unmistakable and not able to be confused with the FSM, or Islam.
The Muslim may also claim to have an experience of the Holy Spirit which he might call a "burning in the bosom" which would authenticate to him the truth of his religion, and it would seem equal with the Christian's claims.
But, the false claims of a non-Christian religion do nothing logically to undermine the genuine witness of the Holy Spirit that the Christian believer possesses. Just because something is truthful does not mean there aren't false claims out there. Why should I give up my salvation just because someone else falsely pretends to have the witness of the Holy Spirit, sincerely or insincerely? Remember what goes into the personal experience of God. A self-authenticating witness is involved that constitutes objective knowledge. This is not just the product of human cognitive faculties as you, Cedric, seem to suggest when you say it's all in my head. To assume so is unjustifiable. Therefore, when a Muslim is experiencing a "burning in the bosom", he is having an experience that is entirely distinguishable from my own. To assume the experiences are equal means that they are equally false, (competing claims cannot both be true. I refer you to the law of non-contradiction), and that assumption is also unjustifiable.
Rational argument is not needed for faith in the Christian God. In fact, what I have said here does not even function as a premise in a deductive argument. This is the immediate experience of God himself. And, this experience implies certain truths that exclude other truths.
This is why your substitutions hold no sway over Christians, not over Bob and not over me. You are bumping up against the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit, and a natural apprehension of God under appropriate circumstances; all of which constitute my personal experience. You cannot compete with it.
My personal experience does not just give me subjective assurance of Christianity's truth, but also objective knowledge of that truth.
ReplyDeleteHowever, who am I to know what you have and have not experienced?
They are as useful in a discussion as dreams.
(shrug)
Man has a natural capacity to apprehend God's existence under the appropriate circumstances...
Alien abductees can say the same thing.
So can shamans and and cultists of all shapes and sides.
And hippies having a very good time.
Behold:
"Man has a natural capacity to apprehend the Earth spirit's existence under the appropriate circumstances."
"Man has a natural capacity to apprehend Baal's existence under the appropriate circumstances"
The Christian specifically knows...
You just don't get this whole switching labels thing.
Let me help you out with that.
(I'm going to go with Islam this time but it could just as easily be Scientology or Voodoo or something else.)
"The Muslim knows Islam to be true through the self-authenticating witness of Allah and the prophet Mohammed. Using man's natural capacity to apprehend Allah in the right circumstances, Allah will lead a person to certain truths like "Allah lives in me". Allah is unmistakable and not able to be confused with the FSM, or Christianity.
The Christian may also claim to have an experience of the Holy Spirit which he might call a "moonbeam in his heart" which would authenticate to him the truth of his religion, and it would seem equal with Islam's claims.
But, the false claims of a non-Islam religion do nothing logically to undermine the genuine witness of Allah and his prophet Mohammed that the Muslim believer possesses. Just because something is truthful does not mean there aren't false claims out there. Why should I give up my salvation just because someone else falsely pretends to have the witness of the Holy Spirit, sincerely or insincerely? Remember what goes into the personal experience of Allah. A self-authenticating witness is involved that constitutes objective knowledge. This is not just the product of human cognitive faculties as you, Cedric, seem to suggest when you say it's all in my head. To assume so is unjustifiable. Therefore, when a Christian is experiencing a "moonbeam in his heart", he is having an experience that is entirely distinguishable from my own. To assume the experiences are equal means that they are equally false, (competing claims cannot both be true. I refer you to the law of non-contradiction), and that assumption is also unjustifiable.
Rational argument is not needed for faith in Allah. In fact, what I have said here does not even function as a premise in a deductive argument. This is the immediate experience of Allah himself. And, this experience implies certain truths that exclude other truths.
This is why your substitutions hold no sway over Muslims, not over Khomeni and not over me. You are bumping up against the self-authenticating witness Allah, and a natural apprehension of Allah under appropriate circumstances; all of which constitute my personal experience. You cannot compete with it."
Sheer gobbledy-gook.
All you are doing is piling on one assertion on top of another assertion on top of another assertion and so on.
It may work to convince yourself but to an outsider it's just silly.
Personal experience is...personal.
It's of no use to anyone else.
You have no means of distinguishing true claims from false ones.
You are not engaging in a rational argument.
Would you accept your own logic from the mouth of a Muslim?
Really?
I would hope not.
Personal Proof from God P1 | Atheist Experience
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjssr5aBivo&feature=related
"They are as useful in a discussion as dreams."
ReplyDeleteAgain, why should I give up my salvation just because someone else hasn't had the same experience and arbitrarily assume it is false? You've done nothing to logically undermine my experience. You are begging the question.
"Alien abductees can say the same thing.
So can shamans and and cultists of all shapes and sides.
And hippies having a very good time."
Again, why should I give up my salvation just because someone else falsely pretends to have a similar experience, sincerely or insincerely? The false claims of a non-Christian religion (or hippies or alien abductees) do nothing logically to undermine the genuine witness of the Holy Spirit that the Christian believer possesses.
"It may work to convince yourself but to an outsider it's just silly."
Again, I'm not convincing myself. You are wither willfully misunderstanding the fact that Holy Spirit's witness is not from my own cognitive faculties, or you are unjustifiably assuming it --still begging the question.
"Personal experience is...personal."
Here is where the switch happens. If you say you are interested in evidence and then ignore it, you are a hypocrite. Billions of Christians have the same experience and atheists ignore it or arbitrarily call it illusory because that's the only way it works in their worldview.
"It's of no use to anyone else."
It's of use to you if you are at all interest in following the evidence.
Again, why should I give up my salvation just because someone else hasn't had the same experience and arbitrarily assume it is false?
ReplyDeleteWhy are you creating strawmen?
Nobody said that.
Look up the word arbitrary. There's nothing arbitrary in not accepting claims that have no evidence to back them up.
"That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" - Christopher Hitchens.
Your personal experience is...personal.
It's all inside you.
Only you got to experience your own personal experience.
Because your experience was personal.
As in, it wasn't public.
Sadly, no audio or video captured the event where a disembodied voice sounding suspiciously like Charlton Heston started solemnly intoning blessings upon you while you were bathed in a glowing light and levitating at least three centimetres from the floor or whatever.
Again, why should I give up my salvation just because someone else falsely pretends...
No, you are not getting this.
It's not about you giving up your salvation. It's about why they should they give up their salvation!
Walk a mile in the other guy's shoes.
You are again just making naked assertions and stacking one on top of the other.
It didn't help you before and it won't help you now.
How do you know if the other guy is falsely pretending?
If he uses your claims and touts his personal experience then, according to your own thinking, that's a home run.
You are wither willfully misunderstanding the fact that Holy Spirit's witness is not from my own cognitive faculties...
There is a basic problem here that you are not quite grasping.
Magic, invisible ghosts are not normally considered to be reliable witnesses.
Again, you are just piling assertions onto assertions.
Your claims are not credible. There's no evidence.
If you say you are interested in evidence and then ignore it, you are a hypocrite.
What evidence? Name it.
Billions of Christians have the same experience...
(...facepalm...)
No 19: ARGUMENT FROM NUMBERS
(1) Billions of people believe in God.
(2) They can't all be wrong, can they?
(3) Therefore, God exists.
Several problems here.
First, you don't know if there are any experiences at all.
Nothing's been verified.
Second, you don't know if they are the same.
Again, verification.
Third, even if you did personally somehow know to your own private satisfaction, that doesn't help anybody else. They can't get inside your head nor all those "billions".
Fourth, even if they were the same and they really did happen that does not poof magic, invisible sky men into existence.
You said it yourself "Who am I to know what you have and have not experienced?" It's a dead-end.
...atheists ignore it or arbitrarily call it illusory...
Strawman.
I'm not ignoring it any more than you are ignoring the personal experiences of Muslims nor am I calling it illusory.
I'm saying that such claims have not been verified.
It's of use to you if you are at all interest in following the evidence.
There is no evidence.
Your "personal experience" is as useful as evidence as the testimony from alien abductees. They all claim to see the same things too. They go into great detail about the probing and the mysterious lights. Yet it's never verified.
(shrug)
You have no means of distinguishing true claims from false ones.
You are not engaging in a rational argument.
Again, I ask you: Would you accept your own logic from the mouth of a Muslim? Would you accept your own logic from billions of Muslims?
Cedric, you have the patience of a saint!
ReplyDeleteBob, if John was so full of love, then he had a spot of trouble with Jews, n'est pas? After all, centuries of pogroms followed the Easter service for a reason, and that reason was John.
ReplyDeleteThat quibble aside, surely you can appreciate the difficulty attributing love to be god and failing to show any evidence for this extraordinary claim in the face of so much human suffering. If I have love for my child, and that child is in great suffering and I have the power to intervene, what kind of capricious monster sits back and does not do so? What kind of gullibility is required for many believers to be so utterly duped as to try to argue that non interference is the loving reaction. Good grief, but three-year-olds behave better than this.
That's just it. You would NOT get the same logic from a Muslim. And that is why Cedric's label swapping falls on its face. Islam does not have a divine-human Savior Who came into the world and offered His life as an atonement for human sin. And it does not have a Holy Spirit who regenerates people inwardly, imparting spiritual life to them. In Islam, you win acceptance with God through prescribed observances. In Christianity you win acceptance with God by frankly acknowledging your sin and placing your trust in a Savior. That is what makes Christianity (more specifically Christ Himself)uniquely suited to meet human need.
ReplyDeleteTildeb,our problem is that God is also just. We are rebellious sinners, and that creates a dilemma. Either God punishes our sin, or He passes over it and excuses it. The solution to the dilemma is to offer up His own Son as an atonement for our sin, thereby punishing sin and forgiving it at the same time. The forgiveness, however, is made conditional on our repentance and faith. God does not forgive those who simply go on sinning and refuse the offer.
ReplyDeleteNeither does he aid them, Bob. Your thinking here is broken. You assign a rebellious nature to human curiosity that dares question the authority you believe belongs to god when you assign to god the power to create humans this way. (We know this scenario is made up because we evolved and the evidence for this is overwhelming. Nevertheless...) God then kills himself after waiting for thousands of human generations to live and die without knowledge of him and THEN send along himself to sort of die to pay a barbaric blood sacrifice to somehow excuse the very nature he supposedly gave to us.
DeleteIt's bizarre theology, trying to apply in the wrong chronological order an alignment of an ancient creation myth with a supposedly historical event that thousands of years later tries to explain it in a very unsatisfactory way. It's turtles all the way down, unless this god is a capricious and malignant critter that delights in human suffering, in which case why worship such a twisted, immoral, and malicious agency who hides his sort-of presence only where our knowledge is weakest? Coincidence? I think not.
You wrote earlier that god is love, yet here you are assigning to him a conditional love based on our 'choosing' belief in his existence in the absence of any good evidence while insisting on our good behaviour (to avoid punishment... of all the ridiculous reasons we know is the worst one available even to human parents!) Yet you know conditional love is the cheapest kind, the one that is less than all other kinds. And yet this is the kind of love from an omnipotent critter? That's the best it can do? Good grief but you have such a small god... less moral and less ethically capable than human children! No wonder why there are so many 'commandments' insisting that we stick to this god... it cannot be left to its own devices to do a better job of earning the title of divine! (Note to Job... don;t let this inferior critter bully you: stick to your question until you get a satisfactory answer.)
Evil is not the result of "human curiosity." The thug and the rapist is not merely being curious. And God did not create us this way. We are fully culpable for our own actions, and therein lies the problem.
DeleteIs the theology of redemption "bizarre" and based on unsupported assertions? It is based on divine revelation. We can infer from nature that an all-powerful, intelligent Supreme Being exists (and the evidence for evolution is not "overwhelming"), and we can infer from our conscience that there is a difference between good and evil. But what we cannot infer from either is that God is gracious and would somehow redeem us. On this we are completely dependent on what He has told us, and if He has not told us, then we are without hope. Is it bizarre? I suppose in a sense that it is. in the sense of being completely unexpected. But it is also "wonderful" in the sense of exciting awe and wonder.
But why make it conditional? Here is the problem with liberal theology. Imagine that Hitler has just arrived at the pearly gates and is met by a liberal theologian. What would the liberal theologian say to him? "Welcome, bother Adolf"? What would God say to him?
And Allah did not create us this way. We are fully culpable for our own actions, and therein lies the problem.
DeleteSpot the problem.
It is based on divine revelation. We can infer from nature that an all-powerful, intelligent Supreme Being exists...
A claim that any religion or cult can make with ease.
A Muslim could say exactly the same thing in the blink of an eye. Word for word.
...(and the evidence for evolution is not "overwhelming")...
Not according to the people that make your antibiotics.
False dichotomy, remember?
Modern biology is not your friend.
But what we cannot infer from either is that Allah is gracious and would somehow redeem us. On this we are completely dependent on what He has told us, and if He has not told us, then we are without hope. Is it bizarre? I suppose in a sense that it is. in the sense of being completely unexpected. But it is also "wonderful" in the sense of exciting awe and wonder.
Spot the problem
But why make it conditional? Here is the problem with liberal theology.
No. Forget the navel gazing and platitudes.
Focus on the "magic, invisible friend living way up in the sky" part.
Imagine that Hitler has just arrived at the pearly gates...
Where?
Seriously, listen to yourself!
Where do you want us to imagine?
The pearly gates? Sheesh.
(...shakes head sadly...)
Why not Nirvana or Paradise or Sto'Vo'Kor while you are at it?
Assertions piled on assertions piled on assertions.
No matter how many you proclaim, they stubbornly remain only assertions.
You would NOT get the same logic from a Muslim.
ReplyDeleteWhy not?
Islam does not have a divine-human Savior...
That was not Daniel's argument.
The whole "personal experience" thing, remember?
(Ah, you didn't find it convincing either, eh? You'd rather quietly avoid it? Hmm)
But hey, let's roll with your idea and see where it gets us...
Islam does not have a divine-human Savior...
Well, to be fair, the Muslims do have Jesus in Islam. Abraham too.
Islam does not have a divine-human Savior...
Christianity does not have the prophet Mohammed.
What are we to make of that?
Further, pixies have a full set of wings whereas with elves, only the females have wings.
(shrug)
This whole switching of labels thing still eludes you.
I guess another example is in order:
"In Christianity you win acceptance with God by frankly acknowledging your sin and placing your trust in a Savior.In Islam, you win acceptance with God through prescribed observances. That is what makes Islam (more specifically the Grace of Allah Himself) uniquely suited to meet human needs."
See what I did there?
No matter how many assertions you pile up on yet more assertions, they don't ever get cashed in as reality.
They stubbornly remain just assertions.
Tildeb,our problem is that God is also just. We are rebellious sinners, and that...
Ah the gift that keeps on giving.
"Tildeb,our problem is that The Force is also just. We are rebellious in the Dark Side of the Force, and that creates a dilemma. Either the Force punishes our Dark Side, or it passes over it and excuses it. The solution to the dilemma is to offer up Luke Skywalker as an atonement for our Dark Side, thereby punishing the Dark Side and forgiving it at the same time. The forgiveness, however, is made conditional on our repentance and faith. The Force does not forgive those who simply go on turning to the Dark Side and refuse the offer."
Beautiful. So very beautiful.
Cedric, you have the patience of a saint!
(...I take a bow...)
As for the strength of Daniel's argument from personal experience I would refer interested readers to a piece I wrote entitled "Faith and Reason: the Basis for Knowledge" (archives, December, 2011). An appeal to personal experience has some merit. If something proved true for at least one person it may do the same for others also. What was the experience? What effect did it have? Why? It sounds an awful lot like the method of empirical science!
DeleteAs for the strength of Daniel's argument from personal experience I would refer interested readers to a piece I wrote entitled "Faith and Reason: the Basis for Knowledge" (archives, December, 2011). An appeal to personal experience has some merit. If something proved true for at least one person it may do the same for others also. What was the experience? What effect did it have? Why? It sounds an awful lot like the method of empirical science!
DeleteI think that the differences among religions eludes you. I once had a conversation with a Muslim who had set up a literature table outside of an auditorium where Franklin Graham was holding meetings. I told the Muslim that the problem with Islam is that it did not have a Savior. His reply was that we do not need a Savior. In Islam Abraham and Jesus are recognized as prophets, but a Muslim would decisively reject the idea of the Trinity and the idea that Jesus was the Son of God Who had both a divine and human nature. This is why the "switch the labels" routine does not work.
ReplyDeleteI would also encourage everyone to read the Koran. We in the West need to understand the cultural background of the Middle East, and yes, I agree completely with Tildeb on Questionable Motives that Democracy is the wrong call in that part of the world.
The cultural background is so blended with a tyrannical religion that there can be no democracy - just mob rule - until personal authority (and legal respect for that authority) replaces respect for divine authority (and its current role in determining legal authority). This is vital difference between Turkey and other Islamic countries: Ataturk's revolution imposed secularism to be the authority for government and law (although many good muslims are undermining the Republic as best they can to return it to an islamic tyranny).
DeleteThe point is that the reasoning in which the labels are applied is identical, and identically just assertions. Empty, meaningless assertions.
ReplyDeleteOf course Cedric understands the difference between Yoda and Faeries, between Islam and Christianity, but his point is that the labels don't define (or mitigate, or describe, or differentiate) the reasoning; the reasoning INFORMS the labels. And the reasoning is based - as he points out repeatedly - on assertions that have no demonstrable correlation with reality, with knowledge, with what we know.
For example, personal revelation about god as evidence for his existence as an interactive creative agency is worth a shrug because it is no different in quality than a dream, than an illusion, than a delusion. Unless and until the person relying on that revelation to be meaningful to another makes a correlation can be SHOWN to directly connect this revelation to reality, the revelation itself remains an assertion disconnected from reality... as disconnected as any other made up assertion. This is why switching the labels around DOES work to reveal this disconnected aspect between the terms and the reasoning.
The problem with Cedric's argument, as you state it, is that it begs the question. He assumes the point he is supposedly trying to prove, viz., that God does not exist.
DeleteBut Christianity is not made up of "empty, meaningless assertions." Christian theism is a coherent explanation of reality that fits the facts better than does naturalist materialism. It accounts for the appearance of rational order in nature, and it accounts for the moral intuitions we have as human beings. This is why numberless intelligent, well-educated people down through the centuries have found a rational basis for faith in Christ.
The evidence for the existence of God is both obvious and pervasive. It is literally as plain as the nose on your face (why is it symmetrical?) The structure, order, and sheer complexity of nature all point to an Intelligent Designer. Where there is a garden, there is a gardener.
Evolution, on the other hand, requires us to believe that order somehow spontaneously arose from chaos, that life somehow generated itself, and that intelligence arose from non-intelligence. Macro-evolution has never been directly observed, and has never been replicated in a laboratory. Whereas when we observe nature as it actually exists and functions, it does exactly what the Bible says it does: identifiable species reproduce "after their own kind" according to clearly defined laws of genetics. Evolution maintains that the laws of genetics, which we can observe and test, are constantly being overcome by a process that we cannot observe (Macroevolution). And this is what passes for "science" today!
Christianity is manifestly NOT based on "empty, meaningless assertions."
Bob, the irony is rich: you accuse of Cedric of begging the question even though he has gone to great lengths showing how the specific term of 'god' is disconnected from the assertions you make deduced on this assuming the god hypothesis is true. And you do it again: you attribute rational order in the universe to your version of god without specifically connecting rational order TO you god but not winged faeries. Unless and until you can connect rational order to your conclusion that god caused it (which means showing an understandable mechanism by which this effect is caused upon which to link them) you are simply making an idle speculation with zero credibility. It has zero credibility because you do not link cause with effect by some knowable mechanism, which is what you must have to show how you arrivved at the conclusion that your god and not winged faeries were responsible. This you have not done. This you - and all other people who share your assertion, seem unable to do, and the best explanation for this is that what you believe is true is not based on evidence from reality. It is based on your desire to believe it is so. That's it. That's the sum total of evidence you provide, piling assertion on assertion on assertion without ever making the connection TO reality. That's why you are accused of holding beliefs that are disconnected from reality. This accusation is grounded by very strong evidence, by your repeated inability to connect your assertions to evidence gathered from reality to show causal effect; instead, you simply make more and more assertions equally disconnected from the reality you presume to describe. That's not a problem with the person pointing out this fatal flaw but with the person who continues to insist that the assertions of causal effect are true because they are believed to be true.
DeleteOnce again, your ignorance about evolution is breathtaking to behold from someone who claims to be rational.
DeleteThis is not something to be proud of, Bob.
He assumes the point he is supposedly trying to prove, viz., that God does not exist.
DeleteNo I don't.
This is a strawman argument.
I never said this.
If you have to create a strawman rather that address what I wrote then that's effectively surrender on your part.
It's a sign of weakness.
Maybe pixies exist. Maybe not. Yet just because you assert that they do does not poof them into existence.
Maybe pixies are the moonbeam in your heart. Maybe not.
Yet there's no way to verify this. It's just you making assertions.
Pixies mentioned in a old book? That's...um great and all but no, it won't work. It's still just assertions. Only this time the assertions are from an old book. Same difference.
The book really exists? Um, wonderful. Oh, the book has a photo of the author? That's nice.
Yet pixies still don't poof into existence.
(Nor does the book cease to exist, by the way. Duh!)
Pixies have wings but male elves don't have wings?
Hmm.
No.
That isn't going to help at all.
Billions of people have had visions of pixies?
Okkaaay.
Sure.
Personal assertions of personal experiences of pixies.
(sigh)
Christian theism is a coherent explanation of reality that fits the facts better than does...
What happened to your magic, invisible friend?
How come we are now talking about religion?
I've already told you that we all know that there are different brands out there and that they hawk their wares differently. Big deal.
It's the magic invisible friend part that's the interesting bit.
This is why numberless intelligent, well-educated people down through the centuries have found a rational basis for faith in Christ.
By "numberless" you really mean billions don't you?
We've done that.
It was hugely unimpressive the first time.
No 19: ARGUMENT FROM NUMBERS
(1) Billions of people believe in God.
(2) They can't all be wrong, can they?
(3) Therefore, God exists.
The evidence for the existence of God is both obvious and pervasive. It is literally as plain as the nose on your face (why is it symmetrical?) The structure, order, and sheer complexity of nature all point to an Intelligent Designer. Where there is a garden, there is a gardener.
A Mormon could say the same thing. Word for word.
A Muslim could say the same thing. Word for word.
A Parsi could say the same thing. word for word.
It doesn't help you.
That's why I switch the labels around. Your assertions work just as well for any and all of the other religions. They are just assertions.
Your [Brand Name] does not suddenly appear as the sole, real contender.
Evolution, on the other hand,...
Evolution?
Wow.
Who was talking about evolution? How did that suddenly become the topic of conversation? Oh, that's right. Now I remember. It wasn't the topic of conversation at all.
(...shakes head sadly...)
No. Evolution is not on "the other hand".
You are not an octopus.
You only have two hands.
Evolution is not on "the other hand".
It is not a choice between your [Brand Name] and science.
You are not the only show in town.
You are presenting a false dichotomy. Shame on you.
Fallacy of ID and creationism-False Dichotomy [Reloaded]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9MdYU0S7CQ
An appeal to personal experience has some merit. If something proved true for at least one person it may do the same for others also.
ReplyDeleteOr it may not.
There's no way to verify it. Alien abductees? Other religions? Hello?
I think that the differences among religions eludes you.
No, there are indeed differences in religions. Big deal.
Again, you miss the point.
It's not the religion, it's the magical, invisible friend bit.
I once had a conversation with a Muslim who had set up a literature table outside of an auditorium where Franklin Graham was holding meetings. I told the Muslim that the problem with Islam is that it did not have a Savior. His reply was that we do not need a Savior.
So naturally you were convinced by the power of his argument and became a Muslim?
(...awkward silence...)
Oh.
In Islam Abraham and Jesus are recognized as prophets, but a Muslim would decisively reject the idea of the Trinity and the idea that Jesus was the Son of God Who had both a divine and human nature.
Ah, I see. So you explained this to him and, overpowered by the wisdom of your argument, he became a Christian?
(...awkward silence...)
Oh.
This is why the "switch the labels" routine does not work.
You have yet to demonstrate that it does not.
"My personal experience does not just give me subjective assurance of Islam's truth, but also objective knowledge of that truth."
"An appeal to personal experience has some merit. If something proved true for at least one person it may do the same for others also. What was the experience? What effect did it have? Why? It sounds an awful lot like the method of empirical science!"
So Islam is real and now you can become a Muslim.
Right?
I think that the differences among religions eludes you.
It doesn't help you in the slightest. The polytheism versus monotheism thing is irrelevant. Batman wears a cape but (...dramatic silence...) the Green Lantern does not!
Gosh.
It rests upon assumptions. Same goes for magic ghosts and their eye-witness potential.
You are not walking a mile in the other guy's shoes.
“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen F Roberts
By whatever name you may wish to call Him, there is only one (1) God with Whom you need to concern yourself, and that is the God Who made you.
DeleteBy whatever name you may wish to call Him...
DeleteWho?
Spot the assertion straight off the bat.
...there is only one (1) God...
Another assertion piled onto the first one.
...and that is the God Who made you...
And yet another assertion piled onto that one.
It doesn't work.
It's not a rational argument.
Perhaps another few example will help:
"By whatever name you may wish to call Him, there is only one (1) Baal with Whom you need to concern yourself, and that is the God Who made you."
"By whatever name you may wish to call Him, there is only one (1) Bast with Whom you need to concern yourself, and that is the God Who made you."
"By whatever name you may wish to call Him, there is only one (1) Bigfoot with Whom you need to concern yourself, and that is the God Who made you."
"By whatever name you may wish to call Him, there is only one (1) Santa with Whom you need to concern yourself, and that is the God Who made you."
No matter how many assertions you pile on to each other, at the end of the day they are still just assertions.
In order for morality to have a nature, it must be something. Morality is not a thing. It is a descriptive word to refer to some codes of conduct to help us form and enunciate ethical theories. In this sense, morality is relative to reflect social value.
ReplyDeleteWhenever someone tries to promote some 'objective' morality as if this code of conduct exists separately from people, you know the term is being abused. This code, to have any objective merit, must be explained by evidence in terms of how it comes from and is shared by ALL (typical) people. This is Sam Harris' sense of objective mortality based on conduct that affects the well-being of all people. On this scale, we can use and utilize all kinds of measurements on the basis of increasing or decreasing human well-being. The analogy is like elevation: we may compare and contrast higher and lower elevations without ever having to establish and define the ends of this spectrum, in the same way we can compare and contrast morality without ever having to establish and define absolute right and absolute wrong.
The gnu atheists who remind us how religious faith in the very best light is just as likely to decrease human well being as it is to improve it are not blowing smoke and the point is not irrelevant. (In fact, these many writers go to great lengths to explain using evidence available to all how and why religious faith is an engine that causes great suffering and reduces human well-being.) To assume it is irrelevant is to make a fundamental mistake of assuming the conclusion (God is, God is moral, God commands what is moral) and continuing to cause harm by promoting faith. To the thinking atheist, doing harm for the sake of doing pious harm is immoral and reveals the broken epistemology required for religious faith.
The Christians who remind us how atheism in the very best light is just as likely to decrease human well being as it is to improve it are not blowing smoke and the point is not irrelevant. (In fact, these many writers go to great lengths to explain using evidence available to all how and why atheism is an engine that causes great suffering and reduces human well-being.) To assume it is irrelevant is to make a fundamental mistake of assuming the conclusion (There is no God, morality is relative, the interests of the proletariat determine what is moral) and continuing to cause harm by suppressing faith. To the thinking Christian, doing harm for the sake of the revolution is immoral and reveals the broken epistemology for dialectical materialism.
ReplyDeleteThere. Except for the shaky grammar, the substitution actually works, because the revised statement, unfortunately, is literally true.
Christians have not successfully done this for the simple reason that it fails utterly to account for their own atheism towards all other beliefs they do not hold and show how this causes as much harm as benefit. Your substitution of terms doesn't work here, Bob.
ReplyDeleteAnd it is not an a priori position of atheists to assume the conclusion that there is no god, but a substantiated and well inform conclusion that those who believe there is have failed to prove their case for their specific god. This is a different conclusion that does not refute deism. Perhaps you can glean the difference.
Atheism does not 'suppress' faith, Bob. It is simply a position of non belief in the specific gods theists believe in. Your linking non belief to Marx's political theories are a straw man and any harm caused by totalitarian regimes dedicated to their substitution for your god are not attributable to non belief in your god. To succeed in your substitution on the basis of epistemology, you have to show why methodological naturalism is broken. The problem here is that it isn't. That's why the pushing of buttons on your keyboard transfer into visual symbols viewable elsewhere. This method does indeed work for everyone everywhere all the time. Your beliefs do not.
The term substitution here does not work because the reasoning remains linked directly to the original terms and not your substituted ones.
Christians have not successfully done this for the simple reason that it fails utterly to account for their own atheism towards all other beliefs...
ReplyDeleteYep.
And it is not an a priori position of atheists to assume the conclusion that there is no god...
Very true that.
Yet that particular strawman is built again and again and again and again.
It's so very predictable and dishonest.
Bob, let me tell you something.
Atheists don't assume that there are no fairies either.
(Yes, really.)
Maybe there are. Maybe there are not.
Yet you won't catch an atheist making donations to Cottingly.
Atheists don't assume that Baal doesn't exist either.
(Yes, really.)
Maybe he does. Maybe he does not.
Yet you won't catch atheists building temples or burning incense or rolling around on the floor foaming at the mouth in the name of Baal.
Ah, so when the shoe is on the other foot all of a sudden it doesn't fit! So much for label swapping!
ReplyDeleteAh, so when the shoe is on the other foot all of a sudden it doesn't fit!
ReplyDeleteThe shoe does not fit.
For example: Atheists don't assume the conclusion as you claim.
That's verifiable in the real word. It can be demonstrated.
Your label swapping breaks apart upon close inspection.
My label swapping does not.
The evidence for the existence of God is both obvious and pervasive. It is literally as plain as the nose on your face (why is it symmetrical?) The structure, order, and sheer complexity of nature all point to an Intelligent Designer. Where there is a garden, there is a gardener.
A Mormon could say the same thing. Word for word.
A Muslim could say the same thing. Word for word.
A Parsi could say the same thing. word for word.
Christian theism is a coherent explanation of reality that fits the facts better than does...
A Muslim could say the same thing about their religion too.
As could a Mormon or any other true believer.
Yet the invisible, magic friend does not poof into existence.
(shrug)
I think that the differences among religions eludes you.
No it doesn't. It really doesn't.
The differences between Yoda and Santa are known to us as well.