Subject:
|
Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 15 Nov 2001 19:13:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
818 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
>
> > Scientific principles simply exist, whether or not we understand them. So do
> > moral principles, I'd argue.
>
> Forgive me if this comes across as trolling, but my understanding would
> benefit from a few points of clarification. Do you propose that morality is
> self-evident?
I propose that human moral awareness is self-evident from the fact that all non-
intellectually or emotionally impaired humans for as long as we have record have
possessed an innate belief, sense, and faculty for moral calculus. So yes, my
assertion is that our possession of a moral compass (not, however, its correct
operation) is a natural response to a set of universal constants. I want to be
sure that I'm getting my language correct here, but, my answer would be that,
yes, the concept of Right Standards (morality, if you will) is inherently self-
evident within properly functioning humans. Please note that I've laid out my
argument in this forum a number of times for why I do not believe that there
has, or indeed, can exist "other" moral codes in different human societies. I'd
be glad to dig up these posts, if you'd like.
> I accept a priori your faith in God, but did God specifically
> create morality, or is it a natural function of existence?
God by no means has created morality. By no means does Absolute Ultimate
Goodness (whatever that may be) receive its definition by God. God could no
sooner make objectively evil good than he could create a square circle. God may
do all things that can be done, but he may not do the absurd. God *cannot*
arbitrarily make something either good or evil, because to call something good,
one must aknowledge that it is congruent with an arbitrating standard, and to
call something evil, one must do the same. To say that God simply assigns
labels of "good" or "bad" is to speak nonsense, because the very concepts of
good or bad imply a single authoritative standard which all actions must compare
to. If good and bad are equals, and there is no authoritative standard above
the two, then to call something "evil" means nothing because the act in question
has not failed to measure up to any standard. It simply "Is", and we must cease
to speak of any sort of justice or hope to ever remedies any ills (for
contentless acts can have no remedy, nor can they demand any.)
(snippage; sorry, it seems that I inadvertantly removed some of your quote
below)
> depends on the existence of sentient minds, then I think it is distinct from
> scientific principles on that basis alone; gravity would work whether or not
> sentient minds were around to perceive it. Interestingly, your comparison
> between moral and scientific principles seems largely in tune with Lewis'
> "Mere Christianity." I haven't read much else by him (other than Narnia when
> I was 10), but I've noticed your quotes by him on several occasions.
Yes, I've been much influenced by Saint Jack.
> Whether God created morality or not, is He subject to it? That is, if He
> is not subject to morality, I am unable to imagine how one can conclude that
> He is good, except by faith.
Oh, he absolutely is.
> Regardless, my earlier reply to your post was more hot-headed than was
> appropriate, and I apologize for it; I was gearing up for a standard
> bloody-knuckles theology debate, so my tone was poorly matched to that part
> of the discussion.
No apology necessary. In fact, I took no offense.
james
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
117 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
