Subject:
|
Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Nov 2001 14:51:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
860 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Simpson writes:
> > I'm not sure I understood your notion of the source of morality, except
> > that you state that God didn't create it, and that confuses me. Didn't He
> > create everything? And is He or isn't He subject to it? If He is, then
> > we're back to something greater than God. If He's not, then we're back to
> > how do we know He's good?
>
> Just jumping in for James, my guess is that he'd say that it's akin to
> mathematics. God can't suddenly make 1==2 or 3+9=234. Humans "invented"
> the basic rules mathematics, and the rest is true based on those rules, no
> matter what. To take away the basics would no longer be "math". And likewise he
> says that morality is an inherent function of conscious (and maybe lesser?)
> living beings. To change morality would be to make us not alive and/or not
> conscious. So while God (now I may very well be overstepping my estimation of
> James' point) may be able to change/create morality by shaping the basic rules
> of what we are (insofar as we are "alive" or not), He can't change morality but
> leave our consciousness untouched, because morality is based on it. Make sense?
>
> I won't try and answer for James on the "how do we know He's good" question,
> though I can think of a few paths for him to take on it...
>
> DaveE
Hmmm...I partly agree with you here. God indeed cannot make 1=2, because that
would be an absurdity. I wouldn't say that humans invented the rules of math,
insofar as 1+1 actually equals 2 across time and space. (Obviously, though, our
particular symbols for representing equations are our invention.) Actually, I
think that you and I are in agreement on this.
On your second point, I'd offer that moral awareness is a fundamental and
inherent part of sentience and consciousness (because an evolutionary leap up to
the sort of beings that are self-aware entails a greater awareness of and
interaction with the universe as it actually is.) Self aware and sentient
creatures cannot help but "know" the universe on a deeper level. They cannot
help but play ball on a moral field, because they are now (at least partly)
aware of the moral truths that are just as much a part of the fabric of reality,
however intangible, as is the mathematical equation 1+1=2.
I think that I agree with you, but I'm not sure if you and I have exactly met
common grounds on the finer nuances of the ideas that we're shooting around the
court.
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
|
|
|
|
