Does might make right?

Originally posted by LemonJello
I am not asking you to provide evidence for the claim that God exists. Supposing God does exist, I am asking you to provide argument for your claim that His perspective determines what is morally right or wrong. I want to know what is so special about God's perspective that it alone determines moral correctness. You've stated that one special thing abo ...[text shortened]... trary -- as do, I think, all views that choose this particular horn of the Euthyphro dilemma.

To begin with, God's morality revolves around free will.

1. God is said to be a God of love and is why free will is necessary. Free will is needed for a loving relationship. Both parites MUST have the option to love or not love the other.

2. God says that he requires faith. Faith is merely an extension of free will. Faith is merely agreeing with God in regards to what he has said thus enabling him to work in your life. If such permission is not granted by willfully aligning your will with his, God will let you go your own way.

3. Evidence lies within us. We have a conscience in which we innately feel that when our free will is violated or others free will is violated, it is abhorant. This is why the notion of might makes right "uncomfortable". Deep down we know that forcing ones will upon others is not "right". For example, if someone attempts to force us to love them back we instinctively push them away. When someone attempts to force us agree with their point of view we instinctively become arguementative etc.

Originally posted by whodey
To begin with, God's morality revolves around free will.

1. God is said to be a God of love and is why free will is necessary. Free will is needed for a loving relationship. Both parites MUST have the option to love or not love the other.

2. God says that he requires faith. Faith is merely an extension of free will. Faith is merely agreeing with God mpts to force us agree with their point of view we instinctively become arguementative etc.

I'm having trouble understanding what any of these points have to do with the thesis that God determines what is morally right or wrong. Hopefully, you're building up to something substantive.

Concerning point 1., I certainly think we have free will (of a compatibilist sort). Regardless, I don't entirely see what this has to do with love. I'm not sure what sense it makes to say one "chooses to love" another. If one freely chose to enter into a course of actions which he had very good reasons to believe would eventually lead to his finding himself in a state of love for another; then maybe we could say he "chose" to love. Otherwise, I fail to see how you are making sense here. Of course, I can freely choose to act in certain ways toward God: I can choose to be outwardly respectful, responsive, duteous with respect to His wishes, etc. But love is not something I can just freely choose to flip on and off.

Concerning point 2., I agree that faith is an act of volition. I also think it is an act of irrationality. To me, 'faith' is an epistemic pejorative; something like giving assent to a proposition not because one thinks it is true but because one cherishes it. Clinging to belief in the face of countervailing evidence is an example. Anyway, I use 'faith' one way, and others use it in completely different ways. Given your use of the term, I doubt our uses are very compatible. For, I would "agree with God in regards to what he has said" only if I think what he has said is true. Doing so would be 'faith' according to your use, and it would not be 'faith' according to my use. Anyway, I still don't see what any of this has to do with the claim that God determines morality!

Point 3. is likewise irrelevant and doesn't help your case. You are basically stating that it is intuitively appealing to think that might does not make right. But, what you actually want to show is that might does make right. So now you need to provide some argument that supports this conclusion -- a conclusion which, as you say, does not align with our better intuitions.

Originally posted by LemonJello
.

Concerning point 1., I certainly think we have free will (of a compatibilist sort). Regardless, I don't entirely see what this has to do with love. I'm not sure what sense it makes to say one "chooses to love" another. If one freely chose to enter into a course of actions which he had very good reasons to believe would eventually lead to his finding ...[text shortened]... ct to His wishes, etc. But love is not something I can just freely choose to flip on and off.

When talking about love, I think it important to discuss which kind of love to begin with. Agape love, for example, is a choice. One chooses to treat another the way they would like to be treated despite whether or not they may "like" the other person. In this regard it is like flipping on and off a switch. Do you think this type of love is "good" or "moral"? If so, you agree with God's morality.

In terms of loving God, however, I think there requires an appeal for us in some way on some emotional level as well. For example, when king David comitted adultry and then killed the husband of the wife he had relations with God asked him an interesting question. God asked him why he hated him. You may ask why God equated comitting adultry and murder with hating him, however, it appears to me as though God was equating the rejection of his laws as a rejection of himself. In other words, God's laws are grounded in love and if God really is love then a rejection of him would be to not walk in love. Another way of putting it is hating the light and loving the darkness, so to speak.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Concerning point 2., I agree that faith is an act of volition. I also think it is an act of irrationality. To me, 'faith' is an epistemic pejorative; something like giving assent to a proposition not because one thinks it is true but because one cherishes it. Clinging to belief in the face of countervailing evidence is an example. Anyway, I use 'faith' o I still don't see what any of this has to do with the claim that God determines morality!

Is faith an act of irrationality? I think there is a relational element to faith that is necessary just as love is a needed relational element between to parties. This is why Christians harp on God as being a "personal God". Those with whom you enjoy interaction with you probably hold to some degree in high esteem. In fact, more than likely you trust them to a cetrain point. Faith is a necessary ingredient to have meaningful relationship. What would it be like not to be able to trust anyone? Would it not be kind of "hellish"? Granted, you may feel forced into placing your faith in someone you do not trust via coersion of some type, but this is not how God operates. Do you think it moral or "good" to force or coerce people to place their faith in you or for others to do the same? If so, then perhaps the God of the Bible is not for you.

Originally posted by whodey
Do you think it moral or "good" to force or coerce people to place their faith in you or for others to do the same? If so, then perhaps the God of the Bible is not for you.

That's not what George Bush thinks.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Point 3. is likewise irrelevant and doesn't help your case. You are basically stating that it is intuitively appealing to think that might does not make right. But, what you actually want to show is that might does make right. So now you need to provide some argument that supports this conclusion -- a conclusion which, as you say, does not align with our better intuitions.[/b]

What I am saying is that God has deemed it "moral" or "good" to relinquish his control over our free will. For God, if there be a God, this is a moral thing to do. After all, we have free will so it was either given to us on high or it is simply a product of some evolutionary process. Since I am not attempting to "prove" the existence of God I think we can simply assume for the sake of arguement that free will was a gift from God. So does God's might make right? After all, the Almighty has made a decision by his might that we are to have free will, so who is man to disagree? When our free will is violated, who is doing the violating? Is it God? No, in fact it is man. Granted, there are those who say they are violating our free will in the name of God, however, it is man who is pulling the triggor, so to speak. One thing is for certain, however, when our free will is violated we are all up in arms. This is why I say that the "might makes right" teaching rubs us the wrong way. We do not fancy others forcing anything down our throats. It seems to me that man concurs that God's way is the right way in this regard.

You may argue that God does, in fact, violate our free will via such judgements as Noahs ark, Sodom and Ghommora etc. However, I would say that God walks a fine line in this regard. On the one hand, he attempts to give us our free will but then becomes angry when those same people violate the free will of those they interact with. In fact, had the men of Sodom not followed the strangers home to Lots house to forcefully gang rape them perhaps they would not have been destroyed or, at least, not that soon. But when man does act in such wicked ways, what is God to do? Should God instantly strike down every single person who violates anothers free will? If so, I do not think you or I would still be here. Or should he simply turn a blind eye to what is happening and watch mankind spiral into submission to a mortal tyrant? It is a toss up if you ask me. I think God is simply longsuffering in this regard until such wicked men step across an imaginary line in the sand, so to speak? For the most part, however, I do not see God waiting to judge sin in this manner. I do not see him waiting from above waiting to pounce on those who are wicked, rather, I see God as withdrawing himself from those who do not want him or desire to walk according to his ways. Here again, free will plays an active part. So those who do not desire the author and finisher of love and life etc will simply have him withdraw himself from them. What then is left?

The Bible says that God is "good" and everything that is good comes from above. I believe this. After all, if everything came from above, then everything good would, in a round about way, be attributed to God in some way. But you may object and say but what of evil? I say evil does not exist except only in the sense that we withdraw from the love of God. Here again we find ourselves back to the concept of free will.

Originally posted by blakbuzzrd
That's not what George Bush thinks.

Is "W" God?

Originally posted by blakbuzzrd
That's not what George Bush thinks.

That may be.

Originally posted by whodey
When talking about love, I think it important to discuss which kind of love to begin with. Agape love, for example, is a choice. One chooses to treat another the way they would like to be treated despite whether or not they may "like" the other person. In this regard it is like flipping on and off a switch. Do you think this type of love is "good" or "mor ...[text shortened]... ve. Another way of putting it is hating the light and loving the darkness, so to speak.

I agree that I can freely choose to walk in the ways of 'brotherly love' toward others, including God if He exists in a way that I can interact in such ways with Him. Yes, I consider the cultivation of such social virtues to be good. That may also align with God's perspective, and maybe also with Joe Schmoe's perspective. So what? What's this got to do with the claim that God determines morality?

"God really is love"? What's the propositional content of that claim?

Originally posted by whodey
Is faith an act of irrationality? I think there is a relational element to faith that is necessary just as love is a needed relational element between to parties. This is why Christians harp on God as being a "personal God". Those with whom you enjoy interaction with you probably hold to some degree in high esteem. In fact, more than likely you trust the ou or for others to do the same? If so, then perhaps the God of the Bible is not for you.

Yes, as I already outlined, I think 'faith' is irrational and constitutes a dereliction of epistemic duty (see above for how I am using 'faith'😉. Though, I don't consider your use of 'faith' to signify something that is irrational, necessarily. If you had good reasons to "agree with what God has said" (or to put your trust in Him, whatever that is taken to mean), then that doesn't sound irrational to me.

My stance is not that religious belief qualifies merely categorically as 'faith', by the way.

Regardless, I don't understand what any of this has to do with the claim that God determines morality.

Originally posted by whodey
What I am saying is that God has deemed it "moral" or "good" to relinquish his control over our free will. For God, if there be a God, this is a moral thing to do. After all, we have free will so it was either given to us on high or it is simply a product of some evolutionary process. Since I am not attempting to "prove" the existence of God I think we can rom the love of God. Here again we find ourselves back to the concept of free will.

Again, I'm not sure how any of this resembles an argument designed to show that God determines morality.

It is false to say that God would have to remove free will for the world to be a better place (concerning those evils that we attribute to human free will). The existence of free will does not necessitate the amount of pain and suffering that we normally attribute to the free actions of men. Besides, if we're going to talk about evils, we might as well include natural evils (that have no connection with considerations of human free will). For example, if you say everything comes from above, then it follows that tsunamis, hurricanes, all forms of cancers, etc., etc. come from above.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Yes, as I already outlined, I think 'faith' is irrational and constitutes a dereliction of epistemic duty (see above for how I am using 'faith'😉. Though, I don't consider your use of 'faith' to signify something that is irrational, necessarily. If you had good reasons to "agree with what God has said" (or to put your trust in Him, whatever that i understand what any of this has to do with the claim that God determines morality.

My stance is not that religious belief qualifies merely categorically as 'faith', by the way.

Yes. And my stance—which I keep hammering away at—also goes the other way. I don’t say that faith and belief (in the epistemic sense) are strictly divorced; nor that the words are not often used interchangeably, which creates confusion. My definition, however, from another thread—

Faith (Greek: pistis), in the NT sense (or the Zen sense, for that matter), means an attitude (and/or a decision) of trust, confidence, assurance in the face of uncertainty (“things hoped for but unseen” ). It does not strictly mean “believing or assenting to the right propositions” (although all of this could probably be worded that way--sans certainty).

Consider an athlete faced with making an uncertain play under difficult conditions. Most athletes know that if they act with all the confidence/assurance they can muster—as if the outcome is actually certain—they have a better chance of making the play than if they just give it a half-hearted attempt.

Consider an athlete “in the zone.” She is playing with an unexamined sense of assurance and confidence, and a concomitant attitude of praos (translated in English as “meek,” but in French Bibles as “debonair” ). Most seem to report that being in the zone carries with it a profound sense of coherence, harmony and even joy.

Athletes practice disciplines (ascesis) to facilitate “getting into the zone.” Some religious folks (theist or not) practice various ascesis to live in an existential attitude of faith and praos. One might call that the spiritual “zone.” From a Christian point-of-view, that means, in part, opening oneself to grace—without insisting on a pre-conceived outcome, or attempting to limit the wide-ranging activities of the Spirit (pneuma that “blows where it wills” without anyone being able to see “whence it comes or where it goes.”

Such an existential faith, therefore, involves an openness to possibility—not the pre-emptive closure of possibility.

In one sense, that may be its own reward—even if you don’t make the play, it seems to be on the whole a richer way to live. Nevertheless, Paul’s definition appears not to be so inscrutable as I once thought. Even for a non-religious person—the next time you’re deep in the rough, with a thick stand of trees between you and the “fair way.”

Despite preparation, athletes also report that sometimes "being in the zone" just seems to "happen." Extending the analogy to religious parlance, this would be akin to being "in a state of grace."

Originally posted by vistesd
Faith...means an attitude (and/or a decision) of trust, confidence, assurance in the face of uncertainty (“things hoped for but unseen” ).

Hi, nice to see you.

My problem with many characterizations of 'faith' is that they make it such common currency. For example, other than maybe in the vein of "I am thinking, therefore I exist", we are always in the "face of uncertainty" (we could, for example, be brains in a vat with manipulated neurology: even when Neo found himself in the "real world", he still could have been a brain in a vat, such are the depths of radical doubt). So, if faith is having confidence that my thinking is right even though, at bottom, I cannot be certain; it seems then that I have faith that, for example, 'I have hands'.

Or if we interpret "uncertainty" in some looser fashion, then where do we draw the line?

But, also, here you are talking about outcomes that are hoped for. If I had good reasons to think an outcome would obtain, I would view it as in some sense expected. If I didn't have good reasons for thinking it would obtain or did have good reasons to think it wouldn't obtain, then I could see calling hope for that outcome 'faith'.

There are so many ways I have seen 'faith' used! Colloquially, I normally understand it to mean a confidence in someone or something, which also seems to be along the lines of how whodey is using it.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Hi, nice to see you.

My problem with many characterizations of 'faith' is that they make it such common currency. For example, other than maybe in the vein of "I am thinking, therefore I exist", we are always in the "face of uncertainty" (we could, for example, be brains in a vat with manipulated neurology: even when Neo found himself in the "real wor ...[text shortened]... r something, which also seems to be along the lines of how whodey is using it.

Good to hear from you too! (Like you, however, I am about to limit my time on here severely.)

So, if faith is having confidence that my thinking is right even though, at bottom, I cannot be certain; it seems then that I have faith that, for example, 'I have hands'.

Moore said: “I know this is my hand.” Wittgenstein wrote a whole work in response (On Certainty). W. wanted to ask, what does that phrase “I know” add, and does it make any sense to add it? One of his questions was, “If I can ‘know’ that I have a hand because I can look at it—well, why should I trust my sense of vision more than my sense of feeling it?”

I say, “This is my hand.” How “much” certainty must I have to say just that? (BTW, I tend toward representational realism when it comes to the perceived, phenomenal world.)

The “faith” of the athlete may well be correlated with her/his perceived skill level. The same could be said for the mystic, I suppose.

I still do not see that this entails “faith” in God (or the supernatural category generally) being the same as “faith” in, say, the laws of gravity or evolution. It all depends on what one sees as empirical evidence, and how one evaluates that evidence—but I do think that that, too, is normative. One may have a right to one’s opinion—that does not mean that one has a right to argue one’s opinion without some epistemic responsibility.

There are so many ways I have seen 'faith' used!

Precisely. But the same can be said for “belief” or “knowledge.” The weather report says 70% chance of rain; but the sky is unclouded and sunny—do I take my umbrella when I leave the house? To what degree is my choice an act of faith?

I try to restrict my usage to the existential sense that I tried to outline. I also try to keep that Camusian tension, so that a decision/attitude of faith does not become an escape from the absurd.

My only real argument is: (1) that while faith may entail a given propositional belief (“I don’t think it’s going to rain” ), at bottom it is really the attitude of (sufficient?) confidence in that belief that allows my decision; and (2) faith always entails risk—and perhaps that means that the risk must be recognizable—in the face of uncertainty.

Maybe this example will help: Someone says, “I believe that the next flip of the coin will be heads.” I ask, “How much do you want to bet?” That decision will reflect their “faith” (excluding other emotional considerations, such as blind stubbornness in the face of being challenged).

Someone says, “I believe that I will have individual eternal life.” I ask, “How much do you want to bet?” Well, clearly, some people are betting a great deal, in terms of how they live this life in order to attain eternal life. To my mind, on far less probability than the toss of a coin. I think that is irrational. Not because I am “certain” that there is no such eternal life, but because I think it is irrational to think that that would necessitate “trading.”

I believe that the cosmos is fundamentally coherent—all the evidence convinces me so (and even the “brain-in-vat” hypothesis presumes that the illusion is coherent). I am so convinced of that that I can say, “I am certain.” I have no idea what it would mean to live in a “cosmos” that was fundamentally incoherent. I don’t even know what that means.

But, I also trust that whatever aspects of the cosmos might transcend my cognitive capabilities—i.e., whatever aspects of the cosmic “syntax” are beyond my/our conceptual “grammar” ) reflect that same coherence. Even if this phenomenal world is maya, I trust that the coherence of that maya reflects the coherence of Brahman—of the Tao, of God. I adopt an existential attitude of confidence (faith) in the face of the mystery, without trying to force the mystery into conceptual idols to cling to.

Does any of that make sense? (It’s quite late here in this time zone.)

Originally posted by LemonJello
Again, I'm not sure how any of this resembles an argument designed to show that God determines morality.

It is false to say that God would have to remove free will for the world to be a better place (concerning those evils that we attribute to human free will). The existence of free will does not necessitate the amount of pain and suffering that we no ...[text shortened]... , then it follows that tsunamis, hurricanes, all forms of cancers, etc., etc. come from above.

The first point I would like to make is that if we agree with God's morality, it could be evidence that he determines morality. After all, if there are no dissenting opinions and all are in agreement, who then is to say that God is not moral? For example, if our inner voice or conscience is in agreement with God's law of free will, then it must be moral, no? The conflict only comes when there is disagreement in regards to what is moral and not moral. Then there is either a gray area or one in which one side is correct and the other is not. How then is one to distinguish which side is correct? Are there not simply two opposing perspectives on the issue? Usually the rub comes when one party's free will is percieved to have been violated. For example, God looks down and see man sinning against his neighbor thus violating his free will and God becomes angry. Conversely, man looks and sees God judging sin and allowing us to then die because of this sin which in a round about way is percieved to violate our free will. Our dying either come about via natural causes or by direct intervention from the Alimighty. So who is right and who is wrong? Is this not evidence that the concept of free will is indeed moral from both perspectives? The percieved immorality simply stems from who's free will is looked upon as being violated.

This reasoning is of coarse from a human perspective. However, what of God's perspective? We spend little time thinking of God's perspective because we naturally only worry about ourselves and our fellow man. However, does God not have free wiil as well? In fact, should we esteem our free will above God's? It is his will that the corrosive nature of sin be done away with and that is what he is working towards. He does this while allowing as much free will as possible in the mean time because he is a God of love and love demands free will. However, if our free will may interfere with his master plan to erradicate sin once and for all, such as the Messiah coming to earth, then his will prevails.

I guees what I am trying to say is that from God's view, without his intervention ALL is lost. With his interventions, however, some may be "saved" even though at times it may appear that man's free will is being tampered with by such things as cutting life short for various reasons. Which position is the most moral?


As far as your other comments about evil being in the world despite sin, I would take issue with this. I do not think that men would die via cancer, AIDS, etc. Nor do I think that man would die from natural disasters. If sin disconnects us from the God of life, then death will follow. If there were not sin there would be no disconnect. God would walk with us as he did with Adam in the garden. God would sustain our lives in much the same way he did with Adam and Eve. Also, if we were in communion with him, would he not tell us to avoid things that may lead to our demise such as avoiding the forbidden fruit? For example, would he forwarn us either to move from the coast line or not to live along the coast line altogether so as to avoid an incoming tsunami? That is, of coarse, if we were in communion with him as Adam was in the garden.