31 Aug 12
Originally posted by KellyJayActually I think we delude ourselves over and over without God in our lives
Actually I think we delude ourselves over and over without God in our lives
thinking we are all of that and some. I think that without God there are a lot
of personal tastes being handed out as if they were some how something
much more meaningful than they really are. It does not matter what my
articles of faith are if they are not based upon something ...[text shortened]... those things we own, gaining the whole world will be meaningless
if one loses one soul.
Kelly
thinking we are all of that and some.
I'm sure some people do. At the same time, however, there is no reason at all to think mainstream theism is a viable regulator for how humans mete out their self worth. One could make the argument that thinking we are made in the image of some almighty person; and that he dotes on and on about us, etc, as the pinnacle of all creation; is the height of arrogance and a vicious sort of anthropocentrism. At the other extreme, religion is often adept at convincing persons that they are no good, in need of salvaging, etc, and it tends to focus negatively on putatively lowborn human characteristics in manners that amount to ritualized self-loathing. In my opinion, coming to view our own position accurately has nothing, per se, to do with the question of God. It has to do with coming to understand our position relative to and intertwined with the vast expanse of things that exist, regardless if that happens to include God or not.
I think that without God there are a lot
of personal tastes being handed out as if they were some how something
much more meaningful than they really are.
As I think I have told you before, I do not find your views very consistent on this matter. You say that without God everything devolves into "personal taste" and nothing more. And you imply that the idea that personal taste could carry the sort of clout that could dictate important matters is very dissatisfactory to you. So your great solution to this problem is that you claim everything will be dictated by...personal taste. Specifically, by God's personal tastes. That's a bizarro solution if I have ever seen one. It always cracks me up when a theist claims that observer attitudes cannot arbitrate in important matters...and then turns around and claims that God simply dictates all of morality! 🙄
Why not just claim that there are independent objective facts that settle important matters? Oh that's right, it is because you would also have to accept that God is ultimately inessential to the settlement of such matters. So you contort your position to try to cover your bases; but, sorry, I think your position fails to be coherent.
It does not matter what my
articles of faith are if they are not based upon something real.
Then you should endeavor to ensure that your articles of faith have good justificatory merit and adequate evidential backing. Good luck with that. I thought articles of faith run contrary to such backing, more or less by their nature. Am I wrong on that?
The structure, I thought the Pastor was going for was that if you apply yourself
instead of just going with the flow it will end giving you the abilities to make
more meaningful choices.
Then the Pastor should urge his audience against adopting religious moral systems, such as Divine Command. As I have already pointed out, such systems are childish and suppress both personal freedom and moral development.
If personal freedom and maturation of your autonomy is really what you seek, then the cautionary tale here is that the specifics of how exactly you "apply yourself" matter. Let's do a thought experiment. Suppose that the rules and guidelines contained in the Bible are, in fact, good ones. Now suppose you have two persons, Kelly and Jay. Suppose that both Kelly and Jay characteristically follow the rules and guidelines in the Bible. Suppose Kelly does so because they are putatively what God says to do; and because Kelly thinks that one should always do whatever it is that God says to do. On the other hand, Jay does so because he has thought in depth about the rules and guildelines and what exactly makes them good ones; he has endeavored to understand the practical reasons that recommend following them, and they resonate with him on the level of his intuitions and evaluative commitments. Kelly understands that the rules are to be followed; but Jay has a much deeper level of understanding because he has familiarity with the underlying justification behind the rules. If anyone here has greater autonomy and maturity, it is Jay. But, in his quest to understand the justification behind his morally relevant actions, Jay should also come to understand that something like Divine Command is silly and false. That is because, as I said before, the identification of reasons that confer justificatory status on his actions will only undermine the idea that God's commanding some action is explanatorily prior to the goodness of that action.
If you want to add God to the mix than going back to my first point rings true,
it doesn't matter what you believe if in the end, the end requires something you
have thrown away, (a relationship with God) if nothing in this life goes with
us as far as those things we own, gaining the whole world will be meaningless
if one loses one soul.
Not sure what you are saying here. Sounds to me something like Pascal's wager, which is notoriously unsound.
01 Sep 12
2 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloSo your great solution to this problem is that you claim everything will be dictated by...personal taste. Specifically, by God's personal tastes. That's a bizarro solution if I have ever seen one.
[b]Actually I think we delude ourselves over and over without God in our lives
thinking we are all of that and some.
I'm sure some people do. At the same time, however, there is no reason at all to think mainstream theism is a viable regulator for how humans mete out their self worth. One could make the argument that thinking we are made in the ing here. Sounds to me something like Pascal's wager, which is notoriously unsound.[/b]
But isn't God the most intelligent and wise Being there is? And if so, wouldn't someone be justified in appealing to His personal tastes regarding morality? Or perhaps even justified in emulating Him?
EDIT: Of course, God's commands are for those who inhabit the world he's made, and not meant for self-governance (God is, of course, supposed to be perfect). If morality is not a necessary part of existence, but only relevant for rational and contingent creatures such as ourselves, it's hard to see how showing that the basis for morality lies in an evaluation of our circumstances has any real bite where divine command theory is concerned. When it comes down to it, it does seem to be about appealing to the "educated opinion" of the Person with the best possible perspective and most profound insight into the plight of humanity, which would be God, of course (assuming He exists). Assuming God's estimation of things is correct, more correct than any other estimation, it makes sense to think that his "opinions" on matters of morality might be something to be trusted to stand the test of time, where human paradigms, being incomplete, are bound to fail. I think this is the gist of what Christians mean when they talk about "mere opinion" as opposed to "God's commands." But, I digress and yield the floor.
01 Sep 12
Originally posted by epiphinehasNot if you have argued against personal taste and the futility of relying on individual personal taste regardless of the intelligence of the individual.
But isn't God the most intelligent and wise Being there is? And if so, wouldn't someone be justified in appealing to His personal tastes regarding morality? Or perhaps even justified in emulating Him?
01 Sep 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloMoreover, given God's omniscient perspective, it seems conceivable that there would be ways of acting morally which our understanding may have limited ability to comprehend, given our less than omniscient nature. In which case, trusting God and obeying God on little more than faith in the goodness or wisdom of His commands, may have potentially profounder benefits than acting according to one's limited grasp of God's larger picture. If so, there might even be a case to be made that one has the moral obligation to obey such a being based entirely on faith.
[b]Actually I think we delude ourselves over and over without God in our lives
thinking we are all of that and some.
I'm sure some people do. At the same time, however, there is no reason at all to think mainstream theism is a viable regulator for how humans mete out their self worth. One could make the argument that thinking we are made in the ...[text shortened]... ing here. Sounds to me something like Pascal's wager, which is notoriously unsound.[/b]
01 Sep 12
Originally posted by epiphinehasI think that if you argue that incompleteness guarantees failure, then you must demand completeness from God or he too is guaranteed to fail. This is reasonable but must be made clear in the argument. If you simply say that God is more intelligent than humans then the argument fails. Essentially you must provide some special attributes to Gods intelligence / knowledge and not simply one of greater degree.
....where human paradigms, being incomplete, are bound to fail.
01 Sep 12
1 edit
I also think that if God is special in some way that makes his personal taste reliable, then one could say that it is no longer personal taste as any entity with his attributes would have the same tastes (or come to the same conclusions on decisions).
So one would be reasonable in calling his tastes 'brute facts' and the system of morality he produces a 'brute fact' at it could not be otherwise.
01 Sep 12
Originally posted by epiphinehasI think this is correct. A good analogy would be a child and its parent. If the child has faith that the parent knows best (and loves the child) then it relies on the parents superior knowledge to make the right moral decisions - and to teach it morality. Of course the faith in the goodness of the parent is a prior assumption, and a child that does not have faith in its parent has no such obligations.
If so, there might even be a case to be made that one has the moral obligation to obey such a being based entirely on faith.
01 Sep 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm just appealing to God as the most intelligent, wise and good Being known. I don't even think a person needs any greater validation of God's trustworthiness than her own limited interaction with God either. I have an uncle who I trust because he's given me great advice in the past; advice that has benefited me greatly. I've learned to trust his judgment thereby. The Israelites seemed to develop a relationship with El Shaddai along these very lines. Someone who has learned to trust God in this fashion is more apt to trust God where more blind leaps are required. In either case, it doesn't seem at all necessary to first posit some explicit attribute to God (although, it is inevitable), but rather all that seems necessary is a starting point whereby God gains a person's trust, which need not be anything profound, supernatural, theological, or intellectual at all.
I think that if you argue that incompleteness guarantees failure, then you must demand completeness from God or he too is guaranteed to fail. This is reasonable but must be made clear in the argument. If you simply say that God is more intelligent than humans then the argument fails. Essentially you must provide some special attributes to Gods intelligence / knowledge and not simply one of greater degree.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't see how lack of faith makes a child less obligated to obey his parent.
I think this is correct. A good analogy would be a child and its parent. If the child has faith that the parent knows best (and loves the child) then it relies on the parents superior knowledge to make the right moral decisions - and to teach it morality. Of course the faith in the goodness of the parent is a prior assumption, and a child that does not have faith in its parent has no such obligations.
P.S. Maybe you mean obliged.
01 Sep 12
Originally posted by epiphinehasBut that would lead to the conclusion that anyone you trust may potentially be worth relying on, even yourself (if you trust yourself). However the if there is an argument that
In either case, it doesn't seem at all necessary to first posit some explicit attribute to God (although, it is inevitable), but rather all that seems necessary is a starting point whereby God gains a person's trust, which need not be anything profound, supernatural, theological, or intellectual at all.
.... human paradigms, being incomplete, are bound to fail.then special attributes are necessary.
01 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsThats because you come from a religious background that teaches slavery to authority. I on the other hand do not believe a child is in any way obligated to obey his parent if they do not trust their parents. Of course they may choose to obey their parents for the simple reason that they may get punished or otherwise suffer if they do so, or out of respect (despite not trusting them) but it is not an obligation simply because they are a child.
I don't see how lack of faith makes a child less obligated to obey his parent.
But I must also point out that obeying was not the issue, the issue was whether or not you rely on your parent to make moral decisions for you.
01 Sep 12
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasGod can be as omniscient and powerful as he wants, but I remain limited. I can't even verify that he has all those powers. And when the historical record of this 'God' has been to cause much pain and misery to so many, I must seriously question his commitment to moral perfection. Sure, there may be some difficult, brilliant line of reasoning that justifies all of these seemingly evil actions, but if I have no hope of realizing it or comprehending it, I must fall back on my own judgment which screams that a morally perfect being would never do such immoral things.
Moreover, given God's omniscient perspective, it seems conceivable that there would be ways of acting morally which our understanding may have limited ability to comprehend, given our less than omniscient nature. In which case, trusting God and obeying God on little more than faith in the goodness or wisdom of His commands, may have potentially profound se to be made that one has the moral obligation to obey such a being based entirely on faith.
01 Sep 12
Originally posted by SwissGambitI must fall back on my own judgment which screams that a morally perfect being would never do such immoral things.
God can be as omniscient and powerful as he wants, but I remain limited. I can't even verify that he has all those powers. And when the historical record of this 'God' has been to cause much pain and misery to so many, I must seriously question his commitment to moral perfection. Sure, there may be some difficult, brilliant line of reasoning that justifi ...[text shortened]... y own judgment which screams that a morally perfect being would never do such immoral things.
And that's understandable, I think. However, none of this excludes the possibility of developing a relationship with God, presently, based on trust -- doubts notwithstanding. The OT model suggests that God prefers to interact with his creatures by offering promises and fulfilling those promises as people walk in faith. This is probably due to the fact that He is inherently incomprehensible to humans (and so, often misunderstood). Based on His incomprehensibility alone, I think you have a good case.
02 Sep 12
Originally posted by epiphinehasMy charge of incoherency toward KJ's position has nothing to do with such considerations. Sure, there could always be conditions under which one may justifiably defer to the recommendations of a putative expert; or try to emulate someone worthy of being emulated. That is irrelevant to what I see as the inconsistency in KJ's position.
[b]So your great solution to this problem is that you claim everything will be dictated by...personal taste. Specifically, by God's personal tastes. That's a bizarro solution if I have ever seen one.
But isn't God the most intelligent and wise Being there is? And if so, wouldn't someone be justified in appealing to His personal tastes regarding m ...[text shortened]... e opinion" as opposed to "God's commands." But, I digress and yield the floor.[/b]
You're missing the point that Divine Command (or, more generally, some version of Theological Voluntarism) typically has meta-ethical dimension. It does not assert merely that God is really smart; ergo people will naturally have reason to defer to his judgment. It has much deeper meta-ethical implications that relate the divine will with the actual determination of moral status. To claim on one hand that God is the most intelligent being and that one may be justified in defering to his judgment or justified in emulating him regarding some act; and to claim on the other hand that God's will actually determines constitutively the moral status of some act; do you see how these are quite radically different claims?
Of course, God's commands are for those who inhabit the world he's made, and not meant for self-governance (God is, of course, supposed to be perfect). If morality is not a necessary part of existence, but only relevant for rational and contingent creatures such as ourselves
This all only makes me think that your position is also incoherent. You do not get to claim on one hand that God is morally perfect; and then claim on the other hand that the subject of morality does not apply to God. Relatedly, you do not get to imply on one hand that God is a moral being worthy of being emulated; and then imply on the other hand that morality somehow does not pertain or have relevance to God. Make up your mind! Either God is putatively your moral exemplar, or else morality does not apply to Him. Or neither; but can't be both.
it's hard to see how showing that the basis for morality lies in an evaluation of our circumstances has any real bite where divine command theory is concerned. When it comes down to it, it does seem to be about appealing to the "educated opinion" of the Person with the best possible perspective and most profound insight into the plight of humanity, which would be God, of course (assuming He exists).
Again, you're confused if you think divine command merely asserts that one can justifiably defer to God's judgments because He is really smart and whatnot; or if you think that is the point of contention I have with KJ's position.
Anyway, this thread was related to the subject of "personal freedom", and hitching your wagon to the will of another does not really conduce to personal freedom, does it? Children do this, but they are expected to mature into autonomous individuals with time. And by the way, becoming autonomous in this sense does not imply that one starts to contradict earlier behavior, or that one has to make up completely new rules. It means that one's actions start to more fully flow from who she actually is, in that the actions more fully refect evaluative commitments that are substantially her own. For the child that matures, it means she no longer understands that a particular rule is to be followed; but understands what purpose the rule serves, why it is in general a good maxim. She comes to understand that she ought to do this or that not merely because her parents tell her to, but because there are good, worthy practical reasons that undergird her doing so and align with her own values.
Assuming God's estimation of things is correct, more correct than any other estimation, it makes sense to think that his "opinions" on matters of morality might be something to be trusted to stand the test of time, where human paradigms, being incomplete, are bound to fail. I think this is the gist of what Christians mean when they talk about "mere opinion" as opposed to "God's commands." But, I digress and yield the floor.
Well, that cannot be ALL they mean, since this makes God irrelevant or inessential to the actual constitution of morals. This basically says that God is just really smart and astute at picking out moral facts and is therefore a good source of moral knowledge. Big whoop. This has no meta-ethical implication as far as I can tell.