Thesit morality

Originally posted by sonship
I think Jesus may have been saying that if you are ready to call Him good you have to be ready to call Him God.

Only God is good.

But the Bible is truly a living book. Praying over the passage will open up layers of edifying significance.

Did you see my responses to you above?

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
Preach to us on that. I found it puzzling in my Christian youth. Was Jesus saying he fell short of goodness?

A theme that Jesus repeatedly emphasized was the idea that He and God were "one" which He demonstrated through His words and actions. So within that context, He is likely pointing out to the rich young ruler that in calling Him "good", he is recognizing this also.

BTW, Jesus was not claiming to be God or to being the literal son of God in claiming that He and God were "one". Just that they were of "one mind".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Did you see my responses to you above?

Yes. I saw your three posts.

I don't have a comment right now. However, the YouTube debate between Shelly Kagin and William Craig on "Is God Needed For Morality?" is one of my favorite discussions on the issue.

And I think Yale's ethicist Shelly Kagin does an excellent job arguing the negative. Coming from a Christian who thinks Craig may have barely won the debate if at all, you should take that as a concession. Shelly Kagin is awesome on the subject.


YouTube

But if there is no God, I don't think there is any strong foundation for morality. I don't have time to get deep into discussion now why.

But everyman being created in the image of God, of course, has a designed conscience and can of course desire the moral good and be repulsed by the moral evil. We are just created that way.

So whether you are theist or not you are created as you are created and therefore can have a moral sense. Thankfully.

Originally posted by Paul Dirac II
Preach to us on that. I found it puzzling in my Christian youth. Was Jesus saying he fell short of goodness?

Jesus was in human form like we are. The only good that could come from him was to do the will of God which is good. If you note, he prayed to be spared the cross in his final hours, only to be denied.

Originally posted by sonship
Yes. I saw your three posts.

I don't have a comment right now. However, the YouTube debate between Shelly Kagin and William Craig on [b]"Is God Needed For Morality?" is one of my favorite discussions on the issue.

And I think Yale's ethicist Shelly Kagin does an excellent job arguing the negative. Coming from a Christian who thinks Craig may hav r not you are created as you are created and therefore can have a moral sense. Thankfully.[/b]

But if there is no God, I don't think there is any strong foundation for morality.

That's curious, since the foundation could still be "The Golden Rule".

BTW, your link cuts the debate off after 15 minutes which doesn't even cover all of Kagan's opening remarks.

Do you know of a good summary of the debate? I'd much rather read something like that, than listen to the entire thing. I found the following, but since it contains the following statement by the summarizer, it seems unlikely to be even-handed: "The commie wusses at the Veritas Forum made Craig promise not to press for a victory".

http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/william-lane-craig-vs-shelly-kagan-is-god-necessary-for-morality/

Originally posted by sonship
But if there is no God, I don't think there is any strong foundation for morality.

I created a thread asking how the existence of God creates a foundation for morality. It was interesting that no theists seemed interested in taking it up.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]But if there is no God, I don't think there is any strong foundation for morality.

That's curious, since the foundation could still be "The Golden Rule".

BTW, your link cuts the debate off after 15 minutes which doesn't even cover all of Kagan's opening remarks.

Do you know of a good summary of the debate? I'd much rather read something l ...[text shortened]... dpress.com/2009/04/17/william-lane-craig-vs-shelly-kagan-is-god-necessary-for-morality/[/b]

If I recall rightly it took me nearly an hour and several videos to go through the discussion. I know of no summary. I tried to link to what I thought was video #1 in the multiple video series.

They have an informal back and forth across from each other at the end.
Try to find the other videos.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I created a thread asking how the existence of God creates a foundation for morality. It was interesting that no theists seemed interested in taking it up.

There may be many reasons for theists not engaging in any particular thread.

1.) May have been through the arguments before.

2.) May find more profitable time spent with a person over there who is more open rather than two or three over here are who are closed minded.

3.) May want to study up and see what they believe or hone in their arguments better.

4.) Maybe they have no dispute.

With me it is more #1 and #2. But I am not ammuned to # 3.
There's no hurry in this search for some aspects of the truth.

If you are implying no one "taking it up" makes you somehow the champion skeptic in some undefeated sense, that's fine with me. I know better.

Maybe you could just elaborate on what you believe in a substantial way. I know you can ask lots of questions of theists. Instead of waiting to pick apart other's beliefs why not elaborate on your own in a positive way for a change?

Originally posted by sonship
3.) May want to study up and see what they believe or hone in their arguments better.

You can study what you believe? Do you mean you believe something without realizing it?

Maybe you could just elaborate on what you believe in a substantial way. I know you can ask lots of questions of theists. Instead of waiting to pick apart other's beliefs why not elaborate on your own in a positive way for a change?
This thread was to find out what some theists believe (those that claim morality depends on God). I have given my own views on morality many times. Basically it comes down to compassion for others and the balance between that and personal interest. Generally it is morally correct to always do whatever benefits others, with the allowance that one may use excessive cost to oneself as a valid excuse not to do so.

Originally posted by sonship
If I recall rightly it took me nearly an hour and several videos to go through the discussion. I know of no summary. I tried to link to what I thought was video #1 in the multiple video series.

They have an informal back and forth across from each other at the end.
Try to find the other videos.

I wish you would have been upfront about the fact that it was a multiple video series. Neither you nor the youtube poster pointed out this important fact.

At this point, I don't expect you to address the fact that not only can non-theists have a basis upon which to build a moral framework, but that this basis has been recognized throughout history by many different cultures both theistic and non-theistic. Not only that, but it was the same basis recognized by Jesus: "The Golden Rule."

The truth will make you free.

You can study what you believe? Do you mean you believe something without realizing it?

Like I said, you're good at asking lots of questions.

If it is a matter of what I realize, I realize absolutely that God the One who "calls the things not being as being." Without God conceptualizing anything to me is out of the question. Our being comes out of God and our moral being comes out of our Creator in whose image man was made.

I am pretty sure about that. Alternative explanations make less sense to me.

In fact our ability to argue against God is an ability that we would not even have at all had not God bestowed such an ability on His creatures. [edited]

That is what I realize. How to logically convince others of that is another matter. If you wait long enough and allow someone to talk more and more it is usually the case that you can find something not quite consistent or rationally a problem.

I have given my own views on morality many times. Basically it comes down to compassion for others and the balance between that and personal interest. Generally it is morally correct to always do whatever benefits others, with the allowance that one may use excessive cost to oneself as a valid excuse not to do so.

Virtually all of the Christian (if not theistic) arguments I have heard agreed with what you believe here. THAT is not the problem as some thinkers have pointed out.

The deeper question is, is this simply an arbitrary preference for you to think this way or is there a more meaningful underlying cause for you thinking this way ? This is how I have always heard the issue debated.

You say "Hey. I am no believer in God or gods. But I think we should treat others with respect, love, as they would be benefitted. We should take thought for what is not harmful to anyone. We should take caution against anything that would do harm to anyone."

No problem. Practically we all agree ! But WHY is there this feeling in us? Why not do dirt to everyone ? Why not be totally selfish? Whose going to call us to account ? Who is going to discover our secret crimes ?

The fact of the matter is that I DO, and you DO sometimes do harm to others while no one is looking. I had loads of trash to get rid of. I looked around this way and that and left it in a dumpster that belonged to some company. Technically that was not a public dumpster.

My leaving trash at that dumpster probably caused some laborer to have to work a little harder the next day. That may have been a harm to that trashman. That may have not been a benefit to them.

So we do do what harms others. We transgress against others. We don't want to. We may not like to. But we do.

But WHY are we concerned about them ? Because it is the right thing to do ? Perhaps. But evolution doesn't care about what is the right thing to do. It "cares" only for what will facilitate survival. What will further the organism's life seems to be the only "concern" of the evolutionary process.

Evolution couldn't care less about TRUTH or what is RIGHT. If the blind and purposeless process could "care" at all it would only be about what will make a hardier organism to beat the odds against extinction.

So we can say we simply choose what we think is a better way to live - not to do harm to others.

It makes far more sense to me that we are designed that way by a Moral Agent who intends to call into account, enforce, judge, forgive, pardon, reward or otherwise punish with complete knowledge of our circumstances and choices. That is a moral God Creator.

That is a stronger ground for WHY we have the desire to act in a way towards others. And it does not require that the actor BELIEVE in God or not.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
A theme that Jesus repeatedly emphasized was the idea that He and God were "one" which He demonstrated through His words and actions. So within that context, He is likely pointing out to the rich young ruler that in calling Him "good", he is recognizing this also.

BTW, Jesus was not claiming to be God or to being the literal son of God in claiming that He and God were "one". Just that they were of "one mind".

BTW, Jesus was not claiming to be God or to being the literal son of God in claiming that He and God were "one". Just that they were of "one mind".

Well we finally agree on something..🙂

Originally posted by sonship
Our [b]being comes out of God and our moral being comes out of our Creator in whose image man was made.[/b]

I don't fully understand your explanation.
Is it meaningful in your view to make a statement like "God is good"? What would such a statement imply? Would a statement like "God is bad" be meaningful (even if untrue)?

The deeper question is, is this simply an arbitrary preference for you to think this way or is there a more meaningful underlying cause for you thinking this way ? This is how I have always heard the issue debated.
I think distinction needs to be made between the definition of morality and our motivation for being moral. What I stated was my understanding of the definition of morality. Motivation is complicated, but I think it is important to note that many of us demand morality of others and part of our motivation is others demanding it of us. And not just in relation to punishment, but also ego ie we often behave morally because we think it makes us look good in others eyes.

No problem. Practically we all agree ! But WHY is there this feeling in us? Why not do dirt to everyone ? Why not be totally selfish?
My explanation is evolution.

Whose going to call us to account ? Who is going to discover our secret crimes ?
Is that why you behave morally? Is that an explanation for why we have this feeling?

But WHY are we concerned about them ? Because it is the right thing to do ? Perhaps. But evolution doesn't care about what is the right thing to do. It "cares" only for what will facilitate survival. What will further the organism's life seems to be the only "concern" of the evolutionary process.

Evolution couldn't care less about TRUTH or what is RIGHT. If the blind and purposeless process could "care" at all it would only be about what will make a hardier organism to beat the odds against extinction.
Which is why evolution is a better fit to what we observe than a theistic explanation. A theistic explanation in my opinion does not satisfactorily explain why we often do not behave morally.

It makes far more sense to me that we are designed that way by a Moral Agent who intends to call into account, enforce, judge, forgive, pardon, reward or otherwise punish with complete knowledge of our circumstances and choices. That is a moral God Creator.
Yet if we were designed that way, why do we not behave that way? And how does the calling into account, enforcing, judging, pardoning and rewarding all fit in? Especially as it has no real effect whatsoever on the behaviour of non-believers.

That is a stronger ground for WHY we have the desire to act in a way towards others. And it does not require that the actor BELIEVE in God or not.
The desire to be moral does not require belief, I agree.

But it seems to me to be largely a non-explanation ie the brute fact that people behave morally is being shifted to a brute fact that God wants people to behave morally. No real explanation as to why that is is given.

I don't fully understand your explanation.
Is it meaningful in your view to make a statement like "God is good"? What would such a statement imply? Would a statement like "God is bad" be meaningful (even if untrue)?

God is bad. God is good. Both statments communicate with me.

"God is good" is the like the statement Jesus made when the questionered called Him "Good master".

"Why do you call Me good. There is no one good except God alone." (Mark 10:18)

I don't think most people have had trouble understanding basically this saying.
Maybe a really intensely over philosophical mind might say nothing of this makes sense. I think most simplier minded people would say it communicates.

If one says "This makes no sense at all" I am not sure where to start to explain.

There are some people who trap each and every sentence to find a problem. Sometimes I think it is better to save up one's complaints to the major problems. Finding a problem with each and every sentence for sure will give the other person a lot more time to spend and work to do. But I think you can counter the major ideas without raising an obstacle to the other person on each sentence.

( If I engage you I will probably have to do a piece at a time )

Originally posted by sonship
There are some people who trap each and every sentence to find a problem.

That is certainly not my intention. I was merely asking for clarity, not setting a trap.

I am merely trying to clarify our definitions of morality.
I was hoping to clarify whether or not you see God as dictating what morality consists of, and also whether or not Gods actions can be judged moral or immoral. Of course I realize there may be some 'bigger picture', but I am talking about judgement based on face value. In other words are Gods actions moral by definition.

My understanding of the word morality is that it is a distinct subset of what might generally be termed 'good' and 'bad'. So one might say 'it is good to obey God' but it is not necessarily the morally correct thing to do. In fact it may even be immoral. Similarly God may do something immoral, but not necessarily be bad for doing so.