Recently I posed a question to our fellow truth seekers who are atheists, and we had a great response and good dialog.
It let us understand a lot of the feelings and reasons for either accepting or not accepting the God of the Christians if He was real.
So here’s another question in the same vein (there maybe some overlap naturally).
Atheists, what kind of God would you accept?
Imagine that a God existed, what characteristics would you require of him before you accepted him as your God and what behavioral change if any would that cause in you? E.g.
1. He would be more obvious about revealing himself (this I think is a given).
2. He would not send anyone to hell just for not believing he didn’t exist.
3. He would not allow suffering or evil.
4. He would punish bad folks like Hitler or hypocritical Christians with a bolt of lightning on the spot.
5. He would not require anyone to glorify or worship him.
6. He would not have any rules or regulations that we would have to follow. etc.
So what characteristics would you require before you accepted him as your God. If the answer is None, that’s a valid answer too, especially if you say why.
What do you mean “accept as my god”?
Either he exists or he doesn’t. If he exists. I will accept his existence.
If you mean what would it take for me to respect him then I guess it would be the same as any other human and probably even more due to his enormous power.
if you mean what it would take for me to worship him, then I guess it would take a lot of suffering placed on my and mine in case I didn’t.
It’s a weird question that’s for sure. Not certain exactly what you’re trying to find out.
No real ulterior motive, just trying to find out more about what in particular (not general) offends or disturbs each person about the concept of the Christian God (everyone is different) and what they envision would make him acceptable to them. My ex-atheist dad (a Prof in Physics) became a Christian through a personal experience that prompted scientific and historical study of God. I was too young to understand the science etc, but what was significant to me a kid was the change in his personality to patient, kind and self sacrificing.
I have to say, the questions posed on this blog are among the most thoughtful I have seen from apologists. They don’t simply rehash the old arguments like many apologies do, but they seek to understand the atheistic side. (With the hopes of defeating it, of course.)
Now, to the question. “What kind of God would you accept?” I find the term “accept” to be a little strange. If something truly exists, then you don’t “accept” it. It would be like asking “what kind of George W. Bush would you accept” or “what kind of Brooklyn Bridge would you accept.” George W. Bush and the Brooklyn Bridge exist so they are not up for acceptance or rejection from individuals. The same holds true for God. If he exists, then I have to “accept” whatever type of being he is regardless of what I may want him to be. So I’m going to change the question a bit.
I ask myself, based on the observations and evidence we have made of this universe:
1. What types of Gods would be possible?
2. What types of Gods would be necessary?
3. What types Gods would be impossible?
You could also add “what types of Gods would be unnecessary?”, but that wouldn’t further belief or disbelief in any way.
Now, I don’t have any full and comprehensive answer to those questions. There are some things that I can say, though. For instance, it would be impossible for a God that doesn’t allow suffering to exist. It would also be impossble for a God that strikes down Hitler and hypocritical Christians on the spot to exist. A God that created humans, animals, and plants in their present form 6000 years ago is unnecessary since we have an explanation that doesn’t require a God. It would be possible for a God that sparked the Big Bang to exist. (Of course, this assumes that existence is possible outside of the space-time continuum of our universe.) I could go on with more, but I think I’ll leave it at that for now. I’d like to see in what direction the other comments go, and possible add more later.
It’s unfortunate then that your base in Christianity was emotional rather than rational.
Were your parent to be a kind and loving atheist you would have become one as well.
Yes that is always a possibility. But the obverse is also true in enough cases i.e. atheist kids growing up in kind loving Christian homes. At least I think it is. If enough atheist kids comment and say they become atheists because their parents were hypocrites I’d stand corrected of course.
Of course I should add, my father had rational reasons to become a Christian and passed that on to me. And using that questioning spririt I did go on a quest to see if I was blindly believing something or had rational reasons to believe it. Being surrounded by Muslims, Zorastians, Sikhs, Hindus and family atheists I was prompted to ask if what I believe in was just as valid as what they believed in.
I write about this in a sermon I give called “Blind Faith is Unbiblical and condemned by God.” In that talk I challenge Christians just as aggressively as I challenge all other belief systems.
No Superstitious Christians wanted.
Thanks MikeH for your comments and response.
I don’t want to lose sight of the original question and I want to clarify it. As db0 said, what’s the question. If he exists he exists. So let me rephrase it “What sort of God would you accept willingly as your Lord?”
db0 also implied: Why ask this question, first show us that there IS indeed a god and then we’ll make up our mind. Aren’t you jumping ahead here and putting the proverbial cart before the horse?
Well we’ve been arguing about the existence of God for quite a while now, so I don’t think we aren’t jumping ahead. Had we never discussed the existence issue then it maybe valid to say let’s wait for that. But since that is not a new question and I doubt I will convince many of you anytime soon or vice versa given all the data we HAVE been looking at., let’s take a little side trip to understand each other more. So while we continue that other debate about the existence of God, it would be worthwhile to see if perhaps there are other ideas that atheists have about what kind of God they would accept.
From some of our previous posts we’ve seen that even if there was the “Christian” kind of God, many atheists would refuse to accept him as their Lord. Which is why this question was raised? It’s really an extension of that last question. Let’s say tomorrow you found out the the god described by X really existed. What Characteristics of X would cause you to accept X easily as your Lord? So that’s what I’m really trying to find out.
db0 asks:
The question is better put as “What do you find offensive about the Christian God?”
Allow me to ask a question:
My assessment of criticisms of the Christian God has always been that they could not possibly be valid, simply by virtue of the fact that God Himself is not only the definition of “good,” but the source of the human concept of “good” as well. Consequently, if any human finds fault with God, it logically requires either that 1) the human’s concept of God has been distorted somehow, or 2) the human’s concept of “good” has been distorted somehow. Either way, the fault lies with the human, not with God.
I’ve read that the notion that God is both the definition of “good” and the source of the human concept of “good” is universally rejected by modern philosophers. Why is that?
You need to clarify that.
Is morality absolute and God is following the same moral rules as we do? In that case if I find logically something that God does immoral then it follows that he is immoral.
Is morality somehow created by God and thus he is above it? Then morality is subjective and what is good now might change later on at the whims of this god. There is no point on talking about morals since God might just change his mind tomorrow and decide that slavery is, once again, moral.
Bob, I’m afraid db0 has not understood you at all. He asked you to clarify by giving you only two options:
1. God is subject to some moral law.
2. God is above moral law.
Option one means God is not omnipotent. Option two means God is just a tyrant (which is usually where they try to categorize Him).
But Bob, you and I both understand the truth. God is neither subject to that which is good, nor is He above good. God IS good. (Psa. 34:8; 100:5; 145:9)/ And, in spite of db0′s unfounded assertion to the contrary, God changes not (Malachi 3:6).
I do not know if db0 and others even understand what that means, much less the implications of it. They certainly don’t agree with it.
But thanks for your posts nonetheless.
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
There are only two logical options.
What does God IS good mean?
Is it that whatever God believes is necessarily good? Then you have option 2.
Is it that God is always good as we understand it? Then you have option 1.
There are no further logical options and to attempt to find more is, once again, to engage in lingual and mental gymnastics.
I thought we clarified that God is not omnipotent. Or do you disagree with Neil on this? In this case you still have to deal with the PoE which you’ve stopped discussing I might add.
Relative morality does not mean that God is a Tyrant but it explains why his previous actions are wrong to our eyes.
db0 Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense.
Could I ask the natural next question also: What characteristics would elicit respect from you? What evidence would you need?
Off the top of my head I can’t easily tell you hard and fast characteristics.
I would expect him at least to show kindness/compassion appropriate for his abilities, reward for good behaviour (punishment for bad behaviour is not necessary if people see actual reward) and (I cant stress this enough) logical actions that his creation can understand (none of this, kill my son, who is me, but not really kill him, so that I can save everyone, that I damned in the first place). If his actions don’t make sense he should explain them.
My question was never answered. The question was “Why do philosophers generally regard this notion as wrong?” It’s actually a history question.
However, db0 repeated his judgment in another form, which brought him back to saying “I can judge God.” The error lies in the notion if God is the source of moral law, that He is therefor subject to moral law — in the same sense as though he were one of his creatures. That’s wrong because a number of moral laws for humans are as they are specifically because all things ultimately belong to God, and humans lack authority to do them.
Consider murder; murder is morally wrong specifically because the choice of life or death belongs to God alone (this is also why suicide is morally wrong). “Death,” to a human, appears to be the end of things; but to God, the death of a human is just a change of state, like a moth moving from larva to pupa, and God Himself controls the process. For God, what we call “killing” is like moving a chess piece from square A to square B. He can kill or let live with impunity, while man cannot kill without God’s imprimatur.
The same with theft. We’re not permitted to take what belongs to others specifically because it’s not ours to take; but everything belongs to God. So how can the law against theft apply to God?
Ultimately we’re forbidden to take property or life at will specifically BECAUSE WE’RE NOT GOD. God IS God, and He can do those things because He is God.
We humans do a similar thing with treaties, or with extradition — it’s legal for the higher entity (the state) to make a treaty, but not for the lower entity (the individual,) simply by virtue of the definition of what a treaty is and what the state is.
It’s a bit of a stretch for me to imagine how it’s even possible to have a concept of “good” other than “the character of God;” if God’s character were other than what it is, we would have a different definition of “good.” That fact that humans can even conceive of “good” as something other than God’s actual character is a remarkable testimony to the existence of free will, as well as a testimony that human morality has become distorted.
@Plump Bob: Your whole argument again is on the two options I stated.
You are choosing option 2 but just explaining it differently. You have pretty much stated as such by saying:
This is an perfect example of God’s moral relativism. If your morality comes from God then you run into the following problems:
1. God can change his mind and decide that what is today good, tomorrow is bad.
2. God might already have chosen that evil is good because he wants to be amused. He also considers lying to be good so he is lying to us all abotu his true morals.
Since you cannot know God’s character, you cannot know if these statements are true but they are just as credible as the idea that God’s character is good as we understand it.
Other than that, I don’t have anything else to say. I’ve answered the question put to me. I’m not judging God because I don’t believe he exists. Indeed his whole concept is a logical impossibility. What I am judging is a God that could exist and I’m judging him as I would any other dictator with absolute power over my life.
If you god happens to exist and he doesn’t like my judgement, well, tough. He shouldn’t have made humans rational and critical.
Incorrect, as described by Ernie. “God IS good” is not identical to “God is subject to moral law.” And observing that IF God were different, we would have a different definition of “good,” does not constitute acknowledgement that God is morally relative; it’s just a clarification of what I mean by “God is the definition of ‘good’.”
If you want to understand what is meant by “morality is a reflection of God’s character,” imagine a family in which the father is the head of household, and he’s a vicious and capricious man. One day he asserts a household rule that says “talking at the dinner table is punishable by a slap across the face.” The next day he asserts that the silence at the dinner table is unacceptable sullenness, and he berates the family for it.
Neither of the rules actually reflects his character; they’re arbitrary rules. However, the unfairness and unpredictability of the situation are reflections of the man’s character.
Now consider a similar family, only in this one, the father is a kind and principled man. He establishes a rule that the children must produce excellence in their work. One of his children is mentally retarded, so his standard for that child is lower than for the others — but still sets a high standard for that child.
Once again, the rules change, but they change according to predictable and commendable characteristics of the man himself. The rules reflect the principles by which he lives his own life.
Now, in these examples, the father was taught his principles by somebody, but this is not the case with God. He’s simply who He is.
This doesn’t seem like a hard concept to me, and I’m having some difficulty understanding why you’re not getting the distinction between “God is the definition of good” and “God decides what is good.” It suggests that you have no notion of yourself aside from your conscious thoughts. Any psychologist can tell you that you’re a great deal more than just the sum of your conscious thoughts.
Bob, your definition of the Fathers is begging the question.
You start by assuming that father 1 is vicious and capricious while the second is good.
That is all well and good but one has to ask, how does one define father 1 as bad and the second as good if not by their observable actions and by knowledge of the reasoning behind them.
Before I accepted him as my god? I have no idea what that means. Before I worshipped him? I would need to know that he was worthy of worship. The Christian god completely and utterly fails this test.
What behavioral change would that cause? Very little. I do not depend on an external code of ethics to keep me in line. I have a desire to live in a free and open society, and live my life is such a way as to make that happen.
Josh said:
~~~~I do not depend on an external code of ethics to keep me in line. I have a desire to live in a free and open society, and live my life is such a way as to make that happen.~~~~
If I were to live only on an internal code of ethics and my internal code of ethics said that it was wrong for me to let you live and so I killed you, would I be wrong in killing you according to the way you view the world?
If I have a desire to live in a society that I controlled utterly, that no one did anything that I did not want them to, that I could kill whoever did anything that I did not want them to, and I lived my life in such a way as to make that happen, would I be wrong in doing so according to the way you view the world?
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
I’m amused that, as of yet, no one has answered the original question. We have answers to questions not asked. We have commentary on the validity of the question in the first place. But we have no attempts to answer it. I sense a hesitation to genuinely answer the question.
I wonder if it is because an attempt to answer the question would possibly expose the postulator’s acceptable “God” characteristics to scrutiny that others may be able to easily discredit. Or, perhaps, an attempt to list acceptable “God” characteristics may start to look lot like a list describing my Christian God.
Both outcomes would weaken the atheist fortifications, simply a scary thought, I imagine, for an atheist.
@Pop: What nonsense, me and other atheists have answered the questions set to us.
@db0: Nonsense? While you did list some attributes (part A of the question)…
“…kindness/compassion appropriate for his abilities…”
“…reward for good behavior…”
“…logical actions that his creation can understand…”
you did not illustrate what behavioral change if any would that cause in you (part b of the question).
I didn’t classify your response as “genuine” because before you answered the question you first qualified your response; “Off the top of my head I can’t easily tell you hard and fast characteristics.” It just felt like half hearted response…aka disingenuous.
But using your god characteristics…
Let’s say for a moment that a god rewarded his good disciples with ice cream sundae’s (I like ice cream) but, of course, some people were bad. The bad people were not punished they just and weren’t allowed to partake.
I ask…
Wouldn’t the people that weren’t allowed to have ice cream feel like they were being punished?
Couldn’t those that were not allowed to have sundaes make a case that the god was unkind?
Off for some ice cream,
Pop
I’ve already stated that there would have been no behavioral change other than accepting his existence. My previous response that you quoted was a clarification on what would elicit respect
I’ve emhasized the key word here. Just because you feel it, does not make it true, and even if it was half-hearted (it wasn’t), it wouldn’t be disingenuous.
Are you now trying to argue that your God is good and deserves my respect?
If so than you still need to display how he is showing kindness/compassion (I remind you the PoE), and that his actions are reasonable. And also that he exists at all.
You see, the problem you will have with me is not that I consider God evil but that I consider your God non-existent.
While it may not be true that your response was half-hearted it is absolutely true that I felt it was.
I’m not trying to argue at all…just trying to get answers to questions asked and apply your set of characteristics to said scenario.
While it is true that you consider my God non-existent it doesn’t mean he is.
For me, these back and forth sparring sessions are quite enjoyable. But I can’t shake the feeling that it would be more fun if we were debating face-to-face… (I’ve emphasized the key word here)…drinking an iced cold beer.
Can I get an Amen?
Pop
You were sensing hesitation to answer questions because you assumed we were afraid of our own thoughts. I am trying to explain that there is not hesitation but rather puzzlement as the questions pre-assume various things (Like, that the god exists). If you want to attempt to prove that he exists, be my guest but I would assume that this is outside the scope of this article
Be certain though that there is no fear, hesitation or weakening of a position.
Only if you were not prepared to have a serious discussion. I find that in face-to-face talks there is too much interruption and generally the most quick talker comes on top. even if his arguments have no base.
What God would I submit myself to? None. Because the only gods I’d accept as good gods would be ones that don’t ask for my personal submission. A god that I would call good would have some degree of supernatural powers, wisdom, and love, and would of course work in our world and with us each personally to make it better.
He or she would be up front with all of us of any age in history, never revealing him or herself to only small communities and local areas and requiring that they persuade the rest of the entire world. His or her “chosen people” would be everyone, not just one nation. He or she could work wonders with the minds of primitive societies and not give them any arbitrary, silly, or immoral laws to follow. (Like commanding ancient nation tribes to slaughter other nation tribes and take the women as profit.) I could go on all day, but I’ll stop here.
What a fascinating discussion with great point made all around.
MikeH found “the term ‘accept’ to be a little strange” because “If something truly exists, then you don’t ‘accept’ it. It would be like asking ‘what kind of George W. Bush would you accept.”
Plumb Bob reiterated by stating, “What do you mean ‘accept as my god’? Either he exists or he doesn’t…It’s a weird question that’s for sure.”
Yet, keep in mind that after the last election protesters were seen carrying signs that read, “Not my president.” Well, if they are US citizens, he is their president but they did not want to “accept” that fact.
Thus, Neil Mammen hit the nail on the head by rephrase “What sort of God would you accept willingly as your Lord?” The terms “willingly” and “your Lord” are apropos. The existence of W was self-evident to anyone who cared to know the truth yet, the further issue was one of free-will acceptance of him as your president.
Now, as to the question, “What do you find offensive about the Christian God?” one would, of course, have to not merely make arguments from outrage but provide the premise for the assertions/the offenses.
He Who Invents Himself; basically described the human condition better than could many theologians/philosophers. That philosopher of days gone by, Bob Dillon sang, “You’re gonna have to serve somebody, well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord. But you’re gonna have to serve somebody.”
Rejecting God because God asks for our personal submission is a logical non sequitur but very revealing about humanity. Why apply this to God alone?
Do we not submit to hunger who is ever demanding? Or thirst? Or lust? Or joy? Or money? Or children? Etc.? We submit to all sorts of things and yet, do not reject them. Why not submit to the one who can satisfy what nothing else can? The one to whom submission means true freedom?
He Who Invents Himself proposes that “A god that I would call good would have some degree of supernatural powers, wisdom, and love, and would of course work in our world and with us each personally to make it better.” This is the God of the Bible.
Yet, ultimately we learn two very important things from He Who Invents Himself.
I hope that I am not reading too much into it but: as his pseudonym implies He Who Invents Himself is a self made man and the problem with a self made man is that he worships his creation. He Who Invents Himself lives in full submission to a god and that god is in his mirror it is He Who Invents Himself.
Also, we learn that atheist are amongst the most theologically minded people around each has a very specific theology and arbitrarily demands that if God is then God would, or would not, or should, or should not, etc. Any God that does not meet their particular, and oft peculiar requirements is rejected, oft rejected in favor of themselves—the truly omnipotent god who allows them to do as they please as this god is He Who Invents Himself.
The issue of God and morality is best explained by the doctrine of the Trinity which states that God is one being and three “persons”—coequal, coeternal, coexisting.
Since this God has enjoys an eternal relationship with likewise “beings” who are unified ontologically and in purpose He does not lack of relationship. Therefore, He did not need to, or have to, create us in order to have that which he lacked. Other gods have this problem.
Since this God enjoys eternal relationships it is within His very nature to be relational and moral/good. Therefore, His moral laws/codes are not arbitrary declarations. Other gods have these problems.
Since this God made humans in His image we naturally share His relational/moral nature and must reject our God given nature in order to not be relational/moral. Other gods merely dictate arbitrary rules.
1. What types of Gods would be possible?
Uncreated God(s) who do not require time, space and matter for their existence.
2. What types of Gods would be necessary?
Uncreated God(s) who do not require time, space and matter for their existence.
3. What types Gods would be impossible?
Contingent God(s) who require a creator and a creation in which to live.
4. What types of Gods would be unnecessary?
Parochial God(s) who can only handle performing certain limited functions.
Mariano, what kind of God would you accept as not being good? In other words, what act would he have to perform to convince you that he wasn’t the epitome of goodness. How do you know that you are not following a tyrant God who simply claims to be good?
With the true evidence of the Bible who could say that it is not true, when more people know it’ s true, then not.
What do you mean by “good/ness”?
What do YOU mean by “good/ness”?
With the true evidence of the Bible who could say that it is not true, when more people know it’ s true, then not.
Sarah Palin?
Seriously, what? Did you by any chance mean:
With the evidence given in the Bible, who could say that it’s not true? More people know it’s true than don’t.
In that case, you’re still blatantly incorrect, but I just wanted to be clear before I argue with you.
What do YOU mean by “good/ness”?
You’re fighting a losing battle Andrew, I’m afraid; Christians self-define God as “good,” so it’s impossible to get them to discuss the concept of “good” (even subjectively) without pretending that God exists.
Tim, I reckon I win the debate every time people here start trying to play the ‘Atheists can’t say where morality comes from’. I just turn it straight back to them, and none of them have been able to answer themselves. All they have is a circular argument – we know what good is because God is good, we know God is good because he tells us he’s good.
Yeah, I still have one major problem with that argument….
How do we know that God is both the standard and the enforcer of good? To my knowledge, this isn’t in the Bible. It’s just something that someone came up with later on down the line to justify an apparent contradiction. Is it possible? Well of course it is, by the definitions we’ve laid out here. Is it likely? Not really. Is it probable? I certainly don’t think so. It’s just another assertion, in my book.
I mean, if you can prove this is the case, then it might be acceptable (even if highly debatable). But really it’s just an idea, not proof of anything.
Andrew Ryan;
Sir, you posed a question and I find that I cannot attempt to answer it until you define your terminology, I need to know what you are asking before I can answer.
aDios,
Mariano
“What do YOU mean by “good/ness”?”
You used the term ‘goodness’, I’m asking what you mean by it.
The point he’s making is that, to Christians, “good” is defined by God objectively, so you can’t (as an atheist) believe that “good” exists in the sense that they do without accepting the existence of God, as well. And this is true — neither you nor I can accept “goodness” in the sense that Christians do, because “goodness” is, to Christians, essentially “what God says.” It is not based on consequence; it is not based on how much damage or healing it does; it is determined solely by what God says in the book. And if it’s not in the book, then they believe they can determine it somehow by reading things into different parts of the book.
I don’t believe in “goodness” in the sense that these people believe in it. I don’t believe “goodness” is objective, or that it would continue to exist if all humans/conscious entities died out. I define “goodness” as “virtue,” “excellence,” “kindness,” “generosity,” “benevolence,” any of this series of words. They are not specifically defined, so I’ll press further: “Goodness” is a property that I attribute to an action that I believe has been carried out with honesty and sincerity, but also with an honest consideration of the outcome. A Christian who is cruel to homosexuals does not fit this definition, for example, because he/she is refusing to honestly consider what this means — it’s easy to say, “I just want to keep them out of Hell, so I’ll make their lives difficult until they agree to change on their own!”, and use that as an excuse to make oneself feel virtuous….but it’s not honest because it does not examine this any further. It’s simply an excuse taken at face-value, with no consideration for whether or not this will even work on the other party (or whether it’s acceptable, even if it does).
I would call someone “good” if, after doing something I find admirable, I ask them, “What’s your motivation to do something like that?”, they respond, “I don’t know.” Or perhaps, “because it needed to be done.” I believe “goodness” is selflessness (taking enough to survive comfortably off of, but no more than necessary and without detracting from the well-being of others).
Do you need some more examples?
P.S.
What I mean is, you can be “good” in my world by adhering to a system that acknowledges the consequences of your actions to others, and at the same time respects the rights of others to live and to return to you what you give to them. Although it’s more than that, because it also sort of contradicts; I also believe that you shouldn’t always return negative feedback to someone just for the sake of returning negative feedback, i.e. punishment for the sake of punishment, or revenge for the sake of revenge (i.e. if God tells you that doing something horrible to a non-believer, either to punish him/her or to convert him/her, is “okay,” then you should be able to say, “I’m not going to carry out an act of retribution for the sole sake of retribution”). There should always be a reason for one’s actions, I guess is what I’m saying.
It’s surprisingly hard to put into words 0_0
But what is “good” then. Why be it? Why not do what you want to do? If you are a soldier in battle, why not rape and kill if you know you’ll never be caught and are a member of a third world army? The people you rape are going to die anyway. Why not steal their stuff? No one will find out?
What is good? What is bad? Why should I respect other people’s rights? Because it’s “good” to do so? But that is begging the question.
Why not do that act of retribution? Because it’s not good? That doesn’t make sense. Give me one reason why your rules are better than mine (rape and pillage as long as you don’t get caught and there are no consequences).
Why was Hitler wrong? Was it just because he lost the war? If he had won, and was made a hero and everyone thought he was a hero, would he really be a hero in your eyes? Would he really be a good guy?
If there is NO Absolute Morality why was Hitler wrong?
If there IS an absolute Morality why do YOU get to decide what it is and not Hitler?
“If there is NO Absolute Morality why was Hitler wrong?”
Positing a God doesn’t help here, Storm. If there is a God, then why is he right over Satan? Positing absolute morality doesn’t help either. How do you know that absolute morality doesn’t come down on Hitler’s side? If it does then you’re screwed, as you can’t even argue against it.
But what is “good” then. Why be it?
You don’t seem to understand….there is objective reason to want to be good even if God is real. This is a non-question. Think about it:
Q: Why should I be “good?”
A: Because if you’re not, God will punish you!
Q: Why should I care if God punishes me?
A: Because it’s unpleasant/painful/etc.!
Q: What if that doesn’t bother me?
A: But it will!
Q: Maybe, maybe not.
There is nothing giving anyone an objective reason to be “good,” even if God did exist and would punish you for not being “good.” Even if he did/does….I don’t think it can be considered a “moral decision” if you do it to avoid punishment. If doing it to avoid punishment is the only thing you can claim to have over an atheist, then you are fighting a losing battle, my friend.
If you are a soldier in battle, why not rape and kill if you know you’ll never be caught and are a member of a third world army?
Better question: why do it? It’s completely unnecessary, it’s quite difficult, and you’re already quite pressed as is (given that you’re in a poorly-equipped third world army). Also, it causes more pain and suffering that is necessary.
There’s a scene in Odin Sphere that describes this well enough; the valkyrie princess’ sister is killed in battle by the shadow knight, so she goes to challenge him unprepared. He easily disarms her and holds his sword to her throat; she proclaims, “Go ahead, kill me! Let me die with honor!” To which he responds, “There’s been enough senseless killing today. Go home.” And he leaves without making another move.
Do you mean to tell me that the reason offered in that scene is a worse reason for not killing someone than, “Because God said not to?”
Also, not everyone in third-world-armies are bloodthirsty rapist/murderers. The US isn’t the only nation with an army that believes in peace, respect and values. Just because they’re not Christian doesn’t mean they can’t be civilized. Surely, there are some that have such violent tendencies….but the same could be said of the US army, or any army. And so I resent this comparison.
The people you rape are going to die anyway. Why not steal their stuff? No one will find out?
I think it’s telling how “no one will find out” is, for you folks, a better reason to do something unpleasant than “it’s compeletely unnecessary, unduly harmful, and disrespectful” is for not doing that same thing. It seems that the ability to do something is all you need in order to justify it to yourself that you “should” do it, and that it’s only okay to not do it because “God told you not to.”
What is good? What is bad?
Nothing.
Why should I respect other people’s rights?
Good question! Why should you? I, for one, want to respect people’s rights, for reasons I’ve laid out at end (and multiple times) in many topics across this board. If you’d like I can lay them out again. At the end of the day, though, it doesn’t matter how convincing or effective or rational your or my arguments seem to be, a person who will choose not to respect someone else’s rights will do so based on a rational or emotional premise that neither of us agree with; therefore, any logic that follows the differing premises between us will fall flat. In order to convince someone of something logically, one must follow rationality from their logical premise, not one’s own. Or if that is undesirable (i.e. their premise condones things like rape and murder, like, “The world owes me ’cause I had a bad childhood, so I don’t care who I hurt”), then it might be desirable to try and change that premise. But there is no guarantee that this will work without the consent of the individual, since such a premise as that (or as “God is good,” or “people need to be happy and content with their lives and their sense of progress”) is made completely by choice, without a rational basis. Logical premises, i.e. “givens,” don’t usually have rational bases as far as the figure in question is concerned (i.e. we’re not arguing the logical basis of the premises, we’re arguing the logical deduction that comes as a result of accepting the logical premises). You follow me?
Because it’s “good” to do so? But that is begging the question.
It’s not that you do it “because it is good;” it’s rather, the thing that you do becomes “good” as a result of the consequences it entails.
Why not do that act of retribution? Because it’s not good? That doesn’t make sense.
I don’t not do it “because it’s not good.” I don’t do it because it’s completely unnecessary, and because it causes undue pain and suffering. In the case of my earlier example — the act of retribution — I have already won whatever conflict there was; hence I am presented with the chance to “get revenge” on the opposing side. Use this election as a fine example; It would be just as easy for Barack Obama to wave the fact that he won in the faces of McCain supporters and tell them where to go — and in a sense he would be justified, because he did win the election and so it’s perfectly fair that he should be able to enact policies that he and his party favor, whether or not the opposing party agrees with them (because the opposing party is not in office and therefore has no real say in his policies), but he chooses to listen to them anyway, because it serves the spirit of unity that has been trumpeted as the goal of his administration since the early Dem primaries. He could be a jerk about it, sure, and it would be justified in a technical sense….but it would just cause undue division and suffering. It would be a completely pointless gesture of meaningless hostility.
In that same sense, further hurting someone you’ve already beaten is completely useless. There are rules to war; it’s like a game in that sense, albeit an extremely violent and painful one that nobody really wants to play. It’s agreed that the loser will adhere to the conditions set by the victor. When we excessively punished Germany after WWI as an act of retribution (“Take that!”), we destroyed their economy. This led them down the rabbit-hole of desperation, to the point where they would allow anyone into power who could promise them success and prosperity again. Unfortunately, that person was Hitler.
Why was Hitler wrong? Was it just because he lost the war? If he had won, and was made a hero and everyone thought he was a hero, would he really be a hero in your eyes? Would he really be a good guy?
I wouldn’t think so, no. But you have to admit; when we go to war, and are defeated, we have lost the game. You can complain about the result, but that’s the sad fact of this world — no matter how “right” or “wrong” you may be according to any particular religion or self-identified belief, there is no guarantee that your view will succeed based solely on its inherent “rightness” or “wrongness.” Even in the Bible this is the case; “wrongness” according to the Bible held sway for a long time before Jesus was born. Does that mean that, before Jesus was born, these things were considered “objectively good,” or “not objectively bad?” Does that change because God decided it was okay/not okay then, when it was the opposite before? Was it “okay” because the “bad” side was in power at first?
If there is NO Absolute Morality why was Hitler wrong?
If you cannot come up with one single reason why Hitler was wrong, then I have to say you’re in a sorry and desperate position, my friend. In an objective sense there is no moral equivalent of “wrong,” since morals are only perceived ideas to which we attribute value and respect as individuals, about that you are right. But just because he is not “objectively” so, does not mean we are forced to accept his actions. He is a man that introduced an idea to the table — the idea of world domination through genocide and terror. In return, the other superpowers of the world at the time (also constructed of humans, not Gods) kicked his teeth in without ever realizing the Nazis were constructing and utilizing death-camps (because by that time we had already almost won the war).
God’s word is stagnant and unchanging. The world is constantly changing. God’s word does not save us from folks like Hitler. It is up to human beings to enact positive or negative change in the world around us, based solely on our own motivations. Whether you care to admit it or not, the motivation to do God’s will is your own; that motivation belongs to each Christian individually. That doesn’t make it less valuable than an atheist viewpoint — do not misunderstand me at all here — it simply means it does not carry the objective weight that you think it does. All of the problems you folks accuse atheists of having no way around, you also have no way around. And yet we have both reached similar conclusions regarding murder, rape, genocide, and all manner of things. We agree on the value of human life (though not necessarily the definition of human life, or when it begins); we agree that people like Hitler should be stopped; even if we don’t share the exact same motivations to these ends. The only difference between our seemingly radically different beliefs comes on particular non-lethal issues like homosexuality, which I believe is not “bad” because it bears no negative consequences to any party involved, whereas you believe it is inherently “bad” by its nature. The score has been settled by man on the issues of murder and rape; they are not legal and never will be. This has been debated, and the people have agreed. If you think making so that we also agree on homosexuality and abortion (two issues) is justification for denegrating the ideas that lead to the conclusion that murder and rape are not permissible, or that people have inherent human rights (among others), then by all means proceed. But realize, most people aren’t going to reconfigure a worldview that affords for murder and rape and theft to be impermissible, because that only leaves some very shaky alternatives.
How do you know that absolute morality doesn’t come down on Hitler’s side? If it does then you’re screwed, as you can’t even argue against it.
The problem here is that absolute morality can only be asserted, never enforced. Hitler could assert objective morality based on some other moral code, and he would be no less correct than the Evangelicals who cite God as the source of objective morality. Because the existence of God is part of the Evangelical argument for OM; the idea that “if God exists, His opinion is more important than that of a single man” is only viable if one first proves that one’s particular, individual God exists. And since the existence of Christian God is far from proven, this case holds no water; Hitler would be no less “right” to claim that some other source (be it rationality, or God, or whatever) gave his beliefs objectivity than an Evangelical would be to assert that God gives their beliefs objectivity.
“The people you rape are going to die anyway. Why not steal their stuff?”
Why not rape them, kill them, steal their stuff, then ask God for forgiveness and get to heaven anyway? Honestly, your question is more problematic for Christians than it is for atheists. Especially because there are passages in the bible where God DOES command soldiers to kill, rape and steal. Does that make it OK, if God commands you to do it?
Andrew Ryan;
Press CTRL+F and search for the word “goodness,” you will find that the first appearance of it is in your question to me. Thus, I seek a definition from you. I only employed the term “goodness” after you did as to acquire a definition. But ok, let us drop this since you will say that I used the term “good” and I will say that I was referring to previous instances in comments above mine ad infinitum.
To ask “Why not rape them, kill them, steal their stuff, then ask God for forgiveness and get to heaven anyway?” does nothing to discredit Christianity but discredits you as it demonstrates your lack of knowledge of that which you are criticizing.
Only an atheist could think that salvation is about getting away with it, that God’s grace is an excuse for sin or that would could fool God or take advantage of a loophole.
And if it needs be said, the Bible says it:
Jude 1:4 refers to “ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness.”
Galatians 5:13 states “For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not [use] liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.”
Romans 6:1-2 states, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?”
As to the “passages in the bible where God DOES command soldiers to kill, rape and steal”:
Soldiers to kill? Yes, soldiers have been known to do that in fact, that is their job.
Soldiers commanded to rape? This is atheist mythology and never stated in the Bible.
Soldiers commanded to steal? War booty is not theft.
Storm77 made some good points and you could only answer by not answering but by merely pulling a semblance of the “you do it too” card.
Tim D.;
You make an interesting point: let us grant that Christians define “goodness” essentially as “what God says.” God says love your neighbor, the Golden Rule, love for enemies, doing for those in need, etc., etc.
The atheists define “goodness” essentially as “what the atheist says” or “whatever you/I say” or “whatever the strongest says” or “whatever the latest evolutionary gene/meme mutation says” etc.
Is something “good” because an atheist says it is or does an atheist say that it is “good” because it is “good”?
When you begin presuming to define “goodness” in terms of “how much damage or healing it does.” Yet, you are not providing a premise or support or grounding but are merely piling assertion upon assertion: we should be good and goodness is based on damage or healing are assertions, virtue, excellence, kindness, generosity, benevolence, et al you are merely building a tel or assertions.
You finally get to the point by asking “Do you need some more examples?” Yet, all you have done is present examples while never providing a premise as to why your examples are valid. Thus, your examples are arguments from authority—you even refer to “my world”—thus saith you, go and do likewise.
As for your Q&A: it is a reductionist/materialist argument (no surprise). But God has a way of touching the heart which has reason that reason knows not. Moreover, you are caricaturizing theistic statements: why not Q: Why should I be “good?” A: Because God loves you and we are all made in His image (although this may also fail as a reductionist/materialist argument yet, the point was to augment the caricature).
You then fall into another caricature by making the very, very popular but very, very fallacious argument about “moral decision” based on avoiding punishment—notice that again, you are the arbiter of all things good and moral. Riddle me this: do you stop at red lights because of your compassion in not wanting to hurt anyone? No, according to your argument, you stop due to your fear of being punished for breaking the law.
I think that you are confusing “objective reason” with whether someone chooses to accept it or not or chooses to adhere to it or not.
Since there are not rational or biological reasons for goodness/morality the atheist borrows Judeo-Christian goodness/morality. Yet, in doing so they deny the God premise upon which they are founded, rob them of their value and reduce them to arguments from authority—do this and do not do that or I will disapprove and embarrass you while impotently shaking my first in subjective disapproval.
aDios,
Mariano
“When you begin presuming to define “goodness” in terms of “how much damage or healing it does.”
A definition that you have failed to improve on, or even provide any meaningful counterpoint at all. You selectively pick quotes from the bible. Check out the Prophets of Baal.
“Only an atheist could think that salvation is about getting away with it, that God’s grace is an excuse for sin or that would could fool God or take advantage of a loophole.”
Tell that to the countless Christians who bring up Pascal’s Wager.
“Soldiers to kill? Yes, soldiers have been known to do that in fact, that is their job.”
Right. But God commands them to kill children. You might say ‘all’s fair in war’, but that’s hardly a good moral example. Children are blameless in a war situation.
“No, according to your argument, you stop due to your fear of being punished for breaking the law.”
Er no, YOU are the one following a God, doing good out of fear of hell. I am the one who does ‘good for goodness’ sake’. To continue the analogy, I am the one who stops at the traffic lights even though I don’t believe there is a policeforce to punish me’.
“Storm77 made some good points and you could only answer by not answering but by merely pulling a semblance of the “you do it too” card.”
You must be confusing my post with someone else’s. I said replied this to him:
“Positing a God doesn’t help here, Storm. If there is a God, then why is he right over Satan? Positing absolute morality doesn’t help either. How do you know that absolute morality doesn’t come down on Hitler’s side? If it does then you’re screwed, as you can’t even argue against it.”
How is this ‘playing the you do it too card’?
I could go through every line of your post, but it’s so muddleheaded that I really can’t be bothered.
The atheists define “goodness” essentially as “what the atheist says” or “whatever you/I say” or “whatever the strongest says” or “whatever the latest evolutionary gene/meme mutation says” etc.
Is something “good” because an atheist says it is or does an atheist say that it is “good” because it is “good”?
I would argue that there is no objective, narrowed-down definition of good. To me, “good” describes “the most preferable outcome/result based on a stated set of criteria.” This is the only way to objectively define such a concept, as far as our language is concerned.
When you begin presuming to define “goodness” in terms of “how much damage or healing it does.” Yet, you are not providing a premise or support or grounding but are merely piling assertion upon assertion: we should be good and goodness is based on damage or healing are assertions, virtue, excellence, kindness, generosity, benevolence, et al you are merely building a tel or assertions.
You finally get to the point by asking “Do you need some more examples?” Yet, all you have done is present examples while never providing a premise as to why your examples are valid. Thus, your examples are arguments from authority—you even refer to “my world”—thus saith you, go and do likewise.
I’m not trying to convince you that my ideology is “objectively good,” or that anything I perceive as good is objectively so; I am only attempting to communicate to you that I do have a standard for judging “good” and “bad” in a subjective sense, although I am capable of defending this rationality to you should it come to that. Ultimately, though, the morality itself is not what people will argue when it comes to such “differences of opinion;” rather, the assumptions that these morals are based upon will become the topic of the debate — assumptions such as, “God is good” (which I assume to be your premise?) and “The Happiness Quotient” (which is the abbreviated title for my argument that the sum total of human happiness is most important from a human perspective). We could spend the rest of our lives debating the actual morals themselves and get absolutely nowhere, because they are based on differing premises. It is no crime or shame that these premises are what they are, and nobody should really be surprised that they exist, at least I don’t think so.
As for your Q&A: it is a reductionist/materialist argument (no surprise). But God has a way of touching the heart which has reason that reason knows not.
Bible quote, I take it? In any case, this is as much of an assertion as anything I’ve said.
Moreover, you are caricaturizing theistic statements: why not Q: Why should I be “good?” A: Because God loves you and we are all made in His image (although this may also fail as a reductionist/materialist argument yet, the point was to augment the caricature).
I didn’t mean anything aggressive by the simplicity of the remarks; I just needed a filler statement to represent the opposition. The actual belief itself was irrelevant to making the point that I want to make — that it doesn’t matter what the belief is, the mere fact that it exists in a person’s mind (or in many people’s minds) does not cause it to transcend said mind(s).
Riddle me this: do you stop at red lights because of your compassion in not wanting to hurt anyone? No, according to your argument, you stop due to your fear of being punished for breaking the law.
It was my understanding that I stopped at a red light because this was the agreed-upon system that we (as members of this society) have adopted to regulate the use of our traffic ways and make them safer for people to navigate, and that if I break this rule, it (a) poses a danger to others, (b) is unfair to others, and (c) undermines the integrity of the system as a whole.
Since there are not rational or biological reasons for goodness/morality the atheist borrows Judeo-Christian goodness/morality.
There are plenty of rational/biological reasons for goodness and morality, just not in an objective sense (they must also be broken down into coherent segments before they can be defined. Think, if we tried to define “music” as a mathematical factor; this is impossible because music is not a detectable thing in and of itself, it is a name we have given to a collection of things that are detectable by themselves — sounds). Do you believe that, if it does not exist in an objective sense, then it does not exist at all? Likewise, do you believe that if it does exist but only subjectively, that it is less valuable and should be done away with? If you answer “yes” to the latter question, then you are the only person making that argument; an atheist would not make that same argument.
Yet, in doing so they deny the God premise upon which they are founded, rob them of their value and reduce them to arguments from authority—do this and do not do that or I will disapprove and embarrass you while impotently shaking my first in subjective disapproval.
Not exactly, no; that’s not the intent. The intent is to set up an agreed-upon system (a society) that tries to respect people’s rights and allow for as much individual freedom as possible, while still adhering to a set of rules that keeps people from interfering with each other’s freedom; there’s an old adage that says, “Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.” This is a decent illustration of this point, I think. It has very little to do with forcing people to behave a certain way; in the sense of promoting/condemning certain behaviors, it means only to deter people from behaving in ways that affect the freedoms of others.
Soldiers to kill? Yes, soldiers have been known to do that in fact, that is their job.
True.
Soldiers commanded to rape? This is atheist mythology and never stated in the Bible.
Actually….hold on a second.
Soldiers commanded to steal? War booty is not theft.
Here’s where my problem stands. From Deuteronomy 20:10-14:
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
You are right; I agree that taking spoils of war is not theft. However, I do believe that the definition of “spoils of war” described in the OT is quite disturbing, as it includes young women (virgins) and the act of having sex with them with or without their consent — which essentially amounts to rape. I think perhaps you made that comment about spoils of war with a degree of irony, assuming that I or anyone else accepted the definition of “spoils” offered in the OT. I do not consider human beings of any gender or age to be property, and thus I do not believe that they can ever be included as “spoils of war” under any circumstances. That is equivalent with slavery.
There are countless other examples, such as from Numbers, of the “…But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves” variety.
It’s a bit rich for Mariano to say that “the atheist borrows Judeo-Christian goodness/morality.” If atheists were borrowing morality from the bible then we’d all be raping and enslaving all the time.
If that were the case there’d be proportionately as many atheists in prison as Christians. In fact we see that atheists are dramatically under represented in American prisons, even allowing for their small proportion in the general population. And this is according to religion given by prisoners ON ENTRY to jail, so cannot be explained by atheists converting once incarcerated.
Tim’s hit the nail on the head – the term ‘good’ is always going to come down to each person’s definition of the word, as it’s a subjective term. Even the Christian who claims that he doesn’t use his own definition, he uses God’s – even he must have used his own values and judgement to decide their God was good in the first place, and was therefore the right being to entrust with questions of morality. If they didn’t already have some kind of measure of ‘good’ then they might as well have decided to trust in Satan’s morality, or their Uncle Peter’s, or whoever.
So let me get this straight. You have no standard of morality but you think ours is wrong? How can you say ours is wrong if there is no standard. It’s wrong for YOU. How can you make a black and white statement about the wrongness of raping or torturing babies for fun if it’s all subjective? You like saving Jews, Hitler liked killing them…how can you say Hitler was wrong?
Andrew Ryan and Tim D;
I hope that you enjoyed Thanksgiving Day (if you are in the USA, that is).
Andrew;
Your statement about me “doing good out of fear of hell” and you doing “‘good for goodness’ sake” is a very popular atheist argument but it is merely well-within-the-box-group-think:
You cannot read my mind nor know my motivations therefore, you do not know why I do what I do and presuming to know it only demonstrated your prejudice (literally meaning to pre judge).
You also are not considering that atheists, including yourself, may have reasons for doing good that are less than pure.
If there is a God, He is right over Satan because morality is founded upon God’s very nature which has eternally enjoyed relationships within the godhead.
I realize that you cannot state that Hitler was absolutely wrong/bad/evil/immoral and if you do you will be forced, by intellectual honestly, to admit that this is a personal preference of your and that you cannot impose that conclusion upon anyone else.
Tim;
Actually I did not quote the Bible (as if there would be anything wrong with that) I was quoting Pascal.
Your answer to the red light issue was quite right: thus, just because you would likely suffer a legal punishment for breaking that law does in no way mean that you do stop at red lights merely to avoid the punishment. This is why the theists do good for reward and out of fear of punishment argument is fallacious.
What you personally believe about the spoils of war described in the OT is erroneous. It does not include the act of having sex with them with or without their consent. Nor is this equivalent with slavery. These are atheist myths.
Tim and Andrew;
Please pardon me for making a rather pointed statement: as disturbing as you may find the cherry-picked-Bible-pull-quotes you provided, I find it very disturbing that both of you would read something like “keep for yourselves all the women” or “all the women…that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves” and infer rape.
You are inventing the idea of rape and reading it into the text (this is isogesis and is hermeneutically inappropriate). Perhaps, since this is a very popular but fallacious atheist myth, some atheist told you that it referred to rape and you believed their interpretation by faith. Moreover, I do not see how you can condemn the less evolutionarily mature morals of the ancient Middle East.
Since I do not know either from whence you get your information nor how you came to your conclusions I will simply point out that regulations regarding war captives were very strict. In the case of the women mentioned in the texts you selectively quote, if a man was interested in one of them he was to:
Provide her with housing.
Give her one month to mourn.
Then they may get married.
If they later divorce she was to go free and not be mistreated. (Deuteronomy ch. 21).
Andrew;
You further demonstrate a lack of knowledge about that which you criticize. If atheists were borrowing morality from the Bible you would not be raping, as we just saw, and you would not be enslaving. This is another atheist myth due to lack of basic biblical knowledge.
The laws particular to life in the ancient Middle East were particular for a particular people group, living in a particular place and during a particular time. It is the law which they, as a nation, agreed to follow and is not applicable for today.
As for your imprisonment stats, or allusion to stats, I must admit that more than ever, during an election season where we saw polls manipulated so as to lean in a certain direction I am less and less confident in such polls, stats, studies, etc.
However, you are neglecting to consider to aspects of the issue:
“Christian” could mean “raised that way,” “was an altar boy,” “go to church,” “my parents are Christian,” etc. and atheists do not exist in a bubble but are influenced by Christian morality.
I hope to find both of you well, take care, aDios,
Mariano
“He is right over Satan because morality is founded upon God’s very nature which has eternally enjoyed relationships within the godhead.”
That’s a circular argument. God is right over Satan according to God’s nature. One could argue that Satan is right over God according to SATAN’s nature. I’m asking you how YOU know that God is the right one out of the two. Can you please give me an answer that doesn’t use circular reasoning.
“The laws particular to life in the ancient Middle East were particular for a particular people group, living in a particular place and during a particular time. It is the law which they, as a nation, agreed to follow and is not applicable for today.”
With respect, don’t call me ignorant. I’ll do you the same favour. If you’re picking and choosing which bits of the bible were just ‘of the time, for those peopel’ and which are still applicable now, then what use is it as a guide to your morality? Surely God could say ‘slavery is always wrong’? How can it have been right then, but not right now? That’s known as moral relativism, the very thing you accuse atheists of.
“Moreover, I do not see how you can condemn the less evolutionarily mature morals of the ancient Middle East.”
The quotes are supposedly from your God. It is YOU who are cherry-picking which bits you want to accept, not us.
So let me get this straight. You have no standard of morality but you think ours is wrong? How can you say ours is wrong if there is no standard. It’s wrong for YOU. How can you make a black and white statement about the wrongness of raping or torturing babies for fun if it’s all subjective? You like saving Jews, Hitler liked killing them…how can you say Hitler was wrong?
Let me explain something to you, very simply.
I value life. Why? I just do. Call it a faith value if you must. In any circumstance where it can be possibly avoided, I would certainly opt to try and preserve it by whatever means possible (except the destruction of more life; separate discussion, see “moral dilemma”).
As a result of this, I disagree with Hitler. I would have fought against Hitler if I had been alive in his day and aware of what he was doing. I don’t care if that is “right” or “wrong,” nor am I aware of the objectivity of any such concept; I have instilled value in the idea of freedom and life and pursuit of happiness, for whatever reason, and so I would fight to support these ideas. I would fight against anyone who tried to destroy or debase these ideals, both metaphorically and physically if necessary.
I do not care why someone else who agrees with me does so in this respect; I don’t challenge why someone else values life, so long as they do. I do not care if it is “right” or “wrong” to value life, because I do, and there is nothing that can change that. If someone wanted to help me defeat Nazi troops in battle, I would gladly accept their aid without question.
I also value happiness, as I’ve said. Life cannot be truly lived without some degree of happiness. As such, I don’t find value in the idea of oppressing large numbers of people to please just a few. I also do not believe in inhibiting the lives or freedoms of people (any number) to support the idea of “furthering society,” or “expanding the population.” I do not support this “Anthill Ideology.” As such, I do not find it “immoral” for a couple (straight or gay) to marry without reproducing, or to not marry at all. Likewise, I do not find it “immoral” for a couple to marry but not produce children. I don’t think it is their “duty” to fulfill such deeds, nor do I think this is a standard by which they should be judged as individuals in any way. I do not believe the state should have a say in this in any way, because simply put, it is the business of the couple and no one else.
I could go on, but I think you get the idea….I’m just like you. I have values and beliefs that I am willing to defend because I believe in them. I do not care if they are “right” or “wrong” in an objective sense because that means absolutely nothing; if they are “right,” that will not help me support the ideas any differently than if they were “wrong” or if they were not objective at all. The fight that I am tasked with is still exactly the same, whether or not my morals are objective. And so the idea of OM, even if it does exist (and I am still thoroughly unconvinced that it does), is completely useless to me in any sense. There is no way to verify what is “right” and “wrong” in this sense, becuase if some moral idea is “objectively true,” then it would be instrinsically so, without measure. So we cannot even know if it is so, because there is no standard by which we can judge these things; there is nothing that makes it so, except that it “is.” It would be much like “2 + 2 = 4,” except we couldn’t even directly observe that it was “true” in the sense that we could observe of “2 + 2 = 4.” There is simply no way to determine this “moral truth” without simply assuming that it is true; if you believe that God’s existence or proclamation (or both) makes it true, then that is your choice to make, but the fact of the matter is that we still cannot know. We can only accept on faith.
Do you understand yet why the idea of “objective morality” is not necessary for someone to defend his/her beliefs?
Your answer to the red light issue was quite right: thus, just because you would likely suffer a legal punishment for breaking that law does in no way mean that you do stop at red lights merely to avoid the punishment. This is why the theists do good for reward and out of fear of punishment argument is fallacious.
The law is supported by a sound argument and a group consensus; if we all agree to this one simple, occasional inconvenience, then the overall span of our lives will be increased dramatically due to the greatly-decreased risk of death or permanent injury by car accident. It’s still up to the individual to choose whether or not to accept these conditions; if he/she does not, he/she is forced to take responsibility for his/her own actions. He/she may die in a car crash; he/she may not. If he/she survives, he/she may be prosecuted for criminal action.
In any case, I don’t believe I made that particular argument of Christians in this topic.
What you personally believe about the spoils of war described in the OT is erroneous. It does not include the act of having sex with them with or without their consent. Nor is this equivalent with slavery. These are atheist myths.
By all means, explain to me how it is different! My ears are wide open.
Please pardon me for making a rather pointed statement: as disturbing as you may find the cherry-picked-Bible-pull-quotes you provided, I find it very disturbing that both of you would read something like “keep for yourselves all the women” or “all the women…that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves” and infer rape.
It makes little sense to mention that the women have never had sex unless it bears on the reasoning somehow. Or is this explained later? Again, my ears are open.
If you’re picking and choosing which bits of the bible were just ‘of the time, for those peopel’ and which are still applicable now, then what use is it as a guide to your morality? Surely God could say ’slavery is always wrong’? How can it have been right then, but not right now? That’s known as moral relativism, the very thing you accuse atheists of.
I have another question in that regard: How does one know if it is “right” now? How can one tell the difference between what was “right” back in the day and why it was so, and what is right today and why it is so, according to the Bible? Where is this line drawn? I don’t understand this.
You see Tim, the Christians on this site have have painted themselves into a corner on this subject in a way most other Christians haven’t. They claim that without God you can’t have reasonable grounds for discussing morality; they’re effectively saying that biblical morality is the only true morality. No Christian I am friends with makes the claim that my morality is without basis.
Furthermore, if a person asserts something is moral or immoral PURELY on biblical text, without any reference to reason, or the harm principal, or the effect that act might have, they then have to hold every other piece of biblical morality to the same standard. In other words, you can’t say X is wrong because the bible says so, but when the bible says y
My Christian mother does have to explain away parts of the bible where God commands soldiers to stick swords into the pregnant bellies of their enemies’ wives. Likewise, slavery in the bible isn’t problematic for her. Because she holds the general ideas of Jesus to be ‘do as you would be done by’, ‘do no harm’, and love each other.
Sorry, incomplete sentence:
In other words, you can’t say X is wrong because the bible says so, but when the bible condones Y, that’s just done to the mores of the time. If you’re able to make the distinction then you have to have a method external to the bible of divining which one is genuinely moral or immoral. Which puts you in ‘the same boat’ as the atheists.
Similarly, Mariano and the others have consistently failed to say how they’re able to choose God’s morality over Satan’s without recourse to a circular argument.
Andrew Ryan and Tim D.;
Funny, I was thinking of making a basic point that I think we have missed and then I read “Which puts you in ‘the same boat’ as the atheists.” In a particular sense this is true and I regret that I have not made this clear earlier as it has caused a lot of unnecessary fog.
First let me say to Andrew that I meant no offense by referring to your lack of knowledge. I did not realize that this was an offense to your atheist morality. Please feel free to refer to me as “ignorant” anytime that you perceive that I lack gnosis (in fact I chose to write “lack of knowledge” because “ignorant” has a negative connotation). I am more than please to have that pointed out to me since it may make me aware of an area in which I am lacking and may take it as an opportunity to better inform myself (and I am not being the least bit sarcastic in any of this).
As to the boat that we, in a way, share:
We must all reason about, and base our moral positions, on something. I do not know about “the Christians on this site” but I have not argued that “without God you can’t have reasonable grounds for discussing morality” nor that your personal “morality is without basis.”
By absolute morals it should not be meant (nor misunderstood) that there is a neat set of laws written for all people for all time—at least not in a “literal” word for word manner. By absolute morals it should be meant that there is an absolute premise, God’s nature, and absolute principles, such as the Ten Commandments, etc.
The same God who stated “‘…let us reason together,’ Says the LORD” (Isaiah 1:18) provided the premise and the principles. Yet, we must reason about how and when to apply which principle, in this sense we are on the same boat. Lying is stating something that you know is not true in order to deceive someone so as to benefit yourself. Lying is immoral but if it will save a person’s life the dynamic changes, the spirit of the law changes, the definition of lying changes and so I will lie for the greater morality. The caution is to not say that since lying is ok sometimes then I can lie about anything anytime and simply justify it.
I suppose that I would argue this: God’s nature is expressed towards humanity for our ultimate benefit while satan’s is counter to that. God placed his law upon our hearts and they function as a conscience. God made us conscious, cognizant and able to reason. Thus, we, atheist and theist alike, can recognize what is moral and immoral (generally speaking) and can recognize amoral people (sociopaths, etc.).
If all I had is reason and nature I do not see why I would feel bad about stealing a candy bar from a store or committing atrocity. If I did feel bad about it, bad enough to not do it, it would be a personal preference with which you could just as easily disagree.
If you say,
“I value life. Why? I just do.”
I can state, “I do not value life. Why? I just do not.”
And now, may the fittest win.
Incidentally, I will, of course, assume that you are pro-life with regards to abortion.
You say that life has extrinsic value and I say that it has both extrinsic and intrinsic, subjective and objective value.
If there is only personal preference, if there is not an absolute premise and principle upon which to value life then when I choose to not value life I violate nothing but have merely changed my bio-chemical-soup-mind.
Yet, if there is an absolute premise and principle upon which to value life then when I choose to not value life I am violating the very premise upon which I valued life.
Personal preference is not potent, does not ensure justice, does not administer morality and is not absolute.
God is potent, ensure justice, administers morality and is absolute.
My point about condemning of less evolutionarily mature morals of the past was to ask how you justify doing that and or even how you justify condemning anything today since I could just say, “That’s your personal preference, I do not care about it and if I can get away with it, I will simply get away with it”?
Hitler, the Nazis, and the majority of Germans agree with you: they were valuing the idea of freedom and life and pursuit of happiness from their perspective. Yet, you pose you assertions and judge the entire world by them.
When you state, “I do not care if they are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ in an objective sense because that means absolutely nothing; if they are ‘right,’ that will not help me support the ideas any differently than if they were ‘wrong’ or if they were not objective at all.” This is virtually the same stated by the Nazis at Nuremburg, they were merely following orders, the laws of their land.
As to the Bible: there is a reason that the Christian Bible consists of the “Old” and “New” covenants or testaments? The old was for the particular people/place/time and the new reiterates from the old that which we are still supposed to follow. Tim, I am not sure about your opened ears statement as I already provided the information.
aDios,
Mariano
Mariano, again you are dodging the question:
“Similarly, Mariano and the others have consistently failed to say how they’re able to choose God’s morality over Satan’s without recourse to a circular argument.”
You’ve had days to think of a reply!
“Hitler, the Nazis, and the majority of Germans agree with you”
And I could claim they agree with you. Where does that get us?
The same God who stated “‘…let us reason together,’ Says the LORD” (Isaiah 1:18) provided the premise and the principles. Yet, we must reason about how and when to apply which principle, in this sense we are on the same boat. Lying is stating something that you know is not true in order to deceive someone so as to benefit yourself. Lying is immoral but if it will save a person’s life the dynamic changes, the spirit of the law changes, the definition of lying changes and so I will lie for the greater morality. The caution is to not say that since lying is ok sometimes then I can lie about anything anytime and simply justify it.
I have to say I agree with this version a lot moreso than I have with previous ones; I do believe it is up to the human mind to discern when and where to apply whatever morality we have produced within ourselves.
If all I had is reason and nature I do not see why I would feel bad about stealing a candy bar from a store or committing atrocity. If I did feel bad about it, bad enough to not do it, it would be a personal preference with which you could just as easily disagree.
And there are people, believe it or not, who don’t feel bad about stealing a candy bar from a store or committing “atrocity.” And it’s just as you say it is; it’s a personal preference with which someone else could easily disagree. So I ask, then, in what sense does this “supreme law” come into play? What does it mean that someone “should” do something, or that something is “right?” What change or process does that describe? What does that term refer to?
You say that life has extrinsic value and I say that it has both extrinsic and intrinsic, subjective and objective value.
So where is this objective value, then? How can it be proven? Likewise, if life has objective value, then this value would continue to exist even if all life ceased to exist; so where would this value exist, then? How, or in what state, would it exist? How could it be shown?
If there is only personal preference, if there is not an absolute premise and principle upon which to value life then when I choose to not value life I violate nothing but have merely changed my bio-chemical-soup-mind.
Yet, if there is an absolute premise and principle upon which to value life then when I choose to not value life I am violating the very premise upon which I valued life.
Exactly! When you choose not to value life, you choose to defy the principle on which you chose to value life before. But since you are operating on a different principle now, the principles that bound your morality before (because you deemed that this premise was more important than any alternative) no longer apply, and so now you have a new premise on which to not value life.
Personal preference is not potent, does not ensure justice, does not administer morality and is not absolute.
Again, exactly right! The problem is, some folks are simply unable to perceive that God is just such a concept; an idea that exists in some state — perhaps only philosophically, perhaps physically somewhere or in some way — that does not have objective weight. Your following statement makes my case for me here:
God is potent, ensure justice, administers morality and is absolute.
How so? As someone who does not believe in God or His absolute-ness, what would you tell me?
These “truths” operate in such a way that they are only “true” if you believe them; therefore they are subjective, just as much as my own ideas. If I do not believe them, you can call me “wrong,” but you cannot support this in any way. You can argue with me rationally, but so long as my actions do not violate my basic logical/moral “starting point,” you cannot even say that I contradict myself. So in what way am I “wrong,” then?
My point about condemning of less evolutionarily mature morals of the past was to ask how you justify doing that and or even how you justify condemning anything today since I could just say, “That’s your personal preference, I do not care about it and if I can get away with it, I will simply get away with it”?
Because we attribute value to these ideas; we, as a society, deem the ideals of life/liberty/pursuit of happiness to be important, regardless of any logical premise that comes beforehand. These things are the foundation of our society, and they are the “starting point” from which all other ideas in that vein come forth — laws that prohibit murder, etc. These are all things that are implied by the Bill Of Rights.
My point is simply this; you can say, “I don’t value life, I want to steal, etc. etc., and if I can get away with it, I will get away with it.” In response, I could say, “I will do everything in my power to stop you.” That is all. There is no verifiably “transcendent” factor or position here, in either case or on the part of either party.
Hitler, the Nazis, and the majority of Germans agree with you: they were valuing the idea of freedom and life and pursuit of happiness from their perspective. Yet, you pose you assertions and judge the entire world by them.
I value certain things, yes.
Listen to this….every single human being is born with a view of the world, with a view of the way things should be. It is human nature to try and share this view with others, to try and make this dream a reality. This is venturing into philosophy, but I would argue that it is an individual’s responsibility to argue his/her own view as best as possible, and to further his/her own view, simply because there are people out there like Hitler. If not everyone were to fight for his/her beliefs, then there would be a greater possibility of only a few select parties banding together and fighting for a set of beliefs that we might not find preferable…..basically, if you don’t want to help fight against parties you think are “wrong,” you have no grounds on which to complain when such parties “take over.”
It’s not that I “judge the entire world,” as you do with your Christian values; rather, I put my ideas forth (yes, aggressively in some cases), and where they are met with opposition, I stop and consider the alternative. If I find it reasonable, I change my beliefs; if not, I continue on against them; if they are not reconcileable but they are not necessarily opposed to one another, then there exists the possibility for compromise.
It’s really quite difficult to explain, because I’m not aware of any simple term that describes the way I approach this subject…..but that’s the basics of it, anyway.
This is virtually the same stated by the Nazis at Nuremburg, they were merely following orders, the laws of their land.
I’m not “simply following the law of my land;” I’m following the law of my heart, for lack of a better term. The problem is, you come into my world (metaphorically speaking, of course) and tell me that the law of my heart is different than what I feel it is. That is where I take issue with your view.
Second, am I the only one who finds these constant Nazi references just a bit tasteless? I understand you have a point to make, but this seems a bit extreme….I mean, the number of instances of the words “Nazi,” “Hitler,” and “Germany” used in this entire blog have almost universally doubled since the last time I checked a few months ago.
The old was for the particular people/place/time and the new reiterates from the old that which we are still supposed to follow. Tim, I am not sure about your opened ears statement as I already provided the information.
Alright, I’ll make it simpler. Here is what I don’t understand: If there is an absolute moral law that is timeless, as you say there is….then how can there even be an old and new covenant? If the law is timeless and good and just, for all time and for all things and people, then it should (by definition) be unchanging. And yet it has changed. What has changed between now and the days of the OT that has caused the very structure of “right” and “wrong” to shift? And if it was possible before, how can it not be possible now?
I also find all the Nazie references a bit tasteless. Self-defeating too -
“Hitler, the Nazis, and the majority of Germans agree with you: they were valuing the idea of freedom and life and pursuit of happiness from their perspective. ”
This is possibly the most egregious violation of Godwin’s Law I’ve seen. I think that what Mariano has done is taken us saying “We value happiness” and replied “Just like the Nazis, they killed millions of people because they valued their own happiness, and killing millions of people is what made them happy.”
If this is what he meant then that’s a pretty bizarre association. I’m like a mass murderer because I value happiness?
“This is virtually the same stated by the Nazis at Nuremburg, they were merely following orders, the laws of their land.”
Just like the people in the bible who God orders to commit infanticide and murder – just following orders eh? See, anyone can do the ‘you’re like Hitler argument’.
And still Mariano dodges the question of how he chooses God over Satan. Once again:
Mariano: “He is right over Satan because morality is founded upon God’s very nature which has eternally enjoyed relationships within the godhead.”
Me: That’s a circular argument. ‘God is right over Satan according to God’s nature’. One could argue that Satan is right over God according to SATAN’s nature. I’m asking you how YOU know that God is the right one out of the two. Can you please give me an answer that doesn’t use circular reasoning.
Before you come out with any more guff about how wanting people to be happy is like gassing people to death, please answer the question, or admit you have no idea.
Just like the people in the bible who God orders to commit infanticide and murder – just following orders eh? See, anyone can do the ‘you’re like Hitler argument’.
My favorite response to Reductio ad Hitlerum is this:
“Yeah, I also hear Hitler was fond of children, and was a renowned vegetarian….”