Wes Morriston, philosopher from University of Colorado, Boulder, writes an excellent [1] paper against divine command theory and specifically attacking William Lane Craig. The guys over at secular outpost (or as I like to call it, "Kill Bill's ideas) link to that article. Divine command theory in it's simple direct form says that what is good is that which God commands and it is good because God commands it. The paper is very long and covers a lot of ground, I have isolated what I think is one of the key points and i will deal with just that small but important section: the ground of moral duty as grounded in the divine.
Craig is answwering the Euthyphro dilemma, This is a problem raised by Plato in the from of Socrates question to Euthyphro, " is found in Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, in which Socrates asks Euthyphro, "Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" [2] The answer Craig takes to it is one I have also argued for years, that the good flows out of God's character so it's neither arbitrary now does it constitute a standard above God.
Morriston takes issue with Craig at the point where he says the good "flows out of God's character.
One might wonder about the phrase ‘flow necessarily from his moral nature’. Does it mean that each divine command is necessitated by God’s moral nature – that God’s moral nature makes it impossible for him not to command what he does in fact command? Or does it mean merely that it is necessary that all divine commands flow from God’s moral nature, where the ‘flow from’ relation is understood in a weaker sense ?Craig doesn’t say.[3]
He's really conflating two different issues here: (1) do all commands flow equally from God's nature (2) could god chose to violate his nature? The question here is still veg because we are talking about Biblical commands? Or, are we talking about the human capacity to be moral itself? The latter is the kjey to the answer. Paul tells us the moral law is written on the heart (Romans 2:6-14). C.S. Lewis shows a great harmony in many Axial age civilizations as far flung as Briton and China. Although there are problems will will bracket them for fn.[4] These similarities of course don't prove divine inspiration but they may indicate that if human moral nature is God given then God's commands must be generally flowing through that basic moral nature and even though filtered through cultural constructs the basic sense of moral goodness grounded in agapic sense of human dignity is possible universally. So the latter "weaker sense" would come closer to the answer, although I would not think of it as "weaker."
But whatever the details, it’s clear that the main point of the claim that God’s commands ‘flow necessarily from his moral nature’ is to head off a familiar objection to the divine command theory. It will be convenient to refer to it as ‘ the arbitrariness objection’. It goes something like this. Either God has good reasons for his commands or he does not. If he does, then those reasons (and not God’s commands) are the ultimate ground of moral obligation. If he does not have good reasons, then his commands are completely arbitrary and may be disregarded. Either way, the divine command theory is false.[5]That's a fair assessment of the dilemma, and the answer is all moral motions ultimately point to love. God's character is love, thus there is warrant for the assertion that Divine love stands behind morality that God's commands are neither arbitrary nor are they stemming from a source higher than God. "Those reasons" are bound up in God's character, They are of concern to God because he is love. Obviously they are not "completely arbitrary since they arise out of the same basic aspect of who and what God is. The question about the goodness of reasons is transgression upon the concept of the transcendental signified. Truth is what is and the basis of what is is the ground being ie God). Thus God's reasons are a priori good not because they arbitrarily manufacture good via command but because they stem from the nature of God which is the ground of being. This idea that God's commands are arbitrary ( the "arbitrariness objection") is regarded as an ace in the hole by many skeptical philosopjhers.
Some philosophers think the arbitrariness objection is decisive (Shafer-Landau (2004), 80–81). But Craig thinks his version of the divine command theory is completely untouched by it. To see why, consider the duty to be generous to those in need. On Craig’s account, we can endorse all three of the following claims.
(A) God has a good reason for commanding generosity: generosity is good.
(B) Generosity is good because, and only because, God is (essentially) generous.
(C) Nevertheless, it takes a divine command to turn generosity into a duty for us.
Given (A), it might be thought that there is nothing objectionably arbitrary about God’s commanding generosity. Given (B), the goodness of God’s reason for issuing this command is rooted in his moral nature; it is not therefore independent of God. (C), finally, assures us that it is God’s command, and not merely the goodness of generosity, that raises it to the level of a moral imperative.[6]I take issue with the last sentence and with B to which it refers. "Generosity is good because, and only because, God is (essentially) generous." Basically true but it requires some tweaking that zi think matters. It's not just that God is generous so requires that we be generous but that generosity is a of love, it's an expression of love in the agapic sense., The reason It is played that generosity is good only because God is generous is to avoid the prospect of atheists claiming they can be generous without God. Of course that's begging the question unless it's answering a certain kind of moral argument for God. If God exists it's legitimate to think that goodness flows from God's nature, If there is no God we are just Whistling in the dark anyway. From a purely metaethical standpoint generosity could be grounded in any number of things such as social contract theory, but they would all have a hard time establishing an ought denontologically without going teleological. It would be more certain to assume grounding in God. But switching from answering Euthephro a God argument would change the trajectory of the answers.
"Many questions remain. Could God have failed to command generosity? Could generosity have failed to be a duty ? Just what degree of generosity is required ? And why did God choose to require just that degree of generosity rather than some other ? " If love is the background of the moral universe, as is my assumption, (ala Joseph Fletcher) [7] then the direct proximity of God's will to a specific command might be less important in terms of metaethical theory than understanding the nature of love. In other words, rather than seeking to pin down a list of rules we need to be seeking ways to learn to love people. Of course that doesn't mean it's unimportant that God issues a particular command. Yet the important thing is not keeping rules but internalizing values of the good.
At this point he moves on to a second objection. If God turned around tomorrow and ordered something that is now evil such as eating children would it then become good to do so? Craig says can't happen it's opposed to God's nature.[8] That should be enough for rational people. But if you are an atheist looking to throw a wrench in the works of belief, or a philosopher, no it's not. If you are both well better start looking for that eye of the needle. "Even if such commands are incompatible with God’s nature, isn’t it still true that according to the divine command theory eating our children would be morally obligatory if – per impossible – God commanded it?" It's another version of can God make a rock so big he can't lift it? The answer I've always given to that is "why should we expect God to do non sense.?" It's a cleaver question for skeptics to ask because it's a perfect double bind. If we do say "well theoretically if God did command even God would be wrong," we have relativized God's authority. If we say no we relativize his goodness. Either way we make belief in higher power seem silly.
Morriston kind of concedes that the question doesn't make sense and thus it doesn't matter what is said but he still concludes in such a way as to raise doubt with the oblivious:
Remember that for Craig God is, necessarily, a perfect being. If that is understood, then it really doesn’t matter to Craig’s position whether it’s impossible for a perfect being to command such a thing. Why ? Because if a perfect being commanded it, the being would have a morally sufficient reason for doing so; and if – per impossibile, perhaps – a perfect being had a morally sufficient reason for commanding us to eat our children, we should do it. If I am right about this, then Craig’s divine command theory escapes refutation – not for the reason he gives, but rather because the alarming-sounding counterpossibles implied by it turn out to true! 10 What’s so special about being God-like? Given fairly standard assumptions about God’s moral nature, [9]
The real problem is that the skeptics have underrated the scope of God's relation to reality. We are not just talking about the most powerful being. They approach it like the question is "this powerful guy is not like this but what if he was.?" It's not about the will of a powerful guy. It's about the nature of reality and trust and the relationship of that to love itself. Like the rock issue I refuse to believe that truth can be stumped by nonsense. Truth is what is (a simplified version of correspondence theory) and God is Being itself. Love is the background of the moral universe because God is love and God is the basis of reality. Thus if God is love, truth, and being. Thus morality is an extension of the good, and the good is wrapped up with the nature of truth and being. We must understand particular moral codes as best we can having filtered moral motions through culture. There is a reality back there behind it all that can't be cheated by questions like the one about the rock.
[1] Wes Morriston, "God and the ontological foundation of morality," Religious Studies, Cambridge University Press 2011 (2012) 48, 15–34 f doi:10.1017/S0034412510000740 URL:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/DoesGodGround.pdf accessed 2/27/2016.
WES MORRISTON Department of Philosophy, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0232 email: Wes.Morriston@Colorado.EDU
[3] Morriston, op. cit. 18.
[4] C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of man: With Reflection on Education With Special Reference to The Teaching of English in the Upper Forms of Schools. New York, NY: Harper One, 1971, 83.
The problem with this is that it's limited to a segment of history from a period known as the Axial age, roughly from the 900 to 200 BC. The term is from Karl Jaspers. It excludes new world, Africa, Russian steppes and times before and after. Bit it is probably the best attempt to show universal moral sense. It does at least show large segments of humanity share similar moral motions.
[5] Morriston, op.cit., 18-19
[6] Ibid. 19-20
[7] Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics The new Moraloty.Louisville, Lomdon: Westminster John Knox Press. 1966, 58.
Fletcher discusses the same dilemma but not by the name "Euthephro." He discusses the nominalist position and argues that modern ethical thinking is nominalist and that is what's wrong with it. That's why philosophers ask questions about this dilemma because they can't ground moraloity in love since they are reductionists and can't understand values.
[8] Morriston, op cit.,20-21
[9] Ibid
39 comments:
LOL! Trump gonna win reelection. LOL!
Harris beats him on polls
Let's have some comments on the Euthyphro thing. I wont tolerate any more BS.
So if the good "flows out of God's character. We are measuring goodness by God.
How?
Now maybe God wouldn't turn around and order us to eat children. But if he did on what basis would we say that he's going against his nature.
According to a turkey the farmer is going against his nature when thanksgiving comes around and instead of feeding it, he lops of it's head. From the farmers perspective nothing has changed.
we are made in the image of God. Paul tells us the moral law is written on the heart. It's not unreasonable to assume, therefore, that our moral motions are stemming from God's moral standard.
Joe: The answer Craig takes to it is one I have also argued for years, that the good flows out of God's character so it's neither arbitrary now does it constitute a standard above God.
But is the good that flows from God's character good because it is what is flowing from God's character or is it good because it conforms to an external standard of what is good?
If the former, it is arbitrary. If torturing children flowed from God, then torturing children would be good. You may want to say God had no choice about what flows from him, and so it was not an arbitrary choice on God's part, but now we have to question who did choose!
Ultimately we can say that there are two alternatives:
EITHER An act is wrong because of its intrinsic nature; theft is wrong because of the nature of the act. That is, there is an objective morality that exists apart from God.
OR An act is morally wrong because God chose that it would be wrong, and he could as easily have chosen otherwise.
[These are not meant to be exhaustive; an act could be wrong because a culture has decided it is, for example]
Joe: These similarities of course don't prove divine inspiration but they may indicate that if human moral nature is God given then God's commands must be generally flowing through that basic moral nature and even though filtered through cultural constructs the basic sense of moral goodness grounded in agapic sense of human dignity is possible universally. So the latter "weaker sense" would come closer to the answer, although I would not think of it as "weaker."
The similarities could also indicate a higher set of moral commands that each society has managed to work out on its own. Or it could be there are an arbitrary set of rules that work best to get people to work well together (a prohibition against theft is something that will help any society thrive, so why be surprised if numerous societies develop one). Or the similarities could be because we all developed from the same primitive culture in Africa, and the basics were already there (and there is evidence of rudimentary moral in a chimps, which supports this).
Joe: That's a fair assessment of the dilemma, and the answer is all moral motions ultimately point to love. God's character is love, thus there is warrant for the assertion that Divine love stands behind morality that God's commands are neither arbitrary nor are they stemming from a source higher than God.
So if we give his nature a label, the problem disappears!
In this new version God has no choice. He is obliged to do what he does because of his nature; he is robbed of free will.
Why is theft morally wrong? Not because of God's choice, but because the nature of the act. God is not deciding that theft is wrong; the nature of the act is such that anyone who feels love will necessarily realise that theft is wrong.
Joe: "Those reasons" are bound up in God's character, They are of concern to God because he is love. Obviously they are not "completely arbitrary since they arise out of the same basic aspect of who and what God is. The question about the goodness of reasons is transgression upon the concept of the transcendental signified. Truth is what is and the basis of what is is the ground being ie God). Thus God's reasons are a priori good not because they arbitrarily manufacture good via command but because they stem from the nature of God which is the ground of being. This idea that God's commands are arbitrary ( the "arbitrariness objection") is regarded as an ace in the hole by many skeptical philosopjhers.
I agree that this means it is not arbitrary, but that does not solve the problem. Why is theft wrong? It is not because of what God chose at all. Any being that "is love" would necessarily say that theft is wrong because of the nature of the act. That is objective morality, and it must exist outside of God, because it is not God deciding.
Pix
Joe: I take issue with the last sentence and with B to which it refers. "Generosity is good because, and only because, God is (essentially) generous." Basically true but it requires some tweaking that zi think matters. It's not just that God is generous so requires that we be generous but that generosity is a of love, it's an expression of love in the agapic sense.,
So then generosity is good because it is loving, and has nothing to do with God! The fact that God is love is irrelevant to the issue.
Joe: The reason It is played that generosity is good only because God is generous is to avoid the prospect of atheists claiming they can be generous without God. Of course that's begging the question unless it's answering a certain kind of moral argument for God. If God exists it's legitimate to think that goodness flows from God's nature, If there is no God we are just Whistling in the dark anyway.
Maybe we are whistling in the dark. You may not find that an attractive proposition, but wishful thinking is a poor basis to found your worldview.
Joe: From a purely metaethical standpoint generosity could be grounded in any number of things such as social contract theory, but they would all have a hard time establishing an ought denontologically without going teleological. It would be more certain to assume grounding in God. But switching from answering Euthephro a God argument would change the trajectory of the answers.
An alternative perspective is that generosity is rather more meaningful if you do it because it is the right thing to do rather than doing it because an all-powerful entity tells you you should, and you believe he watches everything you do.
Joe: At this point he moves on to a second objection. If God turned around tomorrow and ordered something that is now evil such as eating children would it then become good to do so? Craig says can't happen it's opposed to God's nature.[8]
At which point he refutes divine command theory, because he say God is obliged to act in a certain way. God is no long able to choose.
Further, he is now saying that some actions are wrong by their nature, rather than because God says they are wrong.
Pix
Pix the point I made is that the standard is God's own nature, that's what good is. There can be no higher standard.
Pix: I agree that this means it is not arbitrary, but that does not solve the problem. Why is theft wrong? It is not because of what God chose at all. Any being that "is love" would necessarily say that theft is wrong because of the nature of the act. That is objective morality, and it must exist outside of God, because it is not God deciding.
You have a misconception about what it means to say God is the standard, it doesn't mean God is going to decide individual cases. It means God is universal standard such as the value system and moral actors have to apply that standard as best they can.
"it doesn't mean God is going to decide individual cases. It means God is universal standard such as the value system and moral actors have to apply that standard as best they can."
- I have always thought this is an interesting proposition. God doesn't decide what is good. It is simply his nature. But that implies that God has no say in the matter. And that means that this so-called standard is not of God's making.
If we read some account of God's behavior in the bible that is abhorrent to us (like God killing innocent people or instructing us on how we should treat our foreign slaves), we choose to dismiss that as a real example of God's morality. Instead, we make excuses for it, such as calling it an "allegory" (even if it purports to be historical). What's really going on here? At the time the biblical story was written, nobody thought it was bad to kill the vanquished enemy, so a story like that was in keeping with the goodness of God. Surely, God's nature and his moral values haven't changed since then, but ours have. What we call God's nature is simply a reflection of our own morality. Thus, we can focus on the things that are consistent with our own morality, and call that God's nature, while ignoring the rest.
Joe: Pix the point I made is that the standard is God's own nature, that's what good is. There can be no higher standard.
What does that actually mean? Is theft wrong becaue God does not commit theft? How much money did God donate to charity last year? I guess giving money to charity is not good.
Joe: You have a misconception about what it means to say God is the standard, it doesn't mean God is going to decide individual cases. It means God is universal standard such as the value system and moral actors have to apply that standard as best they can.
So if someone is dyng of canvcer, and I have the power to prevent that, then the morally right thing to do is to conform to God's standard - apply it as best I can - and do nothing.
Pix
Anonymous said...
Joe: Pix the point I made is that the standard is God's own nature, that's what good is. There can be no higher standard.
What does that actually mean? Is theft wrong becaue God does not commit theft? How much money did God donate to charity last year? I guess giving money to charity is not good.
Theft is wrong because it's unloving. Of course, love is too squimish to be an ostensible motive for the state but we can sate that it isthe base value, but laws of property are motivated by justice; taking another's property is unjust. we have to explore the idea that justice is a form of love, but I think it is. That's the basis of God's character.
Joe: You have a misconception about what it means to say God is the standard, it doesn't mean God is going to decide individual cases. It means God is universal standard such as the value system and moral actors have to apply that standard as best they can.
So if someone is dyng of canvcer, and I have the power to prevent that, then the morally right thing to do is to conform to God's standard - apply it as best I can - and do nothing.
why do you conclude do nothing? where do you get the idea that doing nothing is the result of applying love as the value? I would think the loving thing would be to cure the cancer.
"it doesn't mean God is going to decide individual cases. It means God is universal standard such as the value system and moral actors have to apply that standard as best they can."
- I have always thought this is an interesting proposition. God doesn't decide what is good. It is simply his nature. But that implies that God has no say in the matter. And that means that this so-called standard is not of God's making.
Based upon his character so how would it not be of his making? Your argument assumes God is a big man in the sky. I think we can say God is love but we can't dissect how God thinks, you are assuming he's just like anyone else.
If we read some account of God's behavior in the bible that is abhorrent to us (like God killing innocent people or instructing us on how we should treat our foreign slaves), we choose to dismiss that as a real example of God's morality. Instead, we make excuses for it, such as calling it an "allegory" (even if it purports to be historical). What's really going on here? At the time the biblical story was written, nobody thought it was bad to kill the vanquished enemy, so a story like that was in keeping with the goodness of God.
You are assuming everyone is an inerrantist. Where I went to seminary, they assumed things written by humans have humanlike characteristics and God's inspiration shines thorough but it's not on every page of the bible. The famous phrase by Deitric Bonehoeffer is "The Bible is not the word of God the Bible contains the word of God."
Surely, God's nature and his moral values haven't changed since then, but ours have. What we call God's nature is simply a reflection of our own morality. Thus, we can focus on the things that are consistent with our own morality, and call that God's nature, while ignoring the rest.
We can only thing with our own minds. Anything we investigate will have to be subjected to relative human values, Even when we manage to get the drift on some higher ideal it will be tainted by our understanding. But since God likes free will he's not making us to be robots and evaluate things in a way that is not part of our natural thinking, But Godly values can be worked in because we can love. The basis of God's character is love. That's an aspect of God we can understand.
"Based upon his character so how would it not be of his making? "
- It's his nature. Are you saying that God decides his own nature? That seems to be a circular reference, or a self-contradiction. God would have to have some basis for deciding, and that basis is his nature. So that nature can't be something that God chooses.
"Your argument assumes God is a big man in the sky. I think we can say God is love but we can't dissect how God thinks, you are assuming he's just like anyone else."
- I make no such presumptions. But to say "God is love" is assigning a human attribute, without telling us anything meaningful. There must be more to it, because that says nothing about God as creator or God as the designer of the sinful and imperfect human species.
"You are assuming everyone is an inerrantist. Where I went to seminary, they assumed things written by humans have humanlike characteristics and God's inspiration shines thorough but it's not on every page of the bible. The famous phrase by Deitric Bonehoeffer is "The Bible is not the word of God the Bible contains the word of God.""
- That agrees with my comment. You need to make excuses for what the bible says. But it would make more sense to see the bible as a purely human contrivance that reflects the beliefs and views of the authors rather than any kind of revealed truth.
"We can only thing with our own minds. Anything we investigate will have to be subjected to relative human values, Even when we manage to get the drift on some higher ideal it will be tainted by our understanding."
- That's right. If there is a God, it would be quite presumptuous to think that we understand his motivations.
"But since God likes free will he's not making us to be robots and evaluate things in a way that is not part of our natural thinking"
- How do you know what God likes? That's just your own attempt to explain something that doesn't make sense. God could have made us like the angels: beings with both free will and high morality. If he could create angels, why not make the rest of us like that? It doesn't make sense.
"But Godly values can be worked in because we can love. The basis of God's character is love. That's an aspect of God we can understand."
- That's just you projecting your own concept of goodness on God. If God really loves us, we wouldn't have things like cancer that often only make us miserable, while providing no benefit for the soul. It doesn't make sense.
im-skeptical said...
"Based upon his character so how would it not be of his making? "
- It's his nature. Are you saying that God decides his own nature? That seems to be a circular reference, or a self-contradiction. God would have to have some basis for deciding, and that basis is his nature. So that nature can't be something that God chooses.
Why would God need to choose his nature just to be able to use his nature as the standard for morality. All he would need for that is to know his nature he doesn't have to decide it.
"Your argument assumes God is a big man in the sky. I think we can say God is love but we can't dissect how God thinks, you are assuming he's just like anyone else."
- I make no such presumptions. But to say "God is love" is assigning a human attribute, without telling us anything meaningful. There must be more to it, because that says nothing about God as creator or God as the designer of the sinful and imperfect human species.
you assume love is only a human emotion there's no reason to assume that. My point in briming it up was to show that we can understand something about God although probably mot much. Yet is an important thing to understand. There is no reason to think it's only human. we are created in the image of God so there should be some likeness between humans and God,
"You are assuming everyone is an inerrantist. Where I went to seminary, they assumed things written by humans have humanlike characteristics and God's inspiration shines thorough but it's not on every page of the bible. The famous phrase by Deitric Bonehoeffer is "The Bible is not the word of God the Bible contains the word of God."
- That agrees with my comment. You need to make excuses for what the bible says. But it would make more sense to see the bible as a purely human contrivance that reflects the beliefs and views of the authors rather than any kind of revealed truth.
It's time we agree on something. It defeats the purpose if it was only human. Most skeptics agree there are good things in the Bible.
"We can only think with our own minds. Anything we investigate will have to be subjected to relative human values, Even when we manage to get the drift on some higher ideal it will be tainted by our understanding."
- That's right. If there is a God, it would be quite presumptuous to think that we understand his motivations.
ultimately, we know he is motivated by love
"But since God likes free will he's not making us to be robots and evaluate things in a way that is not part of our natural thinking"
- How do you know what God likes? That's just your own attempt to explain something that doesn't make sense. God could have made us like the angels: beings with both free will and high morality. If he could create angels, why not make the rest of us like that? It doesn't make sense.
we know likes free will, because we are told in scripture God like's freedom. We can know thigs revealed for us to know. Paul says "it is for freedom you have been set free." That expresses a value of God's.
"But Godly values can be worked in because we can love. The basis of God's character is love. That's an aspect of God we can understand."
- That's just you projecting your own concept of goodness on God. If God really loves us, we wouldn't have things like cancer that often only make us miserable, while providing no benefit for the soul. It doesn't make sense.
Those are false assumptions; you don't know what God would use as the ultimate parameter where it balances that agaist the choice of the good. Moreover as for the notion that projecting, Jesus didn't die for us as an act of hate. We are told by prophets, by narration and by Jesus himself that Gpd loves us. Remember Jn 16?
Jn 3:16
Sorry
Joe: Theft is wrong because it's unloving.
But the point here is you are claiming God is the standard against which morality is based. How is God the standard with regards to theft?
Joe: why do you conclude do nothing? where do you get the idea that doing nothing is the result of applying love as the value? I would think the loving thing would be to cure the cancer.
Because God is the standard. God does nothing, therefore to live up to that standard I ought to do nothing.
Joe: Theft is wrong because it's unloving. Of course, love is too squimish to be an ostensible motive for the state but we can sate that it isthe base value, but laws of property are motivated by justice; taking another's property is unjust. we have to explore the idea that justice is a form of love, but I think it is. That's the basis of God's character.
why do you conclude do nothing? where do you get the idea that doing nothing is the result of applying love as the value? I would think the loving thing would be to cure the cancer.
Previously you said "Pix the point I made is that the standard is God's own nature, that's what good is. There can be no higher standard.", When I respond to that your reply does not mention the word "standard" at all.
It appears that you are oscillating between two different positions as and when convenient. One the one hand God is the standard, and on the other morality is a consequence of God's love. Those two positions are certainly not polar opposites, but they are not the same.
Pix
Joe: Theft is wrong because it's unloving.
But the point here is you are claiming God is the standard against which morality is based. How is God the standard with regards to theft?
Bod gives us the value system which creates the standard, nrw have read the 10 commandments? try no. 8 thow shalt nit steal. That's too specific I was talking about values not rules.
Joe: why do you conclude do nothing? where do you get the idea that doing nothing is the result of applying love as the value? I would think the loving thing would be to cure the cancer.
Because God is the standard. God does nothing, therefore to live up to that standard I ought to do nothing.
That's a misconception. God is doing stuff all the time, just because he doesn't do what you want doesn't mean he does nothing.
Joe: Theft is wrong because it's unloving. Of course, love is too squimish to be an ostensible motive for the state but we can sate that it isthe base value, but laws of property are motivated by justice; taking another's property is unjust. we have to explore the idea that justice is a form of love, but I think it is. That's the basis of God's character.
why do you conclude do nothing? where do you get the idea that doing nothing is the result of applying love as the value? I would think the loving thing would be to cure the cancer.
Previously you said "Pix the point I made is that the standard is God's own nature, that's what good is. There can be no higher standard.", When I respond to that your reply does not mention the word "standard" at all.
It appears that you are oscillating between two different positions as and when convenient. One the one hand God is the standard, and on the other morality is a consequence of God's love.
those are the same thing. the latter is just a specific example of the former.
Those two positions are certainly not polar opposites, but they are not the same.
The standard that means God's love is mutation for Moral values. obviously then a specific version would be moral is a consequence of following the standard which is God's love. And God and love are synonymous.
"we know likes free will, because we are told in scripture God like's freedom. We can know thigs revealed for us to know. Paul says "it is for freedom you have been set free." That expresses a value of God's. "
- You avoided answering my question. If God can make angels (who have both free will and high morality), why couldn't he make us like them? Why all the drama and all the suffering in the name of free will?
how do you know angels have free will? God created humas to willingly choose the good. that means God must risk that many humans will choose wrongly.
God dosent judge the way we d. He doesn't just go by the appearance; he looks on the heart.
"how do you know angels have free will?"
- Because there are some who choose to defy God. The most obvious example is Lucifer. And there are other "fallen angels". But the point is that most of them exhibit superior morality, and they didn't need to live through the trials and tribulations of earthly life. They were made better than humans from the start.
Medicrock is it okay if I ask you something please I'm really struggling with something can I please talk to you can I email you something
Daniel you don't need permission to mail me, just email me.
m-skeptical said...
"how do you know angels have free will?"
- Because there are some who choose to defy God. The most obvious example is Lucifer. And there are other "fallen angels".
Good point. I have always believed ages have free will..
But the point is that most of them exhibit superior morality, and they didn't need to live through the trials and tribulations of earthly life. They were made better than humans from the start.
That may give usa motive for God to create man Jesus said blessed are they who have not seen and yet believe, God may have wanted believers who take on faith. Angels are not working on faith they see God all the time.
If God wants us to believe without seeing, he shouldn't have given us brains.
Skep that view you have ridiculing faith since you don't relationship based you don't know shirt about it. I think you feel that you would appear stupid to have faith andyohav haveproof to not look stupid, you are afarid and you ego ison the line.
Skep soeof the greatest thinkers in human history had faith in God. One can always find argument back one's views/
Joseph hidman do you have any good books you would recommend me reading on Jesus our pre-mark and redaction
Joe, I understand that many great thinkers have had faith in God. That doesn't mean they are right. This is an issue of epistemology. What do we know, and how do we know it? As an empiricist, I believe that the best way of knowing things is by evidence. Objective evidence. And this is the basis of science. As an epistemological tool, science has been more successful in extending our knowledge than any other means. Science (or an evidence-based approach) has dispelled many things that we used to take on faith. In our every-day life, we understand and accept that evidence is needed before we can make legitimate claims about knowing something. Why shouldn't that apply for everything? The truth is that if you had real objective evidence for God, you wouldn't need to rely on faith. You wouldn't be saying "I have faith". You would be saying "Here is the objective evidence".
Daniel said...
Joseph hidman do you have any good books you would recommend me reading on Jesus our pre-mark and redaction
Ancient Christian Gospels by Helmut Koester
Joe, I understand that many great thinkers have had faith in God. That doesn't mean they are right. This is an issue of epistemology. What do we know, and how do we know it? As an empiricist, I believe that the best way of knowing things is by evidence. Objective evidence. And this is the basis of science. As an epistemological tool, science has been more successful in extending our knowledge than any other means.
Depends on the field. Science can't tell us much about ethics, it can tell us nothing without logic.
Science (or an evidence-based approach) has dispelled many things that we used to take on faith. In our every-day life, we understand and accept that evidence is needed before we can make legitimate claims about knowing something.
That doesn't mean you get to pretend that you are being scientific any time you claim science beats religion and use that to reject religious ideas.
Why shouldn't that apply for everything? The truth is that if you had real objective evidence for God, you wouldn't need to rely on faith.
The ideological bromides of God haters have asserted that anti God feelings are objective evidence, they are not. That is ideology not science. This is the point of my second book. God. Science, and Ideology, Moreover I have a ton of objective evidence that's why my first Book, the Trace of God, draws upon 200 or so studies. Atheism reverses the working of logic you just mapped out. They don't do loigc then draw conclusions. They start with the assumption that anti God is science a priori. Pro God is unscientific a priori they then pretend they think scenically. It's ideology not science.
You wouldn't be saying "I have faith". You would be saying "Here is the objective evidence".
You wouldn't be saying "I have faith". You would be saying "Here is the objective evidence".
where are your 200 studies? the Trace of God was groundbreaking. The leading researcher in the field said so, Ralph Hood inventor of the M scale.
"Depends on the field. Science can't tell us much about ethics, it can tell us nothing without logic."
- I'm talking about objective facts. Your beliefs about what is right and wrong are subject to disagreement. Remember what we said about exterminating the vanquished enemy? Or how to treat slaves? The people who wrote that stuff in the bible didn't have the same ideas about right and wrong that most of us in our current society have.
"That doesn't mean you get to pretend that you are being scientific any time you claim science beats religion and use that to reject religious ideas."
- It is not a matter of "rejecting religious ideas". It's about how we know something, and whether we base our beliefs on objective evidence.
"The ideological bromides of God haters have asserted that anti God feelings are objective evidence, they are not."
- I have never heard that. You are projecting. In order to hate something, you have to believe it exists. I don't. I am not a God-hater. No real atheist is a God-hater. But if I was, I still say feelings are NOT objective evidence. That's not rational.
"I have a ton of objective evidence that's why my first Book, the Trace of God, draws upon 200 or so studies."
- The evidence shows a relationship between peak experience and beneficial outcomes. It says nothing about the existence of God. You make an invalid inference.
"Atheism reverses the working of logic you just mapped out. They don't do loigc then draw conclusions. They start with the assumption that anti God is science a priori. Pro God is unscientific a priori they then pretend they think scenically. It's ideology not science."
- Again, that's projection. You can't tell me with a straight face that you didn't start your research with the objective of confirming your God belief. It's more than obvious just from looking at what studies you use, and the wealth of other scientific material that you ignore.
im-skeptical said...
"Depends on the field. Science can't tell us much about ethics, it can tell us nothing without logic."
- I'm talking about objective facts. Your beliefs about what is right and wrong are subject to disagreement. Remember what we said about exterminating the vanquished enemy? Or how to treat slaves? The people who wrote that stuff in the bible didn't have the same ideas about right and wrong that most of us in our current society have.
Of course not we've had 3000 years of development but they are the foundation of our value system
"That doesn't mean you get to pretend that you are being scientific any time you claim science beats religion and use that to reject religious ideas."
- It is not a matter of "rejecting religious ideas". It's about how we know something, and whether we base our beliefs on objective evidence.
The idea of declaring so called objective reasoning as the basis of truth isa pretense. There is no objectivity, Humans are not objective. Even mathematics is filtered through thinking feeling minds.
"The ideological bromides of God haters have asserted that anti God feelings are objective evidence, they are not."
- I have never heard that. You are projecting. In order to hate something, you have to believe it exists. I don't. I am not a God-hater. No real atheist is a God-hater. But if I was, I still say feelings are NOT objective evidence. That's not rational.
they myth objectivity has to assert that has no hate that would be irrational feelings. It's clear mocking and ridicule is not passionless.
I have a ton of objective evidence that's why my first Book, the Trace of God, draws upon 200 or so studies."
- The evidence shows a relationship between peak experience and beneficial outcomes. It says nothing about the existence of God. You make an invalid inference.
It doesn't have to. That's for me the argument maker to conclude. But the studies are a solid empirical basis upon which that conclusion is based/
"Atheism reverses the working of logic you just mapped out. They don't do loigc then draw conclusions. They start with the assumption that anti God is science a priori. Pro God is unscientific a priori they then pretend they think scenically. It's ideology not science."
- Again, that's projection. You can't tell me with a straight face that you didn't start your research with the objective of confirming your God belief.
Arguments are purposive applications of logic. They are not little scientific experiments the outcome of which is unknown. That i nt a disproof of argument.
It's more than obvious just from looking at what studies you use, and the wealth of other scientific material that you ignore.
that is total bull shit, you can't assert it you have to show what they are and what studies support your assertion. Unless you bought my book you don't know what studies I use.
I guess you forgot that you provided the full list.
Hey medicrock thanks for the book I'm going to read them protomark but I have a question is there any good books on the resurrection as well you can recommend me
Post a Comment