Lol. Well, I don't believe in a god in the first place. I was assuming the hypothetical to talk with Deadline about his premise.
I wouldn't presume to know the mind and methods of a Biblical God, but yes, I would expect such a god not to be arbitrarily cruel, which Western/Christian concepts of hell undoubtedly are.
I do make other points in that post, though. I dislike cherry-picking, especially when it's at least somewhat removed from its context.
Originally posted by Digi
Lol. Well, I don't believe in a god in the first place. I was assuming the hypothetical to talk with Deadline about his premise.I wouldn't presume to know the mind and methods of a Biblical God, but yes, I would expect such a god not to be arbitrarily cruel, which Western/Christian concepts of hell undoubtedly are.
I do make other points in that post, though. I dislike cherry-picking, especially when it's at least somewhat removed from its context.
I'm not cherry picking because that was the only part I took issue with. And I understand you don't believe in God but it seems rather presumptuous to say "I don't believe in God but if I did, I would expect him to confirm to my human definitions of cruelty"?
Originally posted by MF DELPHNo, the rules he sets for us are not rules he sets for himself. There are very few instances where God sets parameters for himself. For instance, he swore never to flood the world again.
Interesting.So following that line of reasoning, would it be presumptuous for someone to assume a being that commands humans not to kill wouldn't kill himself or engage in infanticide as the being deems those actions immoral?
Originally posted by psmith81992
I'm not cherry picking because that was the only part I took issue with. And I understand you don't believe in God but it seems rather presumptuous to say "I don't believe in God but if I did, I would expect him to confirm to my human definitions of cruelty"?
Either that, or I'd expect a pretty reasonable explanation/display of why he didn't. Should I worship a god whose practices I disagree with on moral grounds? I don't pretend to be perfect morally, but I wouldn't blindly accept something I saw as wrong without some kind of justification.
It would be reasonable to assume an omnipotent God's idea of morality would be different than mine. But especially in the Christian mold where we're presumably created in His image and given moral edicts from Him, I wouldn't think it would be a stretch to be granted the wisdom to see His perfect moral standing. And if He were unable to do this, I would see no reason why He'd be able to justify the expectation of worship, or reason why I should. At that point it just becomes a "might equals right" argument.
Originally posted by Digi
Either that, or I'd expect a pretty reasonable explanation/display of why he didn't. Should I worship a god whose practices I disagree with on moral grounds? I don't pretend to be perfect morally, but I wouldn't blindly accept something I saw as wrong without some kind of justification.
I can understand that but if I myself subscribe to an omnipotent/omniscient being, I also subscribe to the idea that unless otherwise explained, his laws are beyond human understanding.
Originally posted by psmith81992
No, the rules he sets for us are not rules he sets for himself. There are very few instances where God sets parameters for himself. For instance, he swore never to flood the world again.
So it's not rational to assume that the standard maker would also be a standard bearer? We have to be more moral than the standard maker?
I made a small edit that elaborates a bit.
There's an old philosophical question put to theists: is it right because God does it, or does God do it because it's right? There are semantic loopholes that satisfy the question for many, but it really does confound the idea of perfect Godly morality as it is defined by numerous religions.
The issue here, Psmith, is that you are using 'human' as a pejorative adjective, implying minor, small, easily overwhelmed, irrelevant in the grand scheme etc.
From the sort of atheism that Digi and I espouse- basically in the humanist area- what we see are reasoned morals, which have a potential validity in all circumstances, including for any deity. That is not in the slightest bit presumptuous- it is completely rational.
If humans produce reasoned morals then they stand for sentience in general. A god who breaks moral laws is an immoral god and it is appropriate to judge such a being so.
So it's not rational to assume that the standard maker would also be a standard bearer? We have to be more moral than the standard maker?
There's an old philosophical question put to theists: is it right because God does it, or does God do it because it's right?
The issue here, Psmith, is that you are using 'human' as a pejorative adjective, implying minor, small, easily overwhelmed, irrelevant in the grand scheme etc.
From the sort of atheism that Digi and I espouse- basically in the humanist area- what we see are reasoned morals, which have a potential validity in all circumstances, including for any deity. That is not in the slightest bit presumptuous- it is completely rational.
A god who breaks moral laws is an immoral god and it is appropriate to judge such a being so.
Yes, I am telling you it is not a fair description, because rationality and reason holds at all levels, and humans can produce rationality.
You're calling it moral relatavism but that is again you just trying to dismiss the concept. Other than you just being dismissive like that, there are two issues- first, rational morality may not be subjective, though that is a very complex debate that would need its own thread. Secondly, in the absence of evidence for the so-called objective source of religious morals, they have no greater claim to objectivity in any case. Simple belief in an infallibly objective source makes no difference. Such a thing has to be probed by philosophical rigour, not faith.
And there you go again with your loaded use of 'human'. A god who breaks reasoned moral laws (which in our reference would only be human because humans are the only source of rationality we are currently in contact with) can be called immoral as much as any human can be. Such a being does not get out of being judged simply by being a god. That is a nonsense.
There are no holes. I have no idea of the logic behind your last line. Neither omniscience nor omnipotence prevents a being from acting immorally.
Love it when someone manages to find a much better way of saying something than I do. I'll probably be stealing that description at some point, Ush, and the difference in moral perspectives that you discuss.
Originally posted by psmith81992
It's a ridiculous question imho, one I learned in intro to Philosophy. If you believe in God, then God decides what's right. God doesn't do something because we deem it right. It's not an answerable question.
Many theists would disagree with you.
Also, I didn't say it's whether we deem it right or not. Humans are not part of the question here. In any theistic system, there is right and wrong. So does God do something because it's right in an objective moral sense, or is it right in an objective moral sense because God does it?
But I'd say that calling it an unanswerable question is actually a dangerous response. Because you're admitting you don't know what type of deity you believe in and/or worship. If you're some level of agnostic or deist, this conundrum can be escaped. Otherwise, as with most religions that claim some type of divine revelation into God's workings, it's a tacit admission that your beliefs rest in a ton of unanswerables, and therefore make the underlying belief itself questionable.
You're calling it moral relatavism but that is again you just trying to dismiss the concept. Other than you just being dismissive like that, there are two issues- first, rational morality may not be subjective, though that is a very complex debate that would need its own thread.
Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.
And there you go again with your loaded use of 'human'. A god who breaks reasoned moral laws (which in our reference would only be human because humans are the only source of rationality we are currently in contact with) can be called immoral as much as any human can be. Such a being does not get out of being judged simply by being a god. That is a nonsense.
om·nis·cient
ämˈniSHənt/Submit
adjective
knowing everything.
om·nip·o·tent
ˌämˈnipəd(ə😉nt/
adjective
1.
(of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything.
You may have noticed that humans are neither of these things. If you subscribe to the idea that a god does exist and he is omnipotent/omniscient, or that he doesn't exist but if he did, he would be those two things, then you're subscribing to the notion that we will not be able to know or understand him for the most part. Therefore, an omniscient/omnipotent God cannot be called immortal by those who are neither. That doesn't work, that's pure nonsense. Is that what secular humanism is? Using our limited rationale to describe the all powerful all knowing?
Many theists would disagree with you
Also, I didn't say it's whether we deem it right or not. Humans are not part of the question here. In any theistic system, there is right and wrong. So does God do something because it's right in an objective moral sense, or is it right in an objective moral sense because God does it?
But I'd say that calling it an unanswerable question is actually a dangerous response. Because you're admitting you don't know what type of deity you believe in and/or worship.
Otherwise, as with most religions that claim some type of divine revelation into God's workings, it's a tacit admission that your beliefs rest in a ton of unanswerables, and therefore make the underlying belief itself questionable.
Saying 'I am calling it that because that is what it is' is weak. Clearly your talk there is simply emotional using 'relatavism' as a simple way of dismissing the idea, which is both simplistic and exceptionally questionable. Reasoned morals have value- and aside from anything else, modern civilisation is built on them; virtually all social advances in the last century have come from reasoned philosophy and not religious thought. You are in no way engaging with whether being relative actually diminishes its value, nor are you examining the possibility that religious morals are relative in any case, so a God's would be as well, nor are you engaging with the argument of whether reasoned morality is actually relative at all. So again, it is just a weak term of abuse from you used to dismiss an argument that you don't understand.
Again, calling my rather well-reasoned objection to you using the the 'human' as a blank slate to dismiss that which you do not agree with 'nonsense'- simply because you don't like it- really just exposes poor thinking in your argument. You seem to believe that because there may be something more powerful than humans out there, that therefore reason coming from humans is invalid. That is a false premise. Good reason is valid universally. Hence, your attempt to say 'comes from humans = irrelevant compared to a God' is effectively gibberish.
Assuming you mean 'immoral' rather than immortal- your final paragraph is also poor reasoning (your use of 'therefore' is broken in regards to the argument as it assumes that you need to be as powerful or as knowledgeable as a being to be able to tell if it is immoral; you do not need either) and you are avoiding my argument. Like I said- reasoned morals have objective validity (so long as the reasoning is correct). It does not matter how powerful or knowledgeable you are, reason and rationality still applies. If they break moral rules, they are immoral. Why does being powerful or knowing a lot stop that? There is no logic behind what you say at all- merely a worrying kind of blind devotion to the idea of power, and a regrettable lapse in intellectual rigour by saying "This doesn't need to be thought about- a super-being has done it all for us and we cannot question that'. That's actually rather feeble. Like I say, saying such a being is immune from judgement due to power or knowledge is pure silliness. It's a statement that comes from not wanting to think about it very much.
Of course we can judge such a being. We can judge ANY being, if we do it right. It doesn't matter if we do not understand it- its actions stand for judgement. Once we reason it correctly, that stand for all beings at all levels, and whilst there are many details about such reasoning that are hard to pin down and will be argued about for the foreseeable future, there are some pretty solid moral principles out there that if a God breaks, it is as morally culpable as any human. Religious texts are full of such actions.
Clearly your talk there is simply emotional using 'relatavism' as a simple way of dismissing the idea, which is both simplistic and exceptionally questionable. Reasoned morals have value- and aside from anything else, modern civilisation is built on them; virtually all social advances in the last century have come from reasoned philosophy and not religious thought.
Again, calling my rather well-reasoned objection to you using the the 'human' as a blank slate to dismiss that which you do not agree with 'nonsense'- simply because you don't like it- really just exposes poor thinking in your argument.
Assuming you mean 'immoral' rather than immortal- your final paragraph is also poor reasoning (your use of 'therefore' is broken in regards to the argument) and you are avoiding my argument.
Like I said- reasoned morals have objective validity (so long as the reasoning is correct)
It does not matter how powerful or knowledgeable you are, reason and rationality still applies. If they break moral rules, they are immoral. Why does being powerful or knowing a lot stop that?
There is no logic behind what you say at all- merely a worrying kind of blind devotion to the idea of power, and a regrettable lapse in intellectual rigour by saying "This doesn't need to be thought about- a super-being has done it all for us and we cannot question that'. That's actually rather feeble. Like I say, saying such a being is immune from judgement due to power or knowledge is pure silliness. It's a statement that comes from not wanting to think about it very much.
Of course we can judge such a being. We can judge ANY being, if we do it right. It doesn't matter if we do not understand it- its actions stand for judgement. Once we reason it correctly, that stand for all beings at all levels, and whilst there are many details about such reasoning that are hard to pin down and will be argued about for the foreseeable future, there are some pretty solid moral principles out there that if a God breaks, it is as morally culpable as any human.
Personally I'm a moral relativist, so to me both these arguments seem fictional, but I think it is obvious that if you consider a omnipotent being the highest authority that it will surpass laws of nature and reason, and if you view laws of nature and reason as highest authorities then the omnipotent being will be bound to them...no?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Personally I'm a moral relativist, so to me both these arguments seem fictional, but I think it is obvious that if you consider a omnipotent being the highest authority that it will surpass laws of nature and reason, and if you view laws of nature and reason as highest authorities then the omnipotent being will be bound to them...no?
Yea I think that I was kinda getting to that. If you're a secular humanist, you don't subscribe to the idea of an all powerful all knowing God, since nature and reason are your "god", so you can bind him to your rules. If you're religious, it's the other way around. It seems like Ush is trying to do both but it doesn't appear valid.
There's a tremendous irony in you saying you are not arguing with emotional and then immediately saying 'moral relativism has killed 100 million people'- a clearly emotional appeal, and one lacking any sort of context or reasoned connection, as if 'moral relatavism' is one big belief system you can apply liberally to any group you like.
Honestly, you are not giving the impression that you are actually interested in a rational or reasoned debate- when you make that sort of statement, you are straying into ranting. My point about social advances is that reasoned morals- and not whatever label you try to put on it in an emotional attempt to dismiss it, like 'human morals' or 'moral relativism' (which I don't even think you understand)- are what modern civilisation is based on and this makes your dismissal of them rather suspect. I contend that reasoned morals with philosophical basis are a great achievement of human civilisation and stand for all sentience- including gods.
There's no double standard because I am explaining in each case what the issue is, rather than showing simple frustration like you do. I explained how you are using the term 'human' as a means of dismissing the source without actually having to argue or debate whether it is right or not. That is poor thinking at all levels- firstly because it depends on your biased used of the term 'human', and secondly because, as I explained in detail, the importance is not 'human' but 'rational'; something humans are capable of.
An all-powerful being has access to the same tools of reason as we have- and hence would know perfectly well when it is breaking such laws. That's no excuse. Nor is there any application of rationality thaty humans would not be able oto understand. Seeing it as 'Oh, it;s too complex for us to get it' is a. again, intellectually lazy as you are putting the burden on someone else and b. it shows a fundamental mis-apprehension about how complex subjects work. We don't need to evolve into super-beings to understand rational concepts. Our brains are capable already- we just need to reason it out. The reason we already understand would be understood by a caveman if we could communicate with him. All the caveman is lacking is the historical analysis and culture of reason from which to understand the principles. He is NOT lacking the actual capacity.
So, if your super-being IS actually acting morally, we would be able to understand why. And, as I say, some moral principles are so basic that there is no chance of later reasoning making them untrue.
Again, calling my argument a copout- which seems to be because it annoys you- is poor. If it was not what you were saying, please explain what you were. To be honest, I think that is exactly what you were saying. Digi has raised the same issue. It comes down to you thinking super-beings act in moral ways we cannot understand. If we cannot understand, then there is no point trying, That is your intellectual void.
We can reason about the actions of any being, regardless of understanding. 'How is the finite meant to judge the infinite' is a good example of the sort of semantically empty phrase you use in place of argument. It's nice and poetic but it is rationally meaningless, making weird assumptions about the definitions of both words.
Actions can be understood. If an advanced race murders and genocides, it is wrong and evil. We can judge that- that is rather how morals work. They may have their reasons, of course, and we don't know what they are, but that does not change the morality of the action.
In any case, I also reject your idea that a God would perform seemingly immoral actions but actually have some fantastically complex moral web that wr cannot possibly comprehend that actually makes it morally different. I see no reason to think that; if such a being acts immorally it is likely for simple self-advancement or gratification, just as with any sentient being.