“O God”-Effectively Critiques Oprah-ology.
In the new book “O” God: A Dialogue on Truth and Oprah’s Spirituality. (CA: WND, 2009; 128pg) renowned Christian apologist Josh McDowell and up-and-comer Dave Sterrett offer a brief popular level critique of Oprah Winfrey’s growing and influential religion.To keep the reading light the authors present their apologetic in a story-form dialogue between a young divorced grad-student Lindsey and her PhD friend, a newly converted Christian and former yoga teacher, Avatari. As these two 30 year olds discuss their lives and issues they bat around tenets of Oprah-ology. Naturally, Oprah’s spiritual mentors like Eckhart Tolle and Deepak Chopra surface too. Both friends watch the Oprah show and read “O” Magazine, but Lindsey and Avatari disagree over the “truth” therein. The end result is that Avatari uses apologetics to share her faith with Lindsey, who in turn shares her new found faith with her mother. In the course of this drama the authors progressively unravel the paper-thin veneer of Christian lingo on Oprah’s spirituality then dissect the remaining new-age mysticism underneath.
This book is clearly apologetic, intending to educate and dissuade the reading from Oprah’s spirituality. Key points include arguments for Christian exclusivism (ch1,4), absolute truth (ch5), theism (ch7), the historic Jesus (ch9), the reliability of the New Testament (pg95), and resurrection (ch10), a rebuttal of pantheism (ch7, pg73), notes on the problem of blind faith (pg98), a defense of the moral argument for God (pg86), and a critique of the New Thought, “think-yourself-well” movement (ch6). This book is a great introduction into cultural apologetics. It is accessible, simple, readable and still surprisingly meaty. O God is utterly relevant in culture because it sets its sights on the queen of American culture Oprah Winfrey together with her heir apparent, New Age spirituality. As it turns out, New Age is hardly an heir, but rather a Hindu-esque fog of pantheism. McDowell and Starrett keep the page count down, the plot-line simple, the topics clear, and the overall readability up. A discussion guide is also included should the reader want to incorporate this material into a church study group, home group, or religion class.
As an apologist myself, this book is a helpful addition to my library on Cults, World Religions and Alternative Spirituality. Oprah-ology is nothing new, to those who have studied about pantheism and eastern religions. But this book may surprise people who thought of Oprah as a good Christian girl. Before this book I did not know how non-Christian Oprah’s religion was, nor how openly she admits to anti-Christian beliefs. Oprah is a new-thought, religious pluralist who denies absolute truth, Christian theism, sin, hell, and the Trinity. This book however is not a critique of Oprah—God bless whatever good she offers to the world—but rather a focused response to her skewed beliefs, which take her out of classical Christianity. But neither does O God stop at critiqueing Oprah-ology. O God is evangelistic, tying together rebuttal with affirmation, countering pantheism with Christian theism, finally offering an apologetically polished uniquely beautiful Christian gospel. This book deserves commendation for “calling it like it is.” In a hazy world of gray shades and fuzzy borders, when people turn up sick from moral ambiguity and spiritual banality, O God shines a refreshing bright light while sharpening the surgeon’s scalpel. Soul surgery can now take place.
April 12th, 2010 at 12:39 am
I like Oprah and accept the possibility that her inner personal desire to spread happiness may actually precede the enormous wealth which has attended her media productions. She deserves some credit for good will and I would MUCH rather live next door to a kind, well intentioned polytheist or pantheist or Buddhist Oprah Winfrey than I would an amoral atheist Oprah Winfrey. All religions which include some form of higher power (divinity) and advocate collective and mutual love of fellow humans are steps on the way to Christian monotheism even though they are like a clock that has stopped ticking and only shows the right time twice a day. However I agree it is very important to understand the problem with Oprah-ology and how easily a person might be gradually and imperceptibly drawn away from God and into the humanist religion of “anything goes”. (See The Screwtape Letters – CS Lewis.)
The Kingdom of God has One King and One very clear set of rules intended for our happiness but it becomes a “hazy world of gray shades and fuzzy borders” because the Kingdom of God is within us. (Luke 17:21) Rather than accepting the authority of the Kingdom of God – The One True God, in our hearts and governing our actions, this scriptural fact leads some of us to mistakenly conclude that the borders of God’s Kingdom able to be blurred.
We blur them by thinking that some rules apply today and others ….well, not so much. Or that all of the rules apply all the time to everyone… ELSE. We blur them by denying they exist when we are embarrassed in the company of secular friends who ridicule the notion of transcendent morality. And we blur them when we see so many other “religions” which make it up as they go along, that we ourselves become similarly conditioned into a hassle free mentality of religion like a “pay per view” or “a La Carte” menu option in this instant karma world of Oprah-ology.
We want to be a conspicuous and vocal part of Gods Kingdom and under His protection in times of trouble and yet we want to claim ownership and credit ourselves for knowing “The Secret” to self-empowerment the rest of the time. We use affirmations to “heal our lives” and quartz crystals and Feng Shui to “control” our wealth and happiness and sometimes we even forget that The Cross is not meant to be a good luck charm.
We want to be subjects in Gods Kingdom when the rules suit us because we don’t want to be robbed or murdered (by anyone) but we become instant lawyers and bible exegesis scholars when deciding matters of sin and “who is my neighbor”. Or worse still, we lapse into that strange sort of silence which doesn’t want to rock the boat or stand out in the crowd - where all forms of theism are valid including secular, humanist atheism which says…”I will obey God only if God obeys me first and jumps through the hoops of empirical proof which I demand”.
There are a lot of “preachers” like Oprah on TV but whose “truth” are they promoting and why? Are they delivering sermons about exercise machines which will make us happy or diets or investment strategies or religious self-help books on how to live/pray/meditate written by… you guessed it – another human. Whether it’s New Age Mysticism or New Atheism, any “religion” which uses human wisdom to place man’s authority temporarily or partially (or wholly) above that of the Creator can hardly be relied upon for eternal salvation. To claim otherwise really would be a delusion.
When Jesus Christ spoke of Himself as The Way, He was giving directions like an arrow which points somewhere. When Christians are asked for directions they point to Jesus. When Jesus is asked for directions He points to God and if you are still having trouble finding your Way He says “follow me”. When media production companies are asked for “spiritual” guidance they usually point to someone like Oprah Winfrey, Homer Simpson, Brangelina, Richard Dawkins…..
Lion (IRC)
April 12th, 2010 at 6:10 am
where all forms of theism are valid including secular, humanist atheism which says…”I will obey God only if God obeys me first and jumps through the hoops of empirical proof which I demand”.
1) Humanism is not a form of theism….
2) It’s more like, “I don’t believe god exists,” than it is any form of concern as to whether or not to “obey” him.
I figured this would be common sense by now….
April 12th, 2010 at 6:11 am
Also, lol at “amoral atheist” XD
April 12th, 2010 at 7:38 am
Hi Tim D,
Short and sweet reply - thanks.
What you need is a bit more atheology as Michel Onfray calls it.
Or as I like to call it atheism with an IQ.
Lion (IRC)
April 12th, 2010 at 8:08 am
“Or as I like to call it atheism with an IQ.”
Lion, I think that trying to be smart and avoiding bad thinking is good advice for everyone, not those who find themselves unconvinced that a deity exists.
It’s generally good to avoid the hubris of looking at another group of people and saying ‘their problem is that they’re not smart enough’.
That said:
“As these two 30 year old’s discuss their lives”
No apostrophe needed in the above.
April 13th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
Tim D,
I used the term “amoral atheist” because many atheists regularly tell me there is no such thing as sin, evil, etc.
I have never seen an atheist provide a working definition of morality which was not subjective and did not ultimately boil down to one human’s idea of morality versus another humans and which would either stand or fall on the basis of …well…an arm wrestling contest basically.
Competing subjective ideas of morality among humans (or apes) is de facto amorality because it is never fixed. Killing Jews would be the right or wrong thing to do depending on whose army was the strongest. Sexual abuse of children should be wrong no matter whether Christopher Hitchens finds it disgusting….or NOT.
Transcendent morality is a functional necessity because two humans arguing are best to leave to a set of rules which have the imprimatur of a Higher (smarter) Being.
Lion (IRC)
April 13th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Hi Nathan Barley,
Agreed.
My comment about atheology refers to atheists who claim there is something intellectually sophisticated about saying (without explanation) that atheism is the default position which should be adopted by “all clear thinkers”.
Mr Onfray quite rightly points out that atheists who provide no “atheology” as a basis for their world view - or rather LACK thereof, give the appearance of having no “reason”.
Atheists might have a view that there is no evidence of God (which meets their burden of proof.) They may say as much and leave it at that. But when asked the question which goes to the heart of atheology…”how can there be no God?” many revert to the very weak intellectual position of merely repeating the original claim or arguing that they have immunity from interrogation since theirs is the default truth against which everyone else is proposing an alternative or simply saying…”you can’t prove a negative.” Science has no difficulty accepting the concept of “random” mutations (absence of evidence) as a FACT of evolution.
So I differentiate between atheists who lack atheology and their intellectually superior counterparts who at least attempt to answer or overcome the agent/mechanism category issues and show how atheism can be a viable world view.
Of course the issue of labeling people is fraught and I wish it could be avoided. Being opinionated (as I am) and labeling someone’s view as more or less intellectually superior is not meant give offense. I think a much more useful test of whether a person is an anti-theist, atheist or agnostic is not the label they claim for themselves but rather – how they live their lives. Do they live as though there is no God, or no evidence of God or no CONVINCING evidence of God or as if it makes no difference whether there is a God or NOT.
We should look at how people like Oprah and New Age gurus and New Atheists live their lives then compare it to Jesus Christ.
Lion (IRC)
April 13th, 2010 at 9:53 pm
I used the term “amoral atheist” because many atheists regularly tell me there is no such thing as sin, evil, etc.
That is an incorrect use of the term “amoral,” then. “Amoral” means “without morals,” not “without objective morals.”
I have never seen an atheist provide a working definition of morality which was not subjective and did not ultimately boil down to one human’s idea of morality versus another humans and which would either stand or fall on the basis of …well…an arm wrestling contest basically.
Why do you assume that a non-objective moral policy necessarily delegates morality to a show of force? I see two main problems with that reasoning:
1) If there is “no morality,” as you would say it, then how can morality be based on force? To say that “Killing Jews would be the right or wrong thing to do depending on whose army was the strongest” is to assume that “objective morality” is based on strength instead of thought, which assumes that objective morality exists in the first place. So in order to argue that case against a “moral subjectivist” in any binding way, you must first assume objective morality.
2) If morality is subjective, then what that means is that individuals choose where to “cast their lot,” so to speak — moral authority varies from person to person, and there is no “objective” moral authority. That’s to say, you have no more (or less) of a say over what is right than I do. Now that in itself makes sense; where you tend to lose me is when you say that this necessarily forces me to acknowledge someone else’s idea of morality as “just as good as” mine. If we were arguing from an objective sense then yes, your opinion would be just as “objectively valuable” as mine (which is to say that neither would be “objectively valuable” because “objective value” wouldn’t exist), but in a morally subjective universe, objectivity is irrelevant. If you, for example, decided that killing Jews was morally acceptable, and I decided that it was not, then who is “right?” Let’s say you kill me and decide that you think I’m wrong. How does that make me “wrong” in any sense that is any different from when I was alive? It’s not that you killing me has made me “subjectively wrong” (for I was that, in your mind, even while I was alive); all that has changed is that you have taken away my ability to assert the morality (or lack thereof) that I believe in. That just means that my morality no longer has any power, not that it is untrue or that yours is true.
In making the case of (2), one would be pre-assuming that the so-called “amoral” party is already equating morality with force prior to the exchange, which is absolutely not necessary in a morally subjective universe.
Sexual abuse of children should be wrong no matter whether Christopher Hitchens finds it disgusting….or NOT.
Case in point; if Christopher Hitchens thinks it is disgusting, and someone who thinks it is not kills Christopher Hitchens….does that mean that it is not anymore? Think about what that means; if the answer is “no,” that it still is disgusting, then that means we have bestowed Christopher Hitchens with the “objective moral authority” to make that claim. If the answer is “yes,” that it is no longer disgusting, then we are bestowing the person who killed him with “objective moral authority” and we are equating his power to assert his morality with his morals themselves (but they are not inherently equal; this is our mistake of equivocation).
But also, on a mostly-irrelevant (i.e. feel free to skip) side note….think about what that means, that it is “disgusting.” That word means “to cause disgust.” To cause disgust, there must be a party who receives the disgust, who “is disgusted.” This changes the meaning of the term slightly; technically, it would mean that if you killed every single person with the capacity to be disgusted by something, then that thing would no longer be “disgusting” in that it would no longer cause disgust to anyone capable of perceiving it. However, that does not mean that it is morally acceptable (or that it is not), because in that case “disgusting” does not refer to the literal morality of the act, but to the reactions people have to the act itself. So the only way we can assert that it is no longer “disgusting” upon the death of Mr. Hitchens is if we define “disgusting” such that it no longer refers to the morality of an action, but rather to the effect it has on other people, which is something completely separate.
Transcendent morality is a functional necessity because two humans arguing are best to leave to a set of rules which have the imprimatur of a Higher (smarter) Being.
A transcendental morality is not necessarily necessary (to coin a phrase~). Two humans arguing need only a set of rules that is beyond them as individuals, not necessary a set of rules that is beyond all humans. Our legal system operates on this concept — humans create laws and enforce them on each other. we can argue about whether they are based on god’s law or not, but the point is that even if they are based on god’s law, it remains that god himself did not establish our laws and decide how and when to enforce them, we did, and we are the ones that we answer to — if we did not enforce our laws, then nobody would and there would be no law. If someone commits a crime and is caught, they answer directly to the legal system, not directly to god (all metaphors aside).
But even god, in order to create laws, has to have the respect of his followers. Even a god’s law is worthless and weightless if people do not obey it. So I would argue that what is necessary (for peacekeeping purposes) is not a transcendent authority, but a shared respect for the same authority, whether transcendent or not. If a government can agree that killing is wrong, and its citizens can accept that judgment and abide by it, then there is no need for a higher law….and even if its citizens do not accept that judgment, then what good would a higher law do? If people will not value life on principle, then changing the source of the principle will not address the problem because people will still not value life on principle.
**on another side note….about rules for individuals and rules for all humans….you might say, “who governs the governors, then?” Or “who decides which rules will be enforced?” If so, you need only look at the founding fathers of our nation, because they asked the exact same question — “how can we make rules that we all accept and live by, and ensure that the people have both the power to make and change the rules but also the means by which to enforce them?” That is most likely the origin of the Checks and Balances system; effectively a “wheel” of government that functions like a Mobius loop, where every level is checked by the one above it, and the top level is checked by the bottom level.
[/blather]
My, I’m windy today~
April 14th, 2010 at 1:15 am
Thanks nathan. Apostrophe corrected.
April 14th, 2010 at 5:54 am
“Many atheists regularly tell me there is no such thing as sin, evil, etc. ”
I’ve never heard an atheist claim that morality is meaningless. They may have issues with ideas like ‘He did evil because of original sin’, or ‘the devil made him do evil’, but that’s not the same thing.
If atheists really believed morality was meaningless, we’d expect data to back this up. For example, we might expect prisons to be full of atheists, when in fact we see atheists far LESS represented in prisons than they are in the general population. Unless you want to argue that atheists commit more crimes, they are just too clever to get caught?
Your claim that a transcendent morality giver is needed to provide morals comes up against the problem of euthyphro’s dilemma. You’ve still got to use your subjective opinion to proclaim God’s morals to be ‘the right ones’. You are still left with your own values.
“Science has no difficulty accepting the concept of “random” mutations (absence of evidence) as a FACT of evolution.”
You would benefit from going to the ‘talkorigins’ website and looking up their “index to creationist claims”.
April 14th, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Hi Nathan Barley,
“….got to use your subjective opinion to proclaim God’s morals to be ‘the right ones’ ???”
Sorry, that is a complete anathema to me. It’s not even a dilemma.
It completely fails the test of relevance.
if God’s depends on humans to decide whether He is right or wrong He is NOT God.
You must surely be able to see this even if only in hypothetical terms.
Lion (IRC)
April 14th, 2010 at 10:26 pm
if God’s depends on humans to decide whether He is right or wrong He is NOT God.
I would probably have phrased Mr. Nathan’s question like this: How do you know that god is, by definition, good/moral?
It’s an interesting question because its meaning changes slightly depending on how it’s asked. To me, the important part of the question is how we, as individuals with subjective views and perspectives, decide what we acknowledge as “right” or “wrong” — it’s not so much saying that “humans decide whether god is right or wrong objectively” as it is asking, “why do *you,* as a subjective human, accept the being you believe to be god as an adequate source of morality?” Disregarding the question of *objectivity* for a moment….how do you know that god is moral?
The answers I’ve heard (and my immediate concerns with them) are as follows:
1) Because god does things which are moral. (This assumes that there is a standard of morality that is separate from/superior to god that god recognizes and abides by.)
2) Because what god does is, by nature, moral. (This leaves us with the question of, “what about his nature makes him moral?” Which often tends to lead to #3….)
3) Because god has the power to enforce his beliefs about morality. (This equates the power to enforce morals with the objectivity of said morals — the exact same thing that moral objectivists accuse moral subjectivists of believing. If I have enough power to enforce my morals, does that mean that I have some degree of objective moral authority?) Sometimes this question is phrased as “because god is all-powerful,” but the reasoning behind both of them is the same because it is rooted in the idea that “it’s okay for him to do it because he can.”
April 14th, 2010 at 10:34 pm
P.S. Also, an interesting question that occurred to me earlier. I’ve heard people on this very forum use the argument that “it’s okay for god to do it because he can;” to which I’ve responded, “what if god does something that would be considered ‘evil’ if you or I did it? Would that be immoral, or would god’s nature change it to be inherently ‘good?’” To which someone responded, “God cannot do evil because it is not part of his nature.”
Given the flow of that reasoning…we can say, “it’s okay for god to do whatever he wants because he can only do things that are morally right.” Which seems to imply that, if god could do something that we’d call “evil,” then it would be evil, and we would no longer be able to say that it’s alright for him to do whatever he wants — we’d have to say that it’s alright for him to do moral things, which falls victim to case #1 in my above post — but he can’t, so we accept the reasoning that it’s okay for him to do anything that he can conceivably do (because he can only conceivably do things which are moral).
So my question, then, is….do you believe that, IF god were capable of doing something ‘evil’ or ‘immoral,’ would that something still be ‘evil?’ Or would it be considered ‘moral’ because god did it?
The reason that’s an important question is….if the answer is “yes, it would still be evil,” that means that god does adhere to a standard of morality that is higher than himself. If the answer is “no, it would not still be evil,” then that would mean we are retrofitting the definition of morality to fit whatever god’s actions are….and so if we remove the precondition that “god can only do morally good things,” but god’s actions are still considered “objectively moral” no matter what, then it’s safe to say that morality (as practiced by god) is just as subjective and nonbinding as morality as practiced by humans.
April 15th, 2010 at 4:35 am
Yes Tim, you’ve summed it up fairly well.
Lion, if you’re calling God moral, then you must have decided that he is moral. Therefore you’ve used your own judgment to give him that label. If you’re judging God moral purely by his own standards, then it’s a rather meaningless label. A mass murderer could be moral by his own standards.
But Tim sums up the problem will enough in his post of 10:26, especially with his three replies and the issues that each throws up.
But Euthyphro’s dilemma is still the most concise setting of the problem, which I’ve yet to see solved.
April 15th, 2010 at 10:49 am
Nathan,
Concerning the Euthyphro dilemma it was first phrase in a polytheistic context, namely, is something good because the God’s say so (ie: they are a higher authority than the good) or do they say it because it’s good (ie: they are a lower authority than the good). But the dilemma does not speak to whether there is only One God who IS good. People could misjudge which God there is, whether there is a God, what his goodness looks like or means but those are phenomena, and I’m talking about noumena. If there is only one God who is Good, then the Euthophro dilemma doesn’t apply.
Furthermore, and perhaps I’m being elementary, but I don’t see the problem the following premises.
1) morality is an aspect of minds–so it is not adequately explained by appealing to mindless nature.
2) some moral values seem to be objectively binding–so that we can call past civilizations or foreign people “evil” if they practice genital mutilation or genocide, or we can affirm “good” and commend others such as the Aztecs for inventing batteries, etc.
3) human minds are not individually or coorporately adequate grounds for an objectively binding moral value–ie: we still have the problem of feuding cultures (if two cultures disagree on a moral principle, who wins out?), the problem of the rebel (if morality is by group concensus then all minority group rebels such as Martin Luther, Martin Luther King Jr., etc. would be “evil”), the problem of biculturality (if one person is a member of two cultures and a principle conflicts, which do they honor), the problem of wrong majorities (if most of america affirmed slavery at one point, that still doesn’t make slavery good), and the problem of universal negation (it is hard, if not impossible to show that all moral values are relative since there could always be another one, not yet considered, that is objective). Yet our own visceral, intuitive, and even rational efforts tend to suggest certain moral values are objectively binding though we ourselves are insufficient grounds for such “moral knowledge.”
4) If these moral values don’t come from us, nor from the rest of nature, and they are suitable only for a mind, then they come from a non-natural or supernatural mind.
Hence I suggest that moral values are best grounded IN the mind of God or a God. The euthyphro dilemma then would complicate causes, postulating another dimension above or beneath God–neither of which, I think, survive Ockham’s razor. It is the preferable explaination to posit that moral values are fundamentally based in the nature of a single Monotheistic God–no further pantheon is needed to explain things, nor another “moral dimension” that God consults, etc.
Hows that for a resolution to the Euthophro dilemma?
April 15th, 2010 at 10:53 am
Sorry about the mistyping, I have a tiny keyboard.
Euthophro=Euthyphro
April 15th, 2010 at 11:25 am
“Hence I suggest that moral values are best grounded IN the mind of God or a God.”
But who’s to say that the God is moral John? Himself? That doesn’t work - we can all be moral by our own reckoning.
You seem to be saying that we can call him moral because it gives you a convenient answer to the ‘feuding cultures’ problem. But who’s to say there IS a solution to the problem?
And what does it actually MEAN to call him moral? Does he get that title because he’s more powerful. For sure, it helps solve the problem of two feuding brothers if they appeal to the higher authority of their dad, but it just stops them arguing - it doesn’t mean the dad was actually right.
Could you conceive of an ‘evil’ creator God? For example, one who creates beings purely so that he can be amused by their suffering? Or would such a God, simply by virtue of being the most powerful, or being the creator, be ‘MORAL’ by fiat?
April 15th, 2010 at 11:44 am
“Hows that for a resolution to the Euthophro dilemma?”
So in short, how would you answer this question:
“Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?”
April 15th, 2010 at 3:06 pm
Nathan, you haven’t spoken to the content of my argument much at all.
What is morally good is morally good because of who God is, not because of what he says (second option) or because of what anything else is (first option). The Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma, since there is a third option–namely, God is good. This dilemma still circulates largely because of the difficulty of achieving wide-scale agreement on a precise definition of “morality.” Philosophically speaking though, its not a dilemma at all. You seem to disagree with my answer, but you haven’t shown that the Euthyphro’s probem is even a dilemma. You may not like the answer, but you can’t deny it on the basis of there being no such third-option.
Also, I have no problem with proposing a basic working definition of morality as “the study of good and evil as such” and “good” I define as “what one/many should be/do” and “evil” as “what one/many should be/do.”
I suspect however that we might be talking past each other because I ascribe to a Teleological worldview, which, if you are a strong evolutionist you would likely reject. Consequently, my categories might not map into your worldview but I would counter that your worldview (if you reject teleology) cannot account for a great deal of the plain data of human experience, such as moral knowledge.
April 15th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
“The Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma, since there is a third option–namely, God is good.”
Well the problem is that this third option looks very like the second option. Wouldn’t you reply that what is morally good is good because it is commanded by a being who is good? It’s not the ’saying’ part that is significant - it is that a ‘good being’ is doing the saying.
And can you explain what the word ‘good’ means in this context? If by good you simply mean ‘the nature of God’, then aren’t you basically just saying ‘God is [God’s nature]’?
To quote something I read somewhere else (sorry)
“[God says it is good because it IS good. HOW do we know that it is good? Because God’s very nature is good. God IS the standard].
This is a straightforward tautology:
1. What God says is good.
2. God is the standard by which good is defined.
By (2) “good” means that which God is, which includes all that He says, does, and wills. By substitution (1) becomes “What God says is what God says.”
As a side:
“if you are a strong evolutionist ”
For a start, the term ’strong evolutionist’ doesn’t really make sense. It’s like saying a ’strong soil erosion-ist’, or a ’strong heliocentrist’. You either accept the mountains of evidence for evolution, or you don’t. Given the huge numbers of Christians who understand and accept evolution, I don’t see why it is supposed to be mutually exclusive to a teleological world view, any more than believing that the earth goes round the sun.
April 15th, 2010 at 4:04 pm
If you are referring to Principia Ethica’s use of the naturalistic fallacy and concluding that ultimately “good” is undefinable even for Essentialist Theistic proponents you might have an argument. But according to what you just said, you call my claim a tautology and then explain yourself without employing an illustrative tautology.
My argument is not a tautology, its just a simple categorical proposition: God is good. It is not true in the same sense to assert that “good is God” since “good” is not distributed while “God” is. Hence it is not a tautology.
To phrase it as an argument it could be something like:
P1) God’s nature is good
P2) It is true of God as such whatever is true of His nature.
C) Therefore God is good.
or,
All M is P
All S is M
Therefore, S is P
This is a valid syllogism of the form AAA-1, and therefore not tautological. It is not tautological since the predicate “good” is not distributed. But God is other things too besides simply “good.” He could also be, “true,” “wise,” “existent” and all sorts of things that are not evil but aren’t morally good either. To put it another way, “God is good” is not a two-way biconditional relation.
You accuse my claim/argument of being a tautology, but then you didn’t even illustrate it with a tautology thus suggesting that you may be unclear in your own understanding of “tautology.”
As for the “strong-evolutionist” terminology I mean that some evolutionists are more Darwinian than others (holding only to speciation-aspects of evolution, but not abiogenesis or a cosmologically naturalist account of the origin of the universe). Some evolutionists are theistic, these would not be “strong-evolutionists” but soft evolutionists in the sense that they limit the extent to which they hold evolution as a macro-explanatory system.
I don’t think that evolutionary worldviews always exclude teleology, but a great many of them do. But that’s only because Intelligent Design theory (which is fundamentally teleological) allows for some limited forms of evolution (ie: not “strong-evolution), since as limited speciation of some animal forms.
In practice and in my own experience I have found teleology is much more fitting to Intelligent Design theory than toward Evolutionary theories. This is because the most outspoken evolutionary theories tend to presuppose naturalism, and given naturalism there is no grounds for any moral “should” in all existence unless there is some kind of “design” intrinsic within aspects of the universe. I tend to assume, out of hand, that when a person ascribes to naturalistic forms of evolution they likewise affirm the purposelessness of the universe, and the lack of any intelligence in ordering the world–hence there is no “should” beyond the conditional inventions of humanity since there is no design beyond humanly invented designs.
April 15th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
And I tend to assume that those that think that a universe that isn’t designed is purposeless are shallow and egotistical, in that they suppose the entire universe is created for them. I find it hard to believe people of the conservative ilk expect the universe to be handed to them instead of making their own purpose and finding their own happiness.
April 15th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
The Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma, since there is a third option–namely, God is good. This dilemma still circulates largely because of the difficulty of achieving wide-scale agreement on a precise definition of “morality.” Philosophically speaking though, its not a dilemma at all.
Two things:
1) saying that “god is good, therefore there is no dilemma” does not resolve the dilemma. It begs the question — thus resulting in #2 from the three points I mentioned earlier, “what about god makes him good?” If you say, “the fact that god is good is what makes him good,” that is meaningless because no matter which of the two we are referring to, we are relying on the other to define what it is. If we say “god is good,” that means that god has the qualities of “goodness” and is therefore good. But if god is good *and* goodness is god, then all that means is “god has the qualities of god.”
The dilemma is not so much whether or not god is moral, but how we define morality in such a way that it has meaning when logically equivocated with “god.” “God is good” or “goodness is god” are completely nonsensical if neither of them has a definition on its own; if the two are inextricably linked (as you claim), then they must still have SOME definition that is apart from “god” or “good” that can be described. Otherwise, nobody can possibly know what either of them is.
To simplify….it’s the logical aspect of this argument which is nonsensical. Since logic is basically mathematical, we can show the flaw of this argument by presenting it mathematically, wherein “x” = “god” and “y” = “goodness.”
Problem: “Solve for x and y.”
x = y
Simply put, there is not enough information to understand either term’s actual definition. Let’s say that we accept your belief that goodness and god are one and the same (that “x” and “y” are equal to each other); well then, what is the “value” of god, so to speak? And what is the “value” of goodness? That is the real problem presented by Euthyphro’s dilemma. Equating the two does not, in itself, solve the dilemma, it only delegates it elsewhere — we are now pressed with the question, “well, then what is good/god?” If all that you can say about either one is that it is equal to the other, then the terms are nonsensical.
P1) God’s nature is good
P2) It is true of God as such whatever is true of His nature.
C) Therefore God is good.
or,
All M is P
All S is M
Therefore, S is P
The problem with this syllogism is that it takes the definitions of any words which could possibly be used to describe god, and redirects them such that they are defined by god. This makes them nonsensical in a descriptive sense — if we are saying that “good” no longer refers to the concept of conditional benefit based on a stated goal, that it instead describes the nature of god (which may or may not be relevant to conditional benefit based on a stated goal), then we have removed the very aspect of “goodness” which allows us to say that ‘god being good’ is a positive thing. By this definition, god could (theoretically) be exactly like Adolph Hitler and we would be required to call him “good.”
I tend to assume, out of hand, that when a person ascribes to naturalistic forms of evolution they likewise affirm the purposelessness of the universe, and the lack of any intelligence in ordering the world–hence there is no “should” beyond the conditional inventions of humanity since there is no design beyond humanly invented designs.
That is a hasty assumption, I think, because it assumes that someone must believe something that he or she is not necessarily required to believe, given that information.
April 15th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
Toby, you are welcome to think that. But that’s not even good Christian theology you are characterizing. It certainly doesn’t describe any rightful view from Biblical thought, and especially not my own view.
Tim, you are not speaking to my point at all. The euthyphro dilemma asks how God relates to Good, not how do we define good. You are taking issue with the first question because I’m not answering the second. Yet I have effectively answered the first question.
Let me restate:
Goodness is either metaphysically beneath or above Good–false dilemma.
Third option, God is himself good.
Now as for defining goodness further than that, well that’s not what was being asked.
Also, I don’t think you are using “begs the question” correctly. If you mean circular argumentation, then you are just wrong. I distinguished “God” from “God’s nature” identifying his nature as somehow being characterized by goodness. And since God is consistent with his nature (as opposed to two natures, or a changeable nature, or some nominalism devoid of a nature) God is good is just as meaningful as any categorical proposition. “Human life is precious” “Dogs are canine,” or “Love is an emotion.” God is not equal to goodness (so we have not slipped the definiendum into the definiens–ie: used the word in its own definition), but somehow goodness is true of God’s nature.
If you are demanding some kind of covert logical positivist criteria before you’ll grant that a word can be meaningful then you are committing a self-contradition. In other words, if you are demanding that something non-scientific be expressed in scientific terms before it can be meaningful then you are arbitrarily absolutizing the natural sciences not because that is all the knowledge to be had but because that’s all the knowledge you are willing to listen to.
BTW, you definition of “good” tactically rejects Kantianism, natural law theory, all forms of objectivism, and absolutism. You are certainly allowed to do that, but know that you are presupposing a very contentious definition of goodness as if I’m supposed to agree with you out of hand. You would first need to defend your own definition of good before you can use it against me. I recognize the difficulty of exhaustively defining “good” that’s why I tend to employ functional/working definitions instead, or just settle on the grounding question, or other related issues in ethics.
Concerning the “assumption of purposelessness” I’m not assuming by my own fiat but just taking notable naturalists at their word when they reject all forms of Design theory by postulating that the universe is purposeless, meaningless, and non-intelligent (ie: Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, et al). That is fundamentally opposed to a teleological worldview wherein at least some beings in the universe have purpose/meaning/design.
April 15th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
I distinguished “God” from “God’s nature” identifying his nature as somehow being characterized by goodness.
You have also defined “goodness” as “like god.” That is what makes it circular — saying that god and good are like each other does not answer the question of what either of them actually are.
Example: I have two objects on my desk in front of me, a white keyboard and a white piece of paper. If I say that the two objects are “like each other,” that does not define either of them (and it would confuse the daylights out of someone who had never seen either one of them). I could at the very least describe something about them that the other person could understand — i.e. “they are both white,” or “they are both flat.” That would attribute some quality to the objects which we could then use to identify them.
Similarly, saying that god is “like goodness” and that goodness is “like god” does not offer any real description of either god or goodness. If god “is good,” then what does that mean? That is what I am asking.
Tim, you are not speaking to my point at all. The euthyphro dilemma asks how God relates to Good, not how do we define good.
We have to define what “good” and “god “are before we can talk about how they relate to each other — otherwise, any conclusions we draw will be nonsensical because we don’t have enough information to discuss them.
Now as for defining goodness further than that, well that’s not what was being asked.
Yes, yes it was. I asked you how you can define “goodness” on its own in such a way that it has meaning to equivocate “god” with “goodness.”
And since God is consistent with his nature (as opposed to two natures, or a changeable nature, or some nominalism devoid of a nature) God is good is just as meaningful as any categorical proposition.
…
“Dogs are canine
To say “a dog is canine” is different than to say “god is good.” We can ask, “What makes a dog canine?” And we can identify the features of the dog that are canine — we can describe an animal that is “canine” in a way other than saying that “it is doglike,” such as describing its bone structure or its feeding and mating habits. What I am asking you is, how would you describe god in a way other than “he is good,” and how would you describe “goodness” in a way other than “it is like god?”
What makes good “good,” and what makes god “god?” would be a simpler way of asking.
God is not equal to goodness (so we have not slipped the definiendum into the definiens–ie: used the word in its own definition), but somehow goodness is true of God’s nature.
What does it mean that goodness is “true of god’s nature?”
BTW, you definition of “good” tactically rejects Kantianism, natural law theory, all forms of objectivism, and absolutism. You are certainly allowed to do that, but know that you are presupposing a very contentious definition of goodness as if I’m supposed to agree with you out of hand.
I don’t care if you agree with anything I say. I’m asking for your thought and opinion on what I am saying, i.e. your response to my argument. You said that “god is good.” I am trying to understand what it is that you mean by that, exactly. Are you willing to try to provide an answer to that question?
So far, the only thing I can understand is that by “god is good,” you mean that god aligns to the hypothetical, subjective moral principles that you believe are “good.” If that is not accurate, I would be very interested if you would try to explain what is the accurate explanation.
You would first need to defend your own definition of good before you can use it against me.
I am not defining good. I am asking you to define good so I can understand how you think it relates to god. If goodness is not equivalent to god but rather a *quality* of his nature, then that means that “goodness” should have a definition that can be explored without deferring to god (i.e. we should be able to describe some aspect of god that, itself, can be described as “good”). So again, what quality does god (or his nature) have that makes him “good?”
Concerning the “assumption of purposelessness” I’m not assuming by my own fiat but just taking notable naturalists at their word when they reject all forms of Design theory by postulating that the universe is purposeless, meaningless, and non-intelligent (ie: Carl Sagan, Richard Dawkins, et al). That is fundamentally opposed to a teleological worldview wherein at least some beings in the universe have purpose/meaning/design.
However, your definition of “purpose” is flawed, in the same way that your definition of morality was in your earlier post. You mean to say that the universe is not objectively purposeful, but you assume that it cannot be even subjectively purposeful if it is not objectively possible. This is not necessarily true.
Furthermore, what you seem to mean when you say that the universe “has purpose” is that “someone intended something when they created it.” That is not necessarily the same thing as objective purpose — that is the subjective purpose of the creator. Example; I create a computing device for the purpose of solving mathematical equations. Someone else thinks it makes a good paperweight because they don’t really need to solve complex equations. Is my purpose the “objective” purpose? Or has someone else created a unique purpose that is just as valid as mine, even though it’s not what I (the creator) intended?
April 15th, 2010 at 10:17 pm
Hello all,
Ive been very busy, but I wanted to quickly chime in on this topic (it’s an important one which I admit I don’t understand well).
I will admit that due to a lack of time, I have not read every word written here, but have read much of it. That said, it’s clear you guys are miscommunicating a bit.
John, I think it may help Tim and Nathan to understand your position if you simply finish this sentence:
I know that G-d is good because…
For some of my input, I think the belief that G-d is good is, in the end, a matter of faith. Why do I say this? Because we, as humans, could never have the understanding to judge G-d and his motives. (For a Biblical reference to this one place to start is Genesis 50.)
Let me give an example of what I am getting at (which will hopefully keep this short).
As a parent I’ve had to clean a child’s skinned knee with peroxide.
This hurt, it caused pain, it made the suffering — at least at the moment — worse. If you’ve ever done this, you may know the look you get:
A pained face which is not only responding to pain, but wondering why someone they love and trust so much is doing something which is causing them pain. “Why are you doing this to me? You’re hurting me!” the face says.
Of course the intent here is not evil, and it’s not to cause suffering. The intent is for good (again Gen 50:20: “You meant it for evil, but G-d meant it for good”). The child simply doesn’t have the perspective and knowledge to understand what is going on.
If we accept G-d, we have that sort of parent-child relationship with Him. My daughter understands that I love her and will do everything in my power to prevent pain and suffering, but it’s harder for her to understand that sometimes takes increasing suffering in the short term. Still she has faith in me.
To put another way, which parent is better from the viewpoint of a 4 year old?
a. A parent who takes their child to McDonald’s every day (what kid doesn’t like that), gives candy on demand and never says no.
b. A parent who gives their kid a hard time to make sure they eat their vegetables, limits candy for special occasions and says ‘No, you can’t” many times a day.
Which parent is better from your viewpoint?
This is why I say it is a matter of faith. No person has the capacity to truly judge G-d, if He exists. (This does not mean they won’t or can’t come to judgments; I just don’t think such judgments could ever be fully informed.)
Again faith. This is the first part of John’s syllogism. He starts with the belief that G-d’s nature is good. This is technically a way out of Euthyphro’s dilemma, but I completely see why Tim and Nathan see this as doing nothing at all to answer their questions.
April 15th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Again faith. This is the first part of John’s syllogism. He starts with the belief that G-d’s nature is good.
I understand that much. And if that’s what Mr. John believes, then we can leave it at that.
The point I wanted to make was that there is nothing that logically necessitates someone to see god as “good” (whatever that means). I can believe it is possible to see god as “good” by some definition or other; however, I find that in order to do so we must trivialize the definition of “good” such that it loses its relevance to us as subjective beings.
April 15th, 2010 at 11:08 pm
Faith is the only way to explain how someone “knows” if a god is good or not. “God is good.” Why? “Because I think he has to be.” What if we supposed that god is evil? It might make a better explanation of the universe. An evil god decides to create a universe in which he makes intelligent life so that he can watch them struggle. He makes many of them believe in a god, but there are many different gods so no one knows which is the true god (because they all have books and oral histories made by men that tell them that their god is the true god). He tells them that they can pray, but answers none of their prayers, letting random chance decide if they get what they prayed for. He lets them kill each other, debate each other, and hate each other all for his glee.
Another thing occurred to me. Assuming Craig and Turek and the rest are right and that a god is a spaceless, timeless, immaterial being then morals exist only within the universe. Take a commandment for example: Thou shalt not steal (it’s a bad example because we can all think of reasons to violate it, e.g. stealing your car back from a car thief) but assume this is some ultimate objective moral. It holds no meaning in a spaceless, timeless, immaterial realm. There’s nothing to steal. Say that boiling the elderly because they are old is objectively wrong. It is meaningless if there is no universe in which the elderly exist.
What then makes morality transcendent? If morality is dependent on the existence of the universe (and I think it is), then you could not claim that god is moral (or good or bad) because he would exist outside of the universe in a spaceless, timeless, immaterial realm/dimension/disneyland. Even math wouldn’t mean anything without a universe. If you have nothing to count . . .
April 15th, 2010 at 11:58 pm
Tim said:I understand that much. And if that’s what Mr. John believes, then we can leave it at that.
You can discuss further, but I think it’s best if everyone acknowledges this beforehand.
Tim said:The point I wanted to make was that there is nothing that logically necessitates someone to see god as “good”
John, do you see this as a logical necessity?
April 16th, 2010 at 2:38 am
Now that the National Day of Prayer has hit an obstacle in the Supreme Court, Oprah might need to give Mr Obama some advice on how we could redefine prayer so that it INCLUDES such things as meditation, New Age “positive affirmations”, rosary recitation, state of mind mantras, “wishful thinking”, placebo effects, etc.
Perhaps we need to call it a “National Day of Peace and Meditation”
Prayer reduces stress and therefore disease.
Surely that is in the national interest.
I know what atheists will be praying for and I am willing to take a guess to which of the four horsemen they will be praying.
Lion (IRC)
April 16th, 2010 at 4:38 am
I brought up this whole subject because Lion made reference to atheists being amoral, or without morals. I still don’t understand what introducing a God adds to any understanding of good or the concept of good that atheists have. What extra does it bring to the table? I’m not attaching Christian morals, or Christian concepts of morals - I just don’t understand what they are supposed to have that the rest of us lack.
As a side point - I’ve not heard Richard Dawkins say our lives our purposeless - in fact that goes against what he seems to say on the subject. My life isn’t meaningless or purposeless either.
April 16th, 2010 at 7:07 am
I know what atheists will be praying for and I am willing to take a guess to which of the four horsemen they will be praying.
Or, you could throw in some stereotypical ad hominem against atheists instead.
April 16th, 2010 at 10:53 am
Tim, it is not necessary to exhaustively define either “God” or “good” to identify relations between them. We can propose working definitions, stipulative definitions, etc. and still proceed with the discussion. For that matter, we rarely have an exhaustive definition of ANYTHING we discuss. I havee already proposed a working definition of good.
Good–what one/a group should do/be.
And as for God . . .
God–that which none greater can be conceived.
These proposal can get us started. As for your explanation where you swing between “God is good” and “God is like God.” You are making the same mistake I carefully avoided. The “is” here is not biconditional, it’s not equal in both directions. I am not saying, “God = good” as that would necessarily entail “Good = god” which is false. Rather I am saying, “God is good” which is a simple “A” proposition, with the first term distributed and the second term undistributed. Good is not thereby exhaustively defined, and I never pretended to do so, nor is it necessary to do. One does not have to know everything to know something; and a term need not be exhaustively defined to be partially defined for limited but adequate use.
Also, I never said that one must necessarily define good including God. I in fact don’t do so–not because they are unrelated, but because I would understand God as the grounding of good, and the means whereby good is known, but not altogether helpful in explaining “good” to atheists.
As for how I justify including God, or inferring that there is possibly/probably need to refer to God in understanding goodness I have already given my moral argument for God above. But Tim seems to be objecting without regard for it but mainly on the grounds of some kind of Argument from Non-Cognitivism (http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_noncognitivism/). If that is the manner of Tim rebuttal then I have a paper I’ve written on the subject that I can refer to you.
In response to the notion that God is superfluous to morality I interject the “is-ought” fallacy. If nature is all there is, and all it can tell us is what “is” then it has nothing to say about what “ought” to be. Given a naturalistic worldview I see no mean to bridge from “what is” to “what ought to be” without smuggling in some supernaturalistic or artificial moral currency.
The naturalistic fallacy exposes why a teleological worldview is so important. If someone tortures and kills a hedgehog for the fun of it, even if the world could spare another hedgehog, and no one knows the difference and in some states in the world its not illegal to torture hedgehogs, and that person doesn’t escalate that behavior into anything else–its still wrong because people “shouldn’t” torture animals. But the strict naturalist is at a loss to justify that “shouldn’t” since it ends up coming to a group vote, a person’s arbitrary opinion, or an objectifying utilitarian calculus–all of which, conceived naturalisticially, suffer the “is-ought” fallacy.
As for Lion’s point about faith, I think faith is necessary in everyone’s worldview at some level. It is necessary and heavily employed in everyone’s daily life. And I think many atheists and agnostics badly misunderstand faith as some kind of “believing what you know ain’t true” irrationalism. I reject any faith of that sort, and consider that kind of faith a straw-man fallacy. Instead, understanding faith as “trusting an authority,” that is necessary in thought and life. And yes, faith is needed at some level in discussions of morality. I’m hesitant to commit myself much further than that in this discussion given the amount of crossfire each statement receives.
April 16th, 2010 at 11:08 am
“The naturalistic fallacy exposes why a teleological worldview is so important.”
You seem to be saying you need a teleological worldview, because otherwise you don’t get to tell hedgehog torturors that they’re wrong. This is taking is/ought in reverse. Because it OUGHT to be the case that it’s wrong, therefore you say it IS wrong.
In practical terms, if you come across someone torturing a hedgehog, chances are that arguing him out of it by invoking God won’t work anyway - he’ll just argue that God is fine with it, the same way theists will justify homophobia, launching wars on other nations, slavery, capital punishment etc. In fact, it seems that the teleological view makes it even HARDER to argue someone out of harming others - if God’s on his side then why should he stop?
And what if it turns out that God says torturing hedgehogs is what you OUGHT to do?
Again, I am not aggressive in this argument at all - it is (some) theists who are attacking atheists for supposed ‘no basis for their morality’.
It seems fine to me for people to say they say God is good because his morality is obvious from his acts, as laid out in the bible, and from their observations of the world. But some theists don’t WANT to say this, because it lays open the option that atheists could come to similar conclusions about good and evil, without a God.
Luke, do you believe morality can exist as a concept without a deity?
April 16th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Nathan, you have not addressed the “is-ought” fallacy at all. From your answer, it doesn’t sound like you understand it. It is a devastating argument that poses, I think, the stiffest challange to naturalistic attempts at ethics.
Permit me to illustrate how it works.
Suppose an atheist suggests that “People shouldn’t harm each other without consent, and without redeeming pleasure or benefit justifying the harm”–this is a convoluted phrasing of the generally accepted principle of non-malfeasance. This principle is culturally universal, normal in most medical ethics, and fairly common among educated and uneducated alike. However, I could ask, “What’s wrong with harming people?” It causes pain, perhaps–but then what’s wrong with pain? People usually don’t like pain–but then what’s wrong with doing what people don’t like?–It’s unpopular, perhaps, but what’s wrong with being unpopular?–etc etc.
The discussion circles down to oblivion because all justifying reasons are somehow presumptuous such that, at some point, it boils down to Relativism, Power Ethics, or Majority Vote–but I already argued above how these fail to account for what we know about ethics (for example, America was ethically wrong in relatively/group vote/power ethics enforcing of slavery). Moreover, we are left PRESUMING that what is, informs us of what OUGHT to be. To put it in Kantian terms, one is left trapped in hypothetical imperatives (if you want X then be/do Y) never accessing the categorical imperative (do/be this just because you should).
Nathan, you have not even broached the naturalistic fallacy. Instead you have argued not whether torturing hedgehogs is objectively wrong, or what basis might justify calling it wrong, but instead about whether I COULD CONVINCE somehone that its wrong. This is entirely beside the point. If someone is obstinate about atheism, theism, relativism, amoralism, or objectivism that in no way disproves or even discredits opposing views. Obstinancy testifies not to rationality but to volition.
Also, you seem to be thinking I’m just looking for cause to call torturing hedghogs wrong. I think we both already agree that it IS wrong (ie: it is true that one SHOULD NOT torture hedghogs). The question is whether we can get to the moral-ought by way of a naturalistic worldview (that presumes no intelligent designer of nature, the universe, nor humanity) or whether a teleological worldview is necessary (ie: at least humanity has built-in responsibilities–he is evil if he rejects these, good if he exercises these). I contend that naturalism ultimately leaves people with frail, relative, and subjective notions of morality that do not fill-out their ACTUAL moral knowledge/convictions.
April 16th, 2010 at 2:58 pm
John,
Let me start by saying that parts of your post (heck, maybe all of it) is a bit over my head.
I’ll try to comment on some parts of your post, but if I misunderstood something or misinterpret what you said, it’s not intentional.
Let me start by asking again, for you to finish this sentence. I think this will help me (and perhaps the others) to understand where you’re coming from, while bypassing the technical jargon.
I believe G-d is good because…
As far as the “is-ought” fallacy you mention. You are saying that if nature is all there is, then there can be no “ought.” Is that correct?
I am not sure I believe this. Let me offer an example (I don’t intend it to be crude, I just think it’s something to which we can all relate).
Let’s say that I just drank a gallon of water. Now I really have to pee. Are you saying there is no ground whatsoever to say: “I ought to pee.” That only if there is a G-d is peeing a better option then not peeing?
As far as your hedgehog example you say that a naturalist can’t say one “ought” to do something because it would then just come up for a group vote. How is this any different from the situation the world is now? Is it still not a group vote between all the various identities of G-d and those who don’t believe in Him at all?
Let’s look at your example of the hedgehog. If Nathan comes up to him and says “you can’t do that because I strongly believe it’s wrong” and you come up and say “you can’t do that because I strongly believe G-d thinks it’s wrong.” What is the material difference?
What if, as Nathan mentioned the person responds to you by saying “no, G-d told me to do this, He’s cool with it.” Where does this get you? Are you not reduced to a simple show of force since there is no other way to prove who is right? Hasn’t history pretty well proven that this is exactly what happens?
How does introducing G-d change things in any way, within our present time-space dimension?
The big problem is not everyone agrees on what G-d says or what His nature dictates. These debates can be very heated, even within the Christian world. Here is an example: almost exactly a year ago a Christian man named John, on these very boards, referred to the a widely accepted Christian view of salvation as “Divine Rape of the Soul.”
Pretty strong words.
Nathan Barley said:Luke, do you believe morality can exist as a concept without a deity?
I can certainly see ways in which it could, yes.
I can try to expand on this at some point, and I hate to just leave it at that. At the same time, if I were to try to answer your question fairly I would quickly be in the realm thousands of words,
I’ll try to think of a concise but informative way of saying this, but the short answer is basically: yes.
April 16th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
John,
I don’t mean to be rude by intruding into your conversation with Nathan, and I hope you will answer the questions I asked above, but some thoughts came into my head as I read your reply. You say that the devastating problem with the naturalistic view of ethics is presented by the is-ought fallacy.
You said: However, I could ask, “What’s wrong with harming people?” It causes pain, perhaps – but then what’s wrong with pain? People usually don’t like pain – but then what’s wrong with doing what people don’t like? – It’s unpopular, perhaps, but what’s wrong with being unpopular?–etc etc.
Does the exact same problem not exist in a theistic view of ethics?
I could ask, “What’s wrong with harming people?” It causes pain, perhaps–but then what’s wrong with pain? People usually don’t like pain–but then what’s wrong with doing what people don’t like? Well, G-d doesn’t like it? What’s wrong with doing things G-d doesn’t like? -etc, etc.
(One answer to the last question is that G-d can punish you, or being all-powerful enforce his will, but then you arrive at a simple show of force that you decry?)
As I said, you guys are smarter than me, but I don’t see at all how introducing G-d helps. The problem is just as “devastating” to your view, at least with the information I have now.
John said:Instead [Nathan has] have argued not whether torturing hedgehogs is objectively wrong, or what basis might justify calling it wrong, but instead about whether I COULD CONVINCE someone that its wrong. This is entirely beside the point.
Isn’t it only beside the point if you don’t care whether other people in the world around you act in a moral way? If you don’t care if people treat one another with respect (Mat 22:39, I Cor 10:24)?
If you care for a world in which people treat each other with decency and as they should, then isn’t that exactly the point?
Thanks,
Luke
April 16th, 2010 at 4:23 pm
“I think we both already agree that it IS wrong (ie: it is true that one SHOULD NOT torture hedghogs). The question is whether we can get to the moral-ought by way of a naturalistic worldview (that presumes no intelligent designer of nature, the universe, nor humanity) or whether a teleological worldview is necessary”
I’ve already explained that I don’t see how a teleological worldview gets you to where you want to get to anyway. But Luke explains it pretty well here:
“Does the exact same problem not exist in a theistic view of ethics?
I could ask, “What’s wrong with harming people?” It causes pain, perhaps–but then what’s wrong with pain? People usually don’t like pain–but then what’s wrong with doing what people don’t like? Well, G-d doesn’t like it? What’s wrong with doing things G-d doesn’t like? -etc, etc.”
I don’t see why introducing God stops the endless round of ‘but why’s’.
John: “Nathan, you have not addressed the “is-ought” fallacy at all.”
I don’t recall CLAIMING to have addressed it John. I’ve not claimed that we CAN get an ought from anywhere - by theistic OR atheistic means.
“Instead you have argued not whether torturing hedgehogs is objectively wrong”
What’s the difference between ‘wrong’ and ‘objectively wrong’? Objective as in ‘not from a mind’? Surely if it’s from God’s mind then it’s still ‘from a mind’. It’s ’subject’ to God’s nature, and therefore not ‘objectively wrong’?
“For example, America was ethically wrong in relatively/group vote/power ethics enforcing of slavery”
Rigt, and it was justified with exactly the same reference to ‘God’s objective morality’ that you are now using to decry hedgehog torture.
“Yet our own visceral, intuitive, and even rational efforts tend to suggest certain moral values are objectively binding though we ourselves are insufficient grounds for such “moral knowledge.”
I’m afraid this seems like the is/ought fallacy again. Because we DO feel this way, that shows us how we OUGHT to act.
All you’re saying here is that we all feel a certain way, therefore there must be a transcendent source for it. We all have instincts that push us in certain directions. Seeing as we’re all part of the same species, it’s not surprising that we all have similar urges. A species that didn’t abhor murder would soon murder itself into extinction.
And to use slavery again, I’m sure many Americans 200 years ago viscerally, intuitively, and even rationally (as far as they knew) supported slavery. I’ve seen letters written by 19thC pastors PASSIONATELY deffending the practice.
April 16th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
By the way, when I say things like: “A species that didn’t abhor murder would soon murder itself into extinction”, I’m not making any claims about what SHOULD be, or attempting to justify any particular behaviour. John, you discussed human nature, and seemed to suggest it posed some kind of problem to non-theists (forgive me if I misread you).
My posts there was simply addressing the ‘problem’, not trying to build a system of ethics based on our ‘visceral, intuitive, and even rational efforts’.
If you think that I’VE committed the is/ought fallacy anywhere, please let me know where.
I want to make sure you don’t confuse ‘accepting that evolution occured and explains biodiversity on earth’ with ‘believing that an ethical system can be created by observing animals or human behaviour’. And explaining human behaviour with reference to evolution is not the same as saying how we should act either.
April 16th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Good–what one/a group should do/be.
By what standard, though? That definition can change entirely based on who’s speaking.
We can propose working definitions, stipulative definitions, etc. and still proceed with the discussion.
Working definitions are not logically binding; thus, any argument we make from such a “working definition” can’t be much more than hypothetical, at the most.
God–that which none greater can be conceived.
I understand that god is supposedly “infiniteness,” for lack of a better term. And I understand that “goodness” is (according to funamentalist Christian belief) an external force which exists independently of human thought. What I do not understand is how you know that these two things are the same entity; and not just in the sense that “god is everything, so he’s goodness as well.” I mean, what about goodness is unique to god? I can believe in objective goodness, or I can believe in god, or I can believe in both. The ideas are not necessarily linked. So how do you show the connection between them?
Good is not thereby exhaustively defined, and I never pretended to do so, nor is it necessary to do. One does not have to know everything to know something
No. However, we must know something in order to know anything else that’s based on that something. If all you have is a “working definition” of good, then I don’t see how you can reasonably claim to “know” anything else based on that working definition. What you basically have, then, is a supposition — theories based on shaky, working definitions.
but because I would understand God as the grounding of good,
I guess an even simpler way to relate my confusion would be to ask: What is the relationship between goodness and god? I simply don’t understand the way you’re linking the two; you’re using confusing terms like “god is the grounding for goodness,” or “goodness is true to god’s nature.” But when I try to clarify by using traditional definitions of “true to” or “is,” you claim that those definitions do not apply in this situation. So what is it that you are trying to say about god and goodness, then? I am not being sarcastic. I really do not understand.
In response to the notion that God is superfluous to morality I interject the “is-ought” fallacy. If nature is all there is, and all it can tell us is what “is” then it has nothing to say about what “ought” to be.
How can you derive an “ought” from the fact that god says something “is” a certain way, though? Just because something is doesn’t mean that’s the way it ought to be (i.e. just because a mind thinks that something is immoral, doesn’t mean it IS immoral).
Given a naturalistic worldview I see no mean to bridge from “what is” to “what ought to be” without smuggling in some supernaturalistic or artificial moral currency.
I see a similar dilemma with regard to Christian morality. What about god’s decree makes something “objectively good?”
If you say, “because goodness is god’s nature,” or something to that effect, I will ask you: what does that mean?
And I think many atheists and agnostics badly misunderstand faith as some kind of “believing what you know ain’t true” irrationalism.
That may be true. However, when I use the term “faith,” I refer not to that but to “believing that which you cannot possibly know for certain to be true.” Basically, if you say that something is a logical necessity, but you cannot show that it is (or isn’t), then I would say that is a faith statement. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily false, but it does imply that you are showing some sort of bias towards a certain desired outcome.
April 17th, 2010 at 2:54 pm
If we were to imagine a universe without any form of life, then what is good and what is bad? The idea of good is a creation of human minds. The idea of morality is also a creation of human minds. Without any kind of mind in the universe what is good? Are black holes bad? Are super novas good? Why do morals and goodness only apply when there are thinking beings around to think about it?
April 19th, 2010 at 2:30 am
Hi Nathan,
I claim atheism, or more specifically “atheology” – the theology of atheism, is amoral as follows;
In atheism, morality comes from humans and the human species, according to atheism, is not only a random event in history but it is also a temporary event therefore the attendant morality is ALSO temporary. Amorality is exactly the absence of a fixed moral system. Fluctuating, nebulous, temporary, subjective morality renders itself an oxymoron. An atheist could hardly claim to have “morality” if its scope was such that paedophilia was immoral on Monday but moral on Tuesday then immoral again on Wednesday. Imagine if Mr Hitchens called something moral this month and Mr Dawkins had one year earlier described the exact same thing as immoral.
Note – I am arguing that a “system” of morality should be able to consistently answer hypothetical morality questions. One important hypothetical question about the morality proclaimed by atheists versus theists is…”what consequences follow if one rejects them?” Nothing is more A-moral than a law which is not and cannot be enforced,
Two atheists arguing over right and wrong is a nil-all-draw and therefore neither can claim validity over the other. They cancel each other out. There is effectively NO morality which is more or less true than any other. Asking those two atheists whether a thing was morally correct would yield no answer – they have no system of morality.
Two atheists who DO reach agreement on the question of morality but have not explained HOW they reached agreement is nothing more than special pleading that their “morality” really DOES exist. We simply have to take their word for it. Or worse still, their DEMAND that it be accepted without reason.
Two atheists who use their numbers to impose their own morality on a third person by force have still not explained WHY they are doing so and have in fact undermined the rational basis of their claim. A manufactured “system” of morality which changes depending on who holds the majority could also change on weekly daily basis and could therefore not answer a hypothetical morality question.
Suppose these same two atheists succumbed to the mindless, spontaneous whims of “evolution” and they become extinct. Their morality dies with them also (without leaving any fossil record.) The planet becomes devoid of life for a time - that’s possible in evolution isn’t it? Then life spontaneously re-emerges at some random time later in the future. Life once again “evolves” and a new species of atheist arises. Will that new species of atheist have its own “self-selected” morality or will there be some transcendent (law of the universe) connection between the morality of the extinct atheists and their descendants? No…descendents is not the right word is it? There is no moral bridge to span the gap between these unconnected humans - unless God put one there.
Atheist morality does not exist – anything atheists claim as true morality is borrowed from someone else. Any atheist can stand up and claim to “have morality” And amorality is the logical requirement of a world view which excludes God, the soul and the afterlife because without these – in an unintentional universe – there is no yardstick by which to morally differentiate between a human and a pool of primordial slime.
Christian theism argues that morality derives from the intent and wisdom of a Higher Being and exists for one or more purposes. Christian theist morality explains that humans are not the authors of morality – we don’t tell the Higher Being what morality is. Christian morality can answer a hypothetical question on any given day of the week without the need to consult “the majority” or dispute the matter. If humans disappeared of the face of the earth for a few thousand years (or 40 days) and then came back, the same God would still be in charge and the moral truths He has stated would still exist and would continue to be effective in allowing humans to live happily on earth.
I’m not trying to perpetuate an off-topic thread about objective morality so I will try to bring it back to Oprah-ology again. She gives every appearance of being sincerely interested in human happiness and I don’t dispute that morality and human happiness are functionally connected notions. The problem occurs when a person (atheist/humanist) attempts to define morality STRICTLY in terms of humanism or democracy or biology or historical context. No matter what Oprah’s media savvy instincts tell her about ratings, morality is NOT a popularity contest. Humanist rallying cries of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity “sounds” good and popular and “nice” but they don’t mean anything without a solid empirical basis. Surely scientists understand this. Morality, like SI units need to be consistent and universal in their repeatability.
Liberty derives from our free will – soul which is independent of a humans physical size, color, gender.
Equality cannot be left to the whims of the free market or politics or other human constructs – it is only visible from a point of view which transcends ground level.
Fraternity is an ideal which cannot exist unless two “brothers” share the same Father.
Lion (IRC)
PS - People who have morals and behave “morally” might like think of themselves as atheists but they arent much different to self-righteous, pius people who think themselves justified by robotic “works”.
April 19th, 2010 at 4:27 am
“Fluctuating, nebulous, temporary, subjective morality renders itself an oxymoron.”
So what do you make of the way Christian morality has fluctuated so much then? Not many Christians supporting slavery nowadays, for example. Does this make Christians amoral too?
“Christian morality can answer a hypothetical question on any given day of the week without the need to consult “the majority” or dispute the matter.”
Cool - which is more immoral then (in order): raping a baby, stealing a loaf of bread, or denying the divinity of Jesus? Please provide references to back up whichever you choose.
“People who have morals and behave “morally” might like think of themselves as atheists”
Non sequitur - if they don’t believe in God, then by definition they ARE atheists. And it’s still a problem for your thesis that American atheists are so overwhelmingly under-represented in prisons.
April 19th, 2010 at 6:03 am
I still don’t see how the concept of the Christian god and the concept of objective morality are inextricably linked. It’s entirely possible, for example, for an atheist to believe in an objective morality but not in a god.
April 19th, 2010 at 6:12 am
P.S.
Note – I am arguing that a “system” of morality should be able to consistently answer hypothetical morality questions. One important hypothetical question about the morality proclaimed by atheists versus theists is…”what consequences follow if one rejects them?” Nothing is more A-moral than a law which is not and cannot be enforced,
1) Morality is not a consequence-based exercise; i.e. something is not “moral” or “amoral” simply because there is or isn’t a consequence for it.
2) All morality has to do is provide a consistent grounding for such answers, not consistent answers. As Christianity has shown, there can be times when an action can be considered “moral,” and other times when the same action can be considered “amoral” depending on extenuating circumstances. To say that an action is “moral” or “amoral” in and of itself is generally a hasty judgment because it doesn’t allow for other factors that could justify (or un-justify) the action. So I would argue that a system of morality which allows for some degree of change is better than a rigid system which hastily proclaims certain actions to be “objectively amoral” without considering circumstances (baby rape notwithstanding).
April 19th, 2010 at 6:41 am
“One important hypothetical question about the morality proclaimed by atheists versus theists is…”what consequences follow if one rejects them?” ”
Doing good because you’ll go to hell otherwise isn’t morality anyway.
April 19th, 2010 at 2:59 pm
“there is no yardstick by which to morally differentiate between a human and a pool of primordial slime.”
Oh, I don’t know . . . perhaps intelligence rather than ideas of behavior that shift with time.
“Note – I am arguing that a “system” of morality should be able to consistently answer hypothetical morality questions.”
Okay, tell us something that is morally absolute. Certainly none of the ten commandments are morally perfect. there are always ways to justify killing like self defense (and certainly the rest are blather aside from theft, which can be justified away, stealing your stolen car back, etc.). can you do better than the ten commandments? You might bring up baby rape again, but is that an instance of immorality or is it pathology? Can those who are mentally unstable really be accused of violating morality when their hardware is messed up?
April 19th, 2010 at 8:40 pm
Hi Nathan,
I really don’t want to get side-tracked into an off-topic debate about objective morality but since you press me on a couple of questions/points.
Christian morality is fixed and perfectly summarised at Mathew 22:37-39. It has not changed.
Christian morality does involve choosing the lesser of two evils in fact you completely miss the point that two evils are BOTH still evils. Please don’t be flippant about “raping babies” then expect me to answer you with sincerity about some gnat-straining hierarchy of morality followed by a demand for “references”. A person may freely take a loaf of bread to avoid starvation if the owner of that loaf cannot be contacted to ask permission (or pay) beforehand. If someone puts a gun to your head and says take that loaf of bread you have been forced to do something against your will. Sin is deliberate. I’m sorry you don’t understand. I hope your ignorance is not wilful or disingenuous.
I do not accept one atheist telling another atheist whether or not they are a “true atheist” nor do I accept that a person’s atheism NEVER fluctuates over time. Much more prominent atheists than those who post here concur that atheism is a moving target and varies in strength from person to person – and depending on the audience. It might be very easy to be a rock solid committed atheist and opponent of theism in one forum and yet a meek and mild truth seeking agnostic in another.
Therefore, your (rather tiresome) point about atheists in prison fails this full and frank disclosure test. How many people become MORE committed to the path of theistic morality as a consequence of the events which lead up to their imprisonment? How many can truly and faithfully adhere to their atheist beliefs when confronted with the reality that there is ALWAYS a Higher Authority. Mr Hitchens dislikes servitude? Tough luck! It is a Law of the Universe.
Lion (IRC)
PS – I liked your “overwhelming under-represented in prisons” line. Atheists are in a minority in LOTS of places.
April 19th, 2010 at 8:48 pm
Hi Tim D,
I don’t think you are being asked to accept a false dilemma about God’s morality or nothing.
The claim is that atheism’s “objective morality” seems to amount to nothing more than special pleading. The atheist who “just is that way” or “evolution done it” or “there’s no such thing as objective morality” are all base assertions and they all lack transcendent continuity – there is no claim of being universal truth. You might as well settle the matter by an arm wrestling competition. Right today, wrong tomorrow depending on who is making the claim.
I realize many atheists dislike it when evolution is conflated with atheism but it’s not Christians who refer to bonobos as a datum for morality in regard to homosexuality. So if your position on morality derives from a terrestrial point of reference you must clarify whether it is immoral to use fellow primates as slave labour, food source, life partners, etc. I wonder what Oprah would say?
Christian morality (extra-terrestrial) views humans as holding a position of responsibility and privilege over other creatures of God. We have stewardship and sufficient moral intelligence to understand that, like the plants and rivers and oceans, they are a gift from God which should be respected and sustained.
After having spoken to countless atheists (will varying “true atheist” credentials) I have YET to hear how one, as an atheist, discerns OBJECTIVE morality when animals are presumably atheists also. In atheism/evolution, humans and animals share the same provenance and there appears no logical heuristic means to show even that there is such a thing as morality, let alone which morality is objective when human and ape are standing right next to each other.
Lion (IRC)
PS – If morality is a notion which can exist independently of any concept of “consequence” if should someone act IMMORALLY then this conversation is going nowhere. In fact, I would argue that if an act had NO adverse ethical consequences then it is “A-moral”
April 19th, 2010 at 9:04 pm
Et Tu Toby R. ?
OK I shall give you a moral absolute.
It is absolutely immoral for me to treat you in a way which both of us would dislike to be treated. (The golden rule.)
This rule – emphasised by Jesus, derives from the fact that I have no RIGHT over you. I cannot treat you as if I created you.
I can make a sand castle and then kick it to smithereens – even though I might not like to be kicked to smithereens myself.
However, the equal rights we have in how we should be treated arise from the fact that we are SOMEONE ELSES creation.
We did not create ourselves. A woman does not create the ovum with which she is born. A man does not decide to have spermatozoa, less still does he give each single sperm a map with directions. We owe our existence to a prior event/prerogative over which we have no proprietary rights.
Moral laws based upon the sanctity of life cannot be justified if there is nothing sacred about life.
You are a sand castle created by Someone else.
Lion (IRC)
April 19th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Therefore, your (rather tiresome) point about atheists in prison fails this full and frank disclosure test. How many people become MORE committed to the path of theistic morality as a consequence of the events which lead up to their imprisonment? How many can truly and faithfully adhere to their atheist beliefs when confronted with the reality that there is ALWAYS a Higher Authority. Mr Hitchens dislikes servitude?
Are you serious, Mr. Lion? Your argument is basically asserting that ‘there are no atheists in foxholes?’
The claim is that atheism’s “objective morality” seems to amount to nothing more than special pleading.
I’m not talking about people who believe in physically-grounded (or biologically-grounded) “objective morality.” I’m saying that it’s entirely possible for a person to (a) be an atheist, and (b) believe in an intangible, objective “ethical law” with regard to morality.
For example, say that I believe there is an objective ethical standard for morality (to which all conscious humans have natural access), but I don’t believe that standard is in any way synonymous or representative of any religion’s god. It is through this ethical standard that I am able to assert that “murder is wrong,” or that “baby rape is bad.”
I have YET to hear how one, as an atheist, discerns OBJECTIVE morality when animals are presumably atheists also.
Animals are not atheists. Animals don’t have the capacity to believe *anything*, much less whether or not a god exists.
PS – If morality is a notion which can exist independently of any concept of “consequence” if should someone act IMMORALLY then this conversation is going nowhere. In fact, I would argue that if an act had NO adverse ethical consequences then it is “A-moral”
Once again….this reduces morality to a show of force — problem #3 in my earlier example. You are saying that god would be “amoral” if he could not enforce his morality, and also that he is “moral” because he can. Basically, “the strongest being makes the rules.” Morality is decided by the force of whomever is strongest.
April 19th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Just for the record, I think this Oprah-ology thread has come unstuck. Sorry John Ferrer.
I am grateful for the chance to have my say but I am moving on from this thread now.
In order that people don’t think I am one of those…”always wants the last word” types I will certainly read with interest any further posts here but I wont be responding to any counter-arguments or posts directed to me which solicit a reply.
It will be simply rhetorical if you ask.
God bless.
Lion (IRC)
April 20th, 2010 at 4:38 am
“PS – I liked your “overwhelming under-represented in prisons” line. Atheists are in a minority in LOTS of places”
Right, and it’s a blow to your argument that atheists are much less likely to commit crimes than Christians.
If you didn’t want to derail the thread you shouldn’t have stuck in an irrelevant accusation that you couldn’t back up.
Christian morality doesn’t change? It’s hard to find two Christians who agree with each other on any particular moral issue! The argument over an issue as basic as whether slavery is immoral almost split the entire Christian nation in two, with two huge groups of Christians completely disagreeing with each other.
“It is absolutely immoral for me to treat you in a way which both of us would dislike to be treated. (The golden rule.)”
Agreed. Now - would that still be true if there was no God? If someone had said that BEFORE Jesus, would it still have been a good idea, or did it only become a good idea when Jesus said it?
“Christian morality can answer a hypothetical question on any given day of the week without the need to consult “the majority” or dispute the matter.”
Cool - which is more immoral then (in order): raping a baby, stealing a loaf of bread, or denying the divinity of Jesus? Please provide references to back up whichever you choose.
April 20th, 2010 at 8:38 am
Hey guys!
I love Dave Sterrett! I’ve taken classes from him at my church. He’s great.
I read the book and it is very well illustrated. I liked how he made the book into an interesting dialogue between a past Hindu and a person who didn’t have Christ as the cornerstone, but later realized that Christ really is the way, the truth, and the life.
It is a great read, and can be read in a short time.
You guys should check it out.
All the best,
Andrea
April 20th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
“It is absolutely immoral for me to treat you in a way which both of us would dislike to be treated.”
But that’s not what your religion claims. It says to do to others as you would like done to you. It doesn’t say anything about both sides agreeing on some way to be treated. It clearly says that you, the individual, should treat others as you want treated yourself. This is a statement that backs up moral subjectivity as you and I have different ideas about how we might want to be treated and what we think is proper.
April 20th, 2010 at 6:21 pm
I would like to share this outline with you guys:
I. What exists testifies to a Creator
A. Something exists
1. Something can’t come from nothing
B. Things can’t make themselves
1. Intricate creations can only come from minds
C. It is reasonable to assert that there is a Mind behind existence
1. Non-living, dead chemicals can’t be the cause of life
without there being an activating agent behind them.
II. Morality exists, therefore there is an Objective Moral Law Giver
A. In order to identify between good and evil, there has to be a standard with which to compare it by.
B. If there is no standard then we can’t really say something is right or wrong.
1. Everything would just be an opinion.
a. Surely we know there are absolutes. We all know that torturing babies for fun is objectively morally wrong. There is a standard. There is a moral law written in our hearts, therefore there is a Moral Law Giver.
III. God materialized Himself in becoming a man in Jesus Christ
A. Christ proved His Divinity by His resurrection.
1. Had Jesus not resurrected, this claim would have gotten nowhere. This is an empirical verifiable claim that would get nowhere unless proven to be true.
B. The Resurrection is the best explanation for these facts attested by most renowned scholars:
1. Jesus’ death by crucifixion
2. Jesus’ burial by Joseph of Arimathea
3. Empty Tomb
4. Jesus’ appearances after being buried 3 days
5. Origin of the Disciples Belief
6. Growth of the church/believers in Christ as Savior
7. Skeptics like James, Paul, and the pious Jews that turned to Christ after their personal encounter with Him.
C. We are to place our trust in God, not ourselves or our actions AS IF we could measure up to Him.
1. God has no limits.
a. We have limits.
2. Only God can measure up to Himself.
3. So God became a man in Jesus and saved us Himself.
4. Now He leaves the choice to us as to whether we will choose or reject Him.
a. It was God’s Sovereign will to give us free will.
5. God is just.
Take care,
Andrea
April 21st, 2010 at 12:49 am
I. What exists testifies to a Creator
This is a statement of faith (the capital “C” gives it away).
A. Something exists
Uh, yeah.
1. Something can’t come from nothing
Really? Apparently theists like William Lane Craig believe the universe came from nothing. No preexisting material. And the created material came from supposedly came from something spaceless, timeless, immaterial (which is pretty much the definition of nothing).
B. Things can’t make themselves
Aside from your statement of faith that a god created the universe you can’t claim this statement is always true for anything after that initial creation. Stars were created from the coalescing of forming particles that collapsed under the weight of their gravity and ignited nuclear reactions. Virtual particles are thought to appear from nothing and annihilate each other in empty space.
1. Intricate creations can only come from minds
C. It is reasonable to assert that there is a Mind behind existence
Faith statement.
1. Non-living, dead chemicals can’t be the cause of life
without there being an activating agent behind them.
This is a faith statement as well. Without knowing the chemistry and conditions of the early planet you cannot claim that life didn’t form from natural chemical processes. This statement is based on the bias that stems from the observation that life doesn’t spontaneously form out of nowhere today (on a planet that’s very far removed from its early chaotic forming).
II. Morality exists, therefore there is an Objective Moral Law Giver
Faith statement. What in the history of the human race points towards some ultimate objective reality? What’s considered moral has shifted over and over and over again throughout the ages. this points to morality being cultural.
A. In order to identify between good and evil, there has to be a standard with which to compare it by.
B. If there is no standard then we can’t really say something is right or wrong.
1. Everything would just be an opinion.
See above.
a. Surely we know there are absolutes. We all know that torturing babies for fun is objectively morally wrong. There is a standard. There is a moral law written in our hearts, therefore there is a Moral Law Giver.
Why baby torture? Because it’s a cheap appeal designed to circumvent intellect. Is torturing a baby more immoral than torturing a terrorist? If torture is objectively immoral, then it would be objectively immoral in all circumstances and not be predicated on the age of those being tortured.
III. God materialized Himself in becoming a man in Jesus Christ
A. Christ proved His Divinity by His resurrection.
1. Had Jesus not resurrected, this claim would have gotten nowhere. This is an empirical verifiable claim that would get nowhere unless proven to be true.
B. The Resurrection is the best explanation for these facts attested by most renowned scholars:
1. Jesus’ death by crucifixion
2. Jesus’ burial by Joseph of Arimathea
3. Empty Tomb
4. Jesus’ appearances after being buried 3 days
5. Origin of the Disciples Belief
6. Growth of the church/believers in Christ as Savior
7. Skeptics like James, Paul, and the pious Jews that turned to Christ after their personal encounter with Him.
Faith claim. See all other religions throughout history with wild claims of resurrection, miracles, and skygods. Just because something is popular doesn’t mean it’s true.
C. We are to place our trust in God, not ourselves or our actions AS IF we could measure up to Him.
yes, because imaginary friends are always perfect.
1. God has no limits.
faith statement. If a deity had no limits, was infinite, then said deity would be in all places and plainly apparent. this doesn’t seem to be the case.
a. We have limits.
Finally something I can agree with.
2. Only God can measure up to Himself.
This is silly.
3. So God became a man in Jesus and saved us Himself.
Huge faith statement. And also silly. God came to earth and sacrificed himself to himself so that we could then spend forever with him in some spaceless, timeless, immaterial place.
4. Now He leaves the choice to us as to whether we will choose or reject Him.
I don’t reject him because I don’t believe in him. what I reject is the idea of basing one’s whole life on mythology stories.
a. It was God’s Sovereign will to give us free will.
Right, sure. He’s known for all eternity who will be saved and who won’t yet we all have a choice . . . but he already knows what we’re going to chose so . . . what? What free will? it’s already known and set in stone. The idea of free will is an idea of faith. It’s a joke. It’s a game that’s been set in motion against the ones already known to be hell bound. How loving and wonderful!
5. God is just.
See above. In fact consider that it’s more likely that god is evil, playing out some sick game with humanity for his own evil amusement. Pitting different denominations against each other, each with their own “truth.” Into some are given the inability to believe. Bad, horrible, evil things are allowed to happen. Suffering, real suffering like starving and rape and pain, happen all of the time. And it’s even blamed on women for eating a piece of fruit!
The concept of religion and god is oppressive; the love, kindness, and salvation is illusory.
April 25th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
John, have we lost you?
April 25th, 2010 at 11:11 pm
Sorry guys. I’ve been absent, occupied with my final paper for the semester. Right now its pushing 25pgs and I am online because I can’t stand to look at it anymore.