|
TheQuestion
|
|
Posted 04/28/11
|
Reply with quote
#1
|
|
Watching the debate, a counter that occurred to me:
Craig made arguments that God is the source of goodness, but he never provided any argument that the conclusion "I ought to obey God" can be reached objectively. As it is, "we ought obey God" is just another moral axiom of the sort that Harris referenced.
Sure, the God he argued for is (hypothetically) all powerful and (supposedly) gives orders about what actions one should take, but that is just descriptive. The normative component "we ought obey God" is just assumed.
Thoughts?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
TheQuestion
|
|
Posted 05/03/11
|
Reply with quote
#2
|
|
Looks like it's even better than I thought.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Wes
|
|
Posted 05/03/11
|
Reply with quote
#3
|
|
|
Quote: "I ought to obey God" can be reached objectively. As it is, "we ought obey God" is just another moral axiom of the sort that Harris referenced.
True, but your really not in this case, trying to determine what God's commands are. Intuitively we as rational beings fully grasp the overall moral order, which would be an epistemological dilemma, (ia) (how does one come to know moral truths?)I think once we have arrived at what these moral truths are, God simply provides the foundation for making them objectively binding. Without God, one would still grasp the moral order, but one would have a hard time showing why these morals are objective, and binding in that sense.
Quote: Sure, the God he argued for is (hypothetically) all powerful and (supposedly) gives orders about what actions one should take, but that is just descriptive. The normative component "we ought obey God" is just assumed.
I don't think I can see how God's commands could be descriptive, if he actually did issue them. Here your trying to show that, God could have commanded anything, he could have commanded for murder to be objectively "good", but of course this flies in the face of our moral intuitions, and thus should not be regarded as accurate. But furthermore, as I have previously argued on this forum recently, this is not a moral question, but rather a question in relation to God's Nature. If God exists, then he exists necessarily, otherwise this would not be God. Furthermore, according to Maximal Being Ontology, God must be "All-Good" or this would also, not be God either, (because good-is a great/maximal/ making property).
From this point it really gets messy, because if God is in fact "All-Good" necessarily, but our value system of what moral goodness is, is not identical to God's character (of the good), then what we deem currently as the "good" may actually be the "evil"! And our moral intuitions can no longer be trusted in any sense. But the problem is, we cannot get outside of our own minds, and determine if these "intuitions" are accurate.
So to wrap a few points up here:
(1.) Intuitions are properly basic. Moral intuitions are properly basic beliefs, and therefore warranted to trust. (2.) Moral Intuitions can be "objective" only if God or some Moral Law Giver prescribes them as moral duties. (3.) Moral Intuitions are objective. (4.) God exists, and as such must be "Maximally-Good" in all possible worlds. (5.) God's character is either identical to the human conception of goodness, or it is not. (6.) God's character must be identical to the human conception of moral goodness, or this would not be "God". (7.) Therefore a maximally-good God must exist.
I think once you accept that a maximally-good God, is the only God that can or could exist, then you erase any possibility of commands not being prescriptive, as long as you are to retain trust in your basic moral intuitions.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
TheQuestion
|
|
Posted 05/04/11
|
Reply with quote
#4
|
|
Wow. That has nothing to do with what I said.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Wes
|
|
Posted 05/04/11
|
Reply with quote
#5
|
|
Quote: The normative component "we ought obey God" is just assumed.
I demonstrated in my response why this is clearly not assumed, but is founded on argumentation.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
mattimus
|
|
Posted 05/05/11
|
Reply with quote
#6
|
|
I don't think Divine Command Theory involves "We ought to obey God" as an assumption at all. In any case, it wouldn't have been terribly relevant to the debate, since "we ought to obey God" would be some moral fact that we either would know or else not, and would not really have any bearing on whether or not God can serve the sort of ontological purposes that the moral argument suggests.
It also seems to me that saying "we ought to obey God" is just assumed is the same as saying "we ought to do what we ought to do." At least, on Divine Command Theory, that's what the statement would amount to. Of course, if we are talking about morals, and taking the affirmative then we do believe that there are ways of behaving that are actually wrong and others that are actually right. Morality seems inextricably related to persons (throwing a rock through a pane of glass isn't necessarily wrong, but if that pane of glass is someone's living room window...), so, if there is to be some ground for our duties (or ultimate benefactor, as, if I remember correctly, Swinburne puts it) then that final resting place for our duties is personal. If we affirm that their are moral facts, and affirm that these have to do with duties in relationship to other persons (it seems that they do simply by definition) then "we ought to obey God" isn't assumed at all. Whether or not the statement "we ought to obey God" is true or not is dependent on whether or not God actually exists. I think that if Harris had brought this up, and being a smart fellow he'd probably know, that it would be like shooting himself in the foot. Asking why we ought to obey God is no less problematic than asking why we should think we have duties to others. This is just to ask if there is any such thing as morality at all.
at least, that's what I think could be a response.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
CliffStamp
|
|
Posted 05/15/11
|
Reply with quote
#7
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by TheQuestion
The normative component "we ought obey God" is just assumed.
Thoughts?
Ought is how morality is defined, by definition one ought to do what is moral. If God is thus moral, again by definition one ought to do what God says.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Sandspirit
|
|
Posted 05/26/11
|
Reply with quote
#8
|
|
Quote: (1.) Intuitions are properly basic. Moral intuitions are properly basic beliefs, and therefore warranted to trust. (2.) Moral Intuitions can be "objective" only if God or some Moral Law Giver prescribes them as moral duties. Why is it that I never get a serious response to the question, "when is it permissable, morally, to slaughter children?" Are you people really open to discussing important moral questions? If not what are you doing? So, the war against Hitler, for example, slaughtered children in the cities that were bombed. Was it justified? Is there anyone here who really wants to discuss and understand? I'm frustrated by the lack of response though I can't say I'm disappointed. The dishonesty and cowardice is par for the course. Let's not look at real events. Let's leave it on a level of abstraction where we all feel comfortable. |
|
Loading...
|
|
|
emailestthoume
|
|
Posted 05/27/11
|
Reply with quote
#9
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SandspiritQuote: (1.) Intuitions are properly basic. Moral intuitions are properly basic beliefs, and therefore warranted to trust. (2.) Moral Intuitions can be "objective" only if God or some Moral Law Giver prescribes them as moral duties. Why is it that I never get a serious response to the question, "when is it permissable, morally, to slaughter children?" Are you people really open to discussing important moral questions? If not what are you doing? So, the war against Hitler, for example, slaughtered children in the cities that were bombed. Was it justified? Is there anyone here who really wants to discuss and understand? I'm frustrated by the lack of response though I can't say I'm disappointed. The dishonesty and cowardice is par for the course. Let's not look at real events. Let's leave it on a level of abstraction where we all feel comfortable.
I am just jumping into this discussion, but to answer your question directly, it might be permissible to kill 1 child to save a million.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Sandspirit
|
|
Posted 05/28/11
|
Reply with quote
#10
|
|
Quote: I am just jumping into this discussion, but to answer your question directly, it might be permissible to kill 1 child to save a million.
Again, an abstraction. Life is never so clear cut. The real problems we confront are far more complex. The logical abstractions that are common coin here break down in the face of reality. You can argue until you draw blood from the tips of your fingers about "objective moral values" but if you are able to distinguish right from wrong only in childishly simple circumstances the discussion is futile.
It "may" be permissable to kill one child to save a million but would you yourself be prepared to end the child's life with your own hands?
Faced with a murderous tyrant like Hitler is it right to bomb German cities and thus slaughter German children in massive numbers? I don't think we have an answer to this question.
Here's the problem you have - you believe in God but have no clearer idea of right and wrong than an atheist. Suppose the atheist lives a more moral life than a believing christian. Who goes to Hell?
| | Loading... |
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
emailestthoume
|
|
Posted 05/28/11
|
Reply with quote
#11
|
|
I am not trying to be combative, I simply tried to answer the question you posed. If you are saying that I cannot give you an answer to a difficult moral problem, it doesn't mean there is no answer, it could simply mean that I don't have enough available information to make a sound judgment.
Quote: Here's the problem you have - you believe in God but have no clearer idea of right and wrong than an atheist.
I don't think this is a problem for the moral argument. It doesn't make any claim about moral epistimology (how we know what is right or wrong) but on a more fundamental level, moral ontology. (weather there is objective moral values in the first place) If there are no objective moral values, then right and wrong is only opinion. The question for the moral argument is not weather or not I can tell you what is right and what is wrong in hard problems, it is weather or not there is any right and wrong at all.
Quote:
Suppose the atheist lives a more moral life than a believing christian. Who goes to Hell?
According to Christianity no good person goes to hell. So your question would have to prove that atheists do live as moral of lives as true Christians (protestants have, since their inception, and argued that the bible taught this as well, that only God knows who these are). However, this depends on weather or not God exists. If God does exist, then atheists are blaspheming a being of perfect holiness, and so would be living very immorally by that action. I am not saying assume this is true, I am saying that insofar as you are arguing against Christianity you cannot just assume God does not exist. Weather atheists are living morally depends on the question of God's existence.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Sandspirit
|
|
Posted 05/29/11
|
Reply with quote
#12
|
|
Quote: According to Christianity no good person goes to hell. So your question would have to prove that atheists do live as moral of lives as true Christians (protestants have, since their inception, and argued that the bible taught this as well, that only God knows who these are). However, this depends on weather or not God exists. If God does exist, then atheists are blaspheming a being of perfect holiness, and so would be living very immorally by that action. I am not saying assume this is true, I am saying that insofar as you are arguing against Christianity you cannot just assume God does not exist. Weather atheists are living morally depends on the question of God's existence.
Let's assume the Christian God exists. And let's take someone like me as an example, a deist who, in this scenario, wrongly fails to accept the perfect God. Suppose you and I are faced with a choice, to go to war or not to go to war. Vietnam is a good example. I decide to draft dodge, believing the war to be unconscionable, you (for the sake of argument, I don't know what you really think) join up in the belief that a war against communism is a necessary evil.
In this scenario neither you nor I have any idea whether our actions are in line with God's will or not. The situation is complex and involves an assessment of the implications of the war in Vietnam. Is defeating communism worth the inevitable loss of life and suffering that war brings? Since neither you nor I can see the outcome of the war we can't rationally evaluate this. In hindsight perhaps this will be possible but at the time of the decision both of us are equally blind to the consequences of our actions.
Let's suppose that God's Will is not as simple as may often be assumed and factors in not simply what you do but why you do it. Both of us are acting in good faith, in line with what we believe will benefit humanity, and in your case in line with what you believe God wants you to do.
Now, let's say you are mistaken. God doesn't want the war and doesn't want you to participate. Where does that leave you and where does it leave me? I've rejected (or at least not accepted) God but acted according to his Will while you've accepted God but acted contrary to his Will.
I suppose my question here is, in my little fictional drama which of us is leading a moral life?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Sandspirit
|
|
Posted 05/31/11
|
Reply with quote
#13
|
|
|
Can I take the non-response to indicate that Christians of the Reasonable Faith variety are muddling their way through life much the same as everyone else? You believe in God but have no idea if your relationship to Him is good because, whilst you believe objective morality exists, in practise, in complex situations, you have no way of knowing if you've acted in a moral way.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
mattimus
|
|
Posted 05/31/11
|
Reply with quote
#14
|
|
|
So, you've figured out that Christians are human beings! Good for you. Your line of discussion in this thread is entirely non-sequitur, sandspirit. The existence of morals does not entail that they should be obvious, no matter their ontological basis. Goodness! You are dragging the discussion down with your obtuseness. Do you think it's permissible to slaughter children? Why not? You and every other person on this planet is accountable to the same laws of logic they wish to hold over others. You have to give an account of why an act is wrong, too, or else say that its not really wrong, just in bad taste. Stop pretending to "raise" the discussion into the realm of real life with hypothetical situations as well. Geez. It's like coming on here and telling everybody, "ok, enough ivory tower nonsense, let's talk about real life. What did you all think of the final episode of MASH?"
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Sandspirit
|
|
Posted 05/31/11
|
Reply with quote
#15
|
|
Quote: So, you've figured out that Christians are human beings! Good for you. Your line of discussion in this thread is entirely non-sequitur, sandspirit. The existence of morals does not entail that they should be obvious, no matter their ontological basis. Goodness! You are dragging the discussion down with your obtuseness. Do you think it's permissible to slaughter children? Why not? You and every other person on this planet is accountable to the same laws of logic they wish to hold over others. You have to give an account of why an act is wrong, too, or else say that its not really wrong, just in bad taste. Stop pretending to "raise" the discussion into the realm of real life with hypothetical situations as well. Geez. It's like coming on here and telling everybody, "ok, enough ivory tower nonsense, let's talk about real life. What did you all think of the final episode of MASH?
Christians claim a special relationship with God, a relationship that makes the difference between Heaven and Hell. But when I ask, do you really have a clear definition of right and wrong? Do you know what is God's Will and what is not? Your answer is, at best, unclear. You don't actually know any more than an unbeliever knows. And your behaviour, in general, from my perspective, is not better than that of an unbeliever, indeed sometimes it's of a very low level indeed.
Excuse me for introducing "real life" into the discussion. Abstractions are so much more comfortable and susceptible to "logic."
|
|
Loading...
|
|
