Divinity n' stuff

[Ben Kenobi]

But why is God allowed to circumvent his own laws? How can he be righteous if he is not forced to follow the rules he has set down for his people?

One way of illustrating this is through the analogy of a potter and clay. If God created us, he can also destroy us, in the same way we can destroy the things that we have made ourselves.

This is not to say that God is exempt from his own rules, that he is not a righteous judge. He will not condemn an innocent.

I've seen no evidence of God in me, so I instead think that my system of ethics is derived from my own ability to reason.

Compare that with someone else's system. Would you try to see which did a better job? How would you know?

[Lorizael]

I've found that most people I have encountered don't actually sit down one day and decide what is right and what is wrong.

I did do that. Except that it did not take a single day. It's an ongoing process, but it's one in which I am an active participant.

My ethical system comes from the assumption that there is no universal right and wrong. This I consider to be true because I have seen no evidence to suggest that a higher order exists that determines the way in which the universe should operate. There are the laws that govern the universe, but those laws seek no ultimate end.

Therefore, in order to conceive of a legitimate ethical system, one needs to define the purpose of that system. The purpose, for my system, is the betterment of humankind. I decided upon this because I am a member of the human species, and that is the only thing with which I can truly identify.

My system of ethics is built around what continues the species, what improves the species, and what creates a better environment for the species right now.

If a different ethical system does not seek these things, then there is little possible comparison. But if a system does attempt to reach the same things, then the utility of each system must be displayed.

[Elok]

Of course, Christianity in particular begins from the assumption that "God is Good" is a literal statement. As in, God = Good. Good = God. I think the same is true of most religions, that God is not an inventor of divine law so much as the essence of divine law. What improves the species is in that sense what seeks the divine. I might say that secular moral reasoning is the action of somebody who knows what he is looking for but doesn't really know for sure what it looks like. How do you *know* the ultimate right and wrong? Are you so objective in the consideration of possibilities? And if so, do you know that your objectivity is actual objectivity and not just indifference? How do you know you're not just somebody else's ideological doormat? I hope this doesn't sound like an attack, I just wonder where the line is drawn.

[Lorizael]

I don't know, but why would I be? There is no evidence to suggest that I am, so while I will not rule out the possibility, I will not seriously consider it for too long.

My objectivity hopefully comes from what I have done to myself. I train myself to look at things without considering the emotional side, only considering the logic and reason. I have to trust that I've trained myself well. Generally, most people think I'm annoyingly logical and unemotional.

[Lorizael]

Oh, and even if there is a divine presence within me, why would it be the Christian god? Hindus believe a very similar thing.

[Elok]

I didn't say that it was the Christian god(or did I?). I just wondered how you knew right and wrong, especially since, as time on this board has undoubtedly taught you, there are a million ways to wrap up BS and make it sound like perfect sense. If it can be done to others(and I know it can), why can't you possibly kid yourself? I.E., without faith, where is your impartial judge?

[Lorizael]

Well you didn't say christian god, but that's what Obiwan argues. And to be honest, without faith, I cannot know that what I say has any merit.

But I trust in my own abilities, which have been displayed in the past in practical situations, more than I am willing to trust in the abilities of an entity whose existence is, at best, not entirely impossible.

[Bereta_Eder]

Re: Divinity n' stuff

Originally posted by Elok

How do you define religion? What's the point? What do you guys think? Is it an alternative to science, a security blanket, a moral guide, none of the above, or some of each?

I think to believe with absolute certainty that those are the reasons that created religion and simply discard them and believe that as a result you should denounce any possibility of existance of a supreme being is a grave violation of logic in itself.

Noone can answer with certainty to the existance of God or not.

What he can do is point out which basic needs are fulfilled inside the human psyche by holding such a belief of a superior, almighty creature. And the providence of a security blanket is certaintly one of those.

I consider the believers (non fanatical) lucky in this only respect: the existance (self made or not - and that's what puts the whole matter in perpetual question) of a security blanket to cover the chill of humanity's uncertainties primarily on a personal level as well as an ecumenical one.

[Bereta_Eder]

But I do have the creeping suspicion that when you die, it indeed is an everlasting "sleep".

Which opens up two distinct but not necessairily mutually exclusive options. Since there's nothing after death:

_have as much fun as you can
_strive to improve the conditions here on earth since you can't expect any promised land to compensate for your earthly sufferings.

Hence I don't believe that an alleged unfaithfulness to the existance of God and an after life automatically translates to moral bankrupcy. On the opposite, it may very well be one of the most potent forces for perpetual human evolution if not the basic one.

[Ben Kenobi]

My ethical system comes from the assumption that there is no universal right and wrong. This I consider to be true because I have seen no evidence to suggest that a higher order exists that determines the way in which the universe should operate. There are the laws that govern the universe, but those laws seek no ultimate end.

Look at some of the responses in the beginning of the thread, rules against theft that seem to transcend cultural boundaries. This I would see as evidence that people have a conscience that comes to similar conclusions when presented with similar circumstances.

The problem with this assumption is that you cannot make any moral inferences once you start here. If there is no universal right or wrong, you cannot make a system compelling to anyone but yourself.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh, and even if there is a divine presence within me, why would it be the Christian god? Hindus believe a very similar thing.

Lorizael:

Good question.

Christian God is a living God, unlike the Hindus who believe in many gods covering various aspects of our existence. The only evidence we have for the Christian God over the others is the resurrection of Christ. Christ said that he serves God, and to prove this service he did what no one else has done since, to rise from the dead.

On the opposite, it may very well be one of the most potent forces for perpetual human evolution if not the basic one.

Paiktis:

How do you know we are moving forward without an outside reference? We could be just moving quickly, without really getting anywhere.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by obiwan18


Look at some of the responses in the beginning of the thread, rules against theft that seem to transcend cultural boundaries. This I would see as evidence that people have a conscience that comes to similar conclusions when presented with similar circumstances.

The problem with this assumption is that you cannot make any moral inferences once you start here. If there is no universal right or wrong, you cannot make a system compelling to anyone but yourself.

Well we do all have the same brain, and most of us develop under conditions that are vaguely similar. It is not unreasonable to expect that humans across the globe would come to similar conclusions, but do remember that there are cultural differences.

You say murder is wrong across the board, for example, yet in Confucian China it is less wrong for a person of higher social standing to murder than it is for a person of lower social standing.

What it proves is that we all belong to the same species. It does not prove that any divine entity defines our morals.

I may say there is no universal right and wrong for the universe, but i do think there are rights and wrongs for the evolution of the human species. I certainly hope that's compelling.

Christian God is a living God, unlike the Hindus who believe in many gods covering various aspects of our existence. The only evidence we have for the Christian God over the others is the resurrection of Christ. Christ said that he serves God, and to prove this service he did what no one else has done since, to rise from the dead.

But in Hinduism there is Krishna, who is in every person, inspiring them to do good.

And the historical evidence that Jesus even existed is limited, so proving that he was resurrected later becomes nigh impossible.

[Ben Kenobi]

but i do think there are rights and wrongs for the evolution of the human species.

Seems we are hung up on the word 'universal'.

I take it to mean applicable to everyone, all moral agents, which might fit in with what you say here.
I don't mean the universe per se, since we do not know of the existence of any other moral agents outside of our own planet.

And the historical evidence that Jesus even existed is limited, so proving that he was resurrected later becomes nigh impossible.

Well then, please tell me why the 'limited' evidence is insufficient? We actually have a fair bit of evidence concerning Jesus' life, mostly in the Gospels.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Paiktis:

How do you know we are moving forward without an outside reference? We could be just moving quickly, without really getting anywhere.

I think it is self evident. Compare today's peoples lives in Europe and the lives of their ancestors during the middle ages for example. Diseases are not dessimating populations anymore, everyone can enjoy a relative amount of security unheard of in the middle ages etc.

These are clear and undisputed advancements and are just a few.

The referance in what concerns us is the past.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Well then, please tell me why the 'limited' evidence is insufficient? We actually have a fair bit of evidence concerning Jesus' life, mostly in the Gospels.

You cannot cite a religious text when searching for evidence of the existence of a religious individual. You must look at secular, objective viewpoints, and when you search those, there is very little evidence for Jesus.

This does not mean he did not exist, but it does cast doubts. And I think it would be virtually impossible for you to prove his resurrection without using the gospels.