morality == religion? Sez who?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Not all religions are equal, nor do they make the same claims about themselves.

My question wasn't so much one of which religion is correct, but rather I was wondering why, for example, Christians worship God and reject Satan if both entity's laws are entirely arbitrary (in other words, I was using the generic term "god" to refer to any supernatural entity, e.g., God or Satan). If God is good and Satan is evil then that's sufficient justification for worshipping God and rejecting Satan, except that if the terms "good" and "evil" are arbitrarily defined by God and Satan then the choice of gods becomes entirely arbitrary when using this justification, because one must use circular reasoning in order to determine whether God or Satan is the "good" entity. (In other words, in order to accept God's premise that God is Good, you must have first accepted God's premise that God is Good.) This implies that either the choice in worshipping God instead of Satan is entirely arbitrary, or else that it is possible to determine that which is good and evil without using God's arbitrary definitions of the terms, or else that there is some amoral reasoning for worshipping God instead of Satan (e.g., God is more powerful than Satan).

[Ben Kenobi]

Guilt comes from how you were brought up, and how that interacts with certain physical traits you are born with.

So given a perfect upbringing, one would not feel guilty?

I've had friends who felt guilty just for being alive, when they weren't in pain, because they were abused by their parents.

Which comes from suffering. Just because there can be guilt improperly placed, that does not come from God, does not rule out the existence of guilt that comes from God.

[Shi Huangdi]

I think the problem in establishing a morality without a religion is how do you absolutely establish a human person as something worthy of being treated well. From a physical standpoint, we are all a combination of chemicals. A very sophisticated one, yes, but chemicals none the less. What is so fundamentally wrong in causing the chemical reaction that sends through the nerves the singal of "pain" then, say, doing an experiment with a completely different chemical reaction?

Through theism, we can say that humans fundamentally have value because it is imbued in them by God. Establishing human value without God is a bit harder.

[Lancer]

"Where does the worship and/or reverence of god(s) come into play there?"

Not at all I suppose. For me the knowledge of good and evil is evidence of God that I had hoped would help you to see...

That implies that there is something you can't see though, not something you are likely to accept, and an implication that might bring offense, though none is intended. Doesn't change that you can't see however. Can you understand how much we would like to change that? ...and for how many years with so many people. It gets frustrating.

If it helps any, I don't think I can see as far through a brick wall as you can loinburger. Your observations are very keen.

[Ben Kenobi]

My question wasn't so much one of which religion is correct, but rather I was wondering why, for example, Christians worship God and reject Satan if both entity's laws are entirely arbitrary (in other words, I was using the generic term "god" to refer to any supernatural entity, e.g., God or Satan).

Good question!

Let's see if I have it straight. You are talking about dualism, where you can have two gods, one of whom is good, and one of whom is evil.

Now, there is an important difference I want you to think about. Can one be evil for the sake of evil? What would an absolute evil be like?

I don't think you can. While one can be good for the sake of good, evil takes that which is good and uses it for the purposes to which it was not intended. Thus for evil to exists, requires there to be good to twist. Therefore, one would not worship the evil power, over the good, since the evil could not exist without the good, yet the good could exist without the evil.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
There is, and I don't think Speer meant to deny this.

He said that evil can only be used as an absolute term.

That which is the good, will rest upon either of these pillars, while evil is the opposite, and will strive to take people away from these.

This requires that you have already accepted God's (in the form of Christ's) premise that He represents absolute good. That's begging the question, or using circular reasoning, or something like that.

I don't think having a free will can be separated from the possibility of evil.

This implies that God is just some sort of clockwork mechanism -- if He cannot do evil, then He does not have free will.

If human sacrifice is what God desired, why would he intervene?

The question isn't what God desired, it is what God commanded, and he commanded Abraham to perform a human sacrifice. If God cannot command evil, then this implies that human sacrifice is not evil.

However, if you meant that God cannot intend evil to occur, then I'll have to search around for one of the passages in which God commands the Isrealites to perform infanticide, and does not intervene as they proceed to dash out the heads of their enemy's infants. This would imply that infanticide is moral, which is perhaps a weaker (but perhaps a stronger) argument than the implication that human sacrifice is moral.

[Ben Kenobi]

if God's law were written in my heart, then I'd have a better intuition as to when I have done harm, and so the guilt would affect me prior to my being explicity told (or learning in some other empirical manner) that I have done harm.

None of our consciences are perfectly formed. This is part of the problem that you touch on later. A child that is taught that wife beating is okay, who goes on to beat his wife goes against his own conscience. Originally he would have seen something like this as wrong, he has been taught to put down his conscience, such that it no longer troubles him.

This is why we don't hear as we ought, or understand that we have hurt someone right away, when we have done so.

However, the fact that your conscience is slow to realise this is not evidence against a law written on your heart, but rather evidence in favour. For where else would such guilt come? How would you know that hurting someone in this way is wrong?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So given a perfect upbringing, one would not feel guilty?

Depends what you mean by "perfect." If you mean "without any moral instruction whatsoever," then some of the European royalty over the ages would make a good case for saying, yes, with a "perfect" upbringing, you could become a monster and never feel a pang of guilt.

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
I think the problem in establishing a morality without a religion is how do you absolutely establish a human person as something worthy of being treated well.

I dunno about "absolutely" establishing anything (even most religions allow some humans to be treated poorly if they are, e.g., murderers), but humans are social animals by their nature -- f'rinstance, they have the capacity for learning complex languages hardwired in their brains. Rules for good conduct are essential for the survival of social animals -- a human with no empathy is a psychopath, and typically winds up dead or imprisoned. In other words, I value you as a human because I value me as a human and because I possess some modicum of empathy.

[size=1]Originally posted by Lancer
That implies that there is something you can't see though, not something you are likely to accept, and an implication that might bring offense, though none is intended.

No offense taken -- I know the barest fraction of what I'd like to know about the human psyche, and although I haven't see any evidence of dualism (that is, evidence of there being some spiritual component to our psyche, for lack of a better explanation), this certainly doesn't come close to constituting proof that the psyche isn't dualist. But, the thing is that accepting the existence of a spiritual entity and worshipping a spiritual entity are two very different things in my book.

[Lancer]

"But, the thing is that accepting the existence of a spiritual entity and worshipping a spiritual entity are two very different things in my book."

Ya, mine too.

[Ben Kenobi]

He said that evil can only be used as an absolute term.

Well, that gets back to the first part. He's making the point that it is hard to call something with some good in it evil.

This requires that you have already accepted God's (in the form of Christ's) premise that He represents absolute good.

Which is why the resurrection is so important. If he is God, then his statements on these matter ought to be treated in the same way we treat God.

You are right, that first I must establish God in order to show why one ought to be a Christian, but I was going down the line of why one religion ought to be better than another. I just need to fill in the point that I missed.

This implies that God is just some sort of clockwork mechanism -- if He cannot do evil, then He does not have free will.

No, just that his free will is such that he does not deviate from his nature to do good. This is why God is perfect, he can still have free will, yet not sin.

The question isn't what God desired, it is what God commanded, and he commanded Abraham to perform a human sacrifice. If God cannot command evil, then this implies that human sacrifice is not evil.

Yet God spared his son through direct intervention. The gap is in the last statement. Is this human sacrifice that God demanded from Abraham? On the face, it would seem to be. Yet this is not so. God tested Abraham, to see if he would obey God, where Abraham would trust him to provide a lamb, so as not to kill his son.

Just because Abraham did not understand the motives of God, does not mean that it was evil for God to ask this of Abraham, since he did not intend for Isaac to be sacrificed in his name.

Secondly, God is very clear that human sacrifice is not permitted, throughout the OT.

Lev 18:21

21 " 'Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD . "

Jeremiah 32:35

They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molech, though I never commanded, nor did it enter my mind, that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin.

Ezekial 16:20-21

20 " 'And you took your sons and daughters whom you bore to me and sacrificed them as food to the idols. Was your prostitution not enough? 21 You slaughtered my children and sacrificed them [5] to the idols.

[Ben Kenobi]

Depends what you mean by "perfect." If you mean "without any moral instruction whatsoever," then some of the European royalty over the ages would make a good case for saying, yes, with a "perfect" upbringing, you could become a monster and never feel a pang of guilt.

No, I mean with the proper moral instruction. Everything you could ever ask for to properly raise a child. Would one still feel guilt?

[Ben Kenobi]

However, if you meant that God cannot intend evil to occur, then I'll have to search around for one of the passages in which God commands the Isrealites to perform infanticide, and does not intervene as they proceed to dash out the heads of their enemy's infants. This would imply that infanticide is moral, which is perhaps a weaker (but perhaps a stronger) argument than the implication that human sacrifice is moral.

Yeah, it's a tough passage. Right up there with any form of war.

But you don't start with the hard passage, you start with the stuff that makes sense. Just like in anything else.

Would a student of math start with quadratic equations? No. But he would start with arithematic, until he was able to work out for himself the 'easy' sections.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Let's see if I have it straight. You are talking about dualism, where you can have two gods, one of whom is good, and one of whom is evil.

Not exactly -- I realize that the dualism heresy (I forget the technical name for it) has long been rejected by the Catholic church, which holds that God has dominion over Satan, or something along those lines. I just mean that Catholics (and presumably the other Christian denominations) believe that God and Satan are distinct (but unequal) entities, so, why accept one entity's arbitrary definitions of morality and reject another's, other than the fact that one entity is more powerful than the other (because, if this is the only reason for accepting God and rejecting Satan, then this would imply that power defines morality).

What would an absolute evil be like?

Frankly, I don't know what an absolute good would be like. In my mind, both "good" and "evil" require another entity, be it a benefactor or a victim -- you can't benevolently aid somebody if there isn't anybody around ot benevolently aid, and you can't malevolently injure somebody if there isn't anybody around to malevolently injure. In other words, good and evil can't be absolute, because to be absolute they would have to be timeless, but benefactors/victims have not existed for all eternity and/or will not exist for all eternity (at least, not in the Christian cosmology).

While one can be good for the sake of good, evil takes that which is good and uses it for the purposes to which it was not intended.

But surely good can, in turn, take that which was done with evil intentions and twist it to good works instead. One could argue that the good was merely twisting the evil back to being good, but that merely begs the question of what came first, the good or the evil.

However, the fact that your conscience is slow to realise this is not evidence against a law written on your heart, but rather evidence in favour. For where else would such guilt come? How would you know that hurting someone in this way is wrong?

Our lessons in childhood aren't etched into us forever -- it's entirely possible to be taught that such-and-such will do no harm, only to learn much later that such-and-such does do harm, with all of the guilt that ensues. So, the guilt needn't arise from unlocking some hidden law that newly informs us that we have done harm, but could instead arise from the newly gained knowledge that our actions have been causing harm. To me, it seems that whether the knowledge was always there or not is irrelevant -- knowledge that cannot be accessed by any means other than to relearn it might as well not exist.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Well, that gets back to the first part. He's making the point that it is hard to call something with some good in it evil.

It's not that hard -- we do it all of the time. F'rinstance, we say that Hitler was evil, even though he wasn't absolutely evil. However, Hitler was much more evil than pretty much everybody else who has existed in history, and so we say that Hitler was evil without implying that Hitler was some sort of incarnation of evil.

Along the same lines, one certainly wouldn't call Hitler good, even though he was not some sort of incarnation of evil and thus was bound to have some redeeming quality or qualities. This is because Hitler was much less good (and much more evil) than pretty much everybody else who has existed in history.

If "good" and "evil" can only be used in absolute terms, then they're worthless -- all they become is synonyms for "God" and "Satan," or some other pair of absolute supernatural entities.

You are right, that first I must establish God in order to show why one ought to be a Christian, but I was going down the line of why one religion ought to be better than another. I just need to fill in the point that I missed.

I'm not looking for you to establish God's existence, I'm pretty much assuming for the sake of argument here that God and Satan exist. I'm wondering why you follow God's moral code instead of Satan's moral code if both of these moral codes are completely arbitrary.

In order to accept God's premise that He is good, you must first have accepted God's premise that He is good, because until you've accepted some god's definition of "good" the term is completely meaningless. Why accept God's definition of the terms instead of some alternative set of definitions, then? Given the premise that morality is arbitrarily set by a god, there has to be some sort of amoral basis for adhering to one moral code over another (if one adheres to any moral code).

No, just that his free will is such that he does not deviate from his nature to do good.

So He can do evil, He just perpetually chooses not to?

No, I mean with the proper moral instruction. Everything you could ever ask for to properly raise a child. Would one still feel guilt?

Yes, because even with perfect foresight, and even with perfect knowledge of good and evil, the perfectly raised child would still encounter moral dilemmas that had no perfect solution.

[Ben Kenobi]

I just mean that Catholics (and presumably the other Christian denominations) believe that God and Satan are distinct (but unequal)

Not quite. What they believe is that God made Satan, as an angel, and then Satan rebelled from God.

I'm trying a different argument against Dualism, along the lines of CS Lewis's points in Mere Christianity, one that does not rely upon any form of Christianity, but can be seen from principles outside of Christianity.

Frankly, I don't know what an absolute good would be like. In my mind, both "good" and "evil" require another entity, be it a benefactor or a victim -- you can't benevolently aid somebody if there isn't anybody around ot benevolently aid, and you can't malevolently injure somebody if there isn't anybody around to malevolently injure.

That's a rather bright insight, Loin, and it gets you into the Trinity. For it would make sense for something good, to share the goodness with another.

But let's go over the consequences of two beings that existed from time immemorial, one supposedly good, and one supposedly bad. Dualism supposes that both have existed independent from each other, and both are equal, in the sense, that neither can gain mastery over the other. CS Lewis uses your arguments here against Dualism, since how could we tell which was the evil God, and which one was the good God?

But surely good can, in turn, take that which was done with evil intentions and twist it to good works instead.

It can, but it can also be good without requiring the evil to exist first. That's the one question that I'm looking at, is can something be evil without something good existing first? If not, then that would seem to imply that the good must come first.

So, the guilt needn't arise from unlocking some hidden law that newly informs us that we have done harm, but could instead arise from the newly gained knowledge that our actions have been causing harm.

A distinction without a difference? I frankly see the two as one and the same.

knowledge that cannot be accessed by any means other than to relearn it might as well not exist.

Well, that's an interesting point. There have been others that complain that if God existed, he must give us something in order to help us come to him. Otherwise, one relies upon an outside agency, and there would be no hope for any of us to repent, since we could not respond to the hope offered.

Thus, it makes sense that he would give us a conscience, even if we need to relearn what we have known from the beginning. And even then, we are always learning new things. So we are not merely relearning, but making use of our capacities that we have been given from the start. It's just the first step has to be awakening that which is already there.