morality == religion? Sez who?

[:) Smiley]

Morality == Oppression. Sez me.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
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?

If "good" and "evil" are arbitrary terms invented by these gods, then there is no possible way. However, if the concepts of "good" and "evil" exist independently of these gods, then we can independently verify that one god is good (or, at least, that one god is more good than another). So, in order for this argument to defeat dualism, we'd need to presuppose that humans cannot differentiate between, e.g., benevolence and malice, without being explicity told by some outside force "this is benevolence, and this is malice."

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.

An alternative implication is that good an evil cannot exist without each other. Look at it this way -- in the set of integers, there are positive and negative numbers (we'll ignore '0,' because it unnecessarily complicates things). However, in the set of natural numbers, there is no such distinction between positive and negative numbers (again, ignoring '0') -- it is meaningless to say that the natural numbers are all "positive" unless you are considering numbers outside of the set of natural numbers, namely, the integers. Similarly, it is meaningless to call something "fast" if there isn't a concept of "slow," it's meaningless to call something "large" if there isn't a concept of "small," it's meaningless to call something "good" if there isn't a concept of "evil," etc.

In other words, this is a bifurcation fallacy -- neither concept/force/whatever had to come first.

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

Then the idea of a law being written on our hearts is unnecessary -- the law might as well not exist.

Thus, it makes sense that he would give us a conscience, even if we need to relearn what we have known from the beginning.

The point is that a conscience given us by a creator is equivalent to lessons learned from adults/peers/etc. if we need to relearn everything in our consciences anyway. The morality == religion argument doesn't apply.

When you say that Hitler has some redeeming features, you must first have some idea of the good in order to compare Hitler up to this standard.

Not at all. I can say that one runner is faster than another runner without having some absolute concept of what the "fastest" runner would be, similarly, I can say that Hitler was more evil than Mother Theresa without having some absolute concept of what the "most good" or "most evil" person would be.

Secondly, I believe that God is eternal, and has a good nature, than it makes sense that I ought to follow him.

But in order to worship God because he has a good nature, you must first have already accepted God's claim that he has a good nature. You're left with following God based on the amoral belief that he is eternal, and assuming that he must therefore have a good nature because you've already agreed to accept his definitions of "good" and "evil."

First of all, we cannot have a perfect knowledge of good and evil.

Why not? You said that I'd have everything with which to raise a child, and that includes instruction that would bestow a perfect knowledge of good and evil.

Secondly, just because we cannot achieve a perfect solution to a moral problem, does not mean that one does not exist.

True, but there are bound to be moral problems for which no perfect solution exists, unless you were to change the definition of "perfect" to mean "most satisfactory."

[quote]

[Elok]

Oooooo-kay....

First point: We ain't manicheans, or at least I'm not. Good and Evil are not equal and opposite forces in balance. Evil exists only as a defiance of good. It is essentially nothingness, and needs no creator.

Second point: What is morality if not a religious concept? Secular theories of good state a morality that works for social cohesion or some other goal. But if that is the case, morality is not really an independent concept, just a description of the means to another end. If morals have only a sociological end, that end dictates the means; a new sociological premise yields a new morality. A sense of ethics that exists independent of any other motive, good for goodness' sake, is essentially an inanimate God, followed without question or reason. But sociobabble dressed as morality, where good and evil are steps towards a desired outcome, can be possessed by anyone.

Third: Every system needs limits to exist as a system. Witness the stupid "can god make a rock he can't lift" question. That classic basically means, "can god turn the laws of physics upside down and erase all meaning in the universe?" Similarly, God could destroy evil, but in doing so would circumvent the individual will that makes human existence worthwhile. The system would be broken and fixed all at once.

Fourth: God can act outside his nature, but chooses not to because he is not stupid. The root concept here is that good and evil are fairly obvious to an unconfused mind. God didn't give us free will so we would have an opportunity to sin any more than he gave us thumbs so we could poke each others' eyes out with them. Sin is a testament to the ingenuity of a spiteful mind-one which yearns to break the system purely for the sake of thereby making the system its own.

Well, that's what I think. Ben seems to be phrasing theology rather robotically, so I can sorta see UR's point in response...

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Elok
Good and Evil are not equal and opposite forces in balance. Evil exists only as a defiance of good. It is essentially nothingness, and needs no creator.

What's your justification for this, other than the presupposition that God created the universe and that God is good?

A sense of ethics that exists independent of any other motive, good for goodness' sake, is essentially an inanimate God, followed without question or reason.

You're simply redefining God. If you want to redefine "God" to mean "goodness," and claim that anybody pursuing good for goodness' sake is therefore worshipping "God," then I certainly can't stop you, but realize that you're then using "God" in two very different senses -- you use it in the sense of some abstract ideal of "goodness" so as to justify a claim that morality == religion, and yet you also use it in the more widely accepted sense of an omnipotent deity that created the universe in six days etc. etc. I don't think that you can have it both ways.

[Ben Kenobi]

I have to go, but I will be back later to reply to all the comments.

I have time for one.

Certainly not religion, just look at the diversity and the evil committed by the religious.

Ah, but this begs the question. Suppose that people, because they are flawed cannot put religion into proper practice? Then we would expect precisely this when people try, that they still get things wrong and mess things up. This is what is known as the human nature of the church, in that it is composed of human beings.

However, this says nothing about the divine nature of the church, which does not change. There are some really good debates as to what precisely constitutes the divine nature of the church, but that will be for later.

How about "God"? How does one know what God wants?

Through those to whom God has spoken, and our own conscience.

A book? Hardly, not without some serious proof this God inspired or authored the entire text.

Very true. And I would argue that Christianity offers both an inspired text and the testimony of God.

And then how do we know if this God is good to begin with? Logic must be used, compare what this God wants with the universal standard mentioned above.

True. Which returns us to the resurrection. If Christ died and rose from the dead, then he must be God, and we ought to believe what he said. If he did not, then he is not god, but rather an agent of the devil sent to decieve people.

There is no middle ground, of a great moral teacher, for Christ did not claim to be one, but rather, claimed to be God himself.

[Ben Kenobi]

First of all, if God is both unchanging and fixed, he cannot be omnipotent. Likewise, if God cannot act outside of his "nature", God is not omnipotent. In fact, if God has a fixed nature, God cannot be infinite.

So I was mistaken. I have time for two.

Second point has been dealt with in response to Loin's question.

God chooses to act according to his nature, ergo he is still omnipotent, yet true to his nature.

For the first point, he can be unchanging and fixed, yet he is omnipotent. The opposite to your point is true. Remember entropy? Unless something is omnipotent, then it must decay. Ergo, something that is omnipotent, and only something that is omnipotent, could remain stable for eternity.

For the third point - God can have a fixed nature, and can be infinite, since he is omnipresent. Now, this does not mean that he is in everything, in the sense that a table or a tree is God, but rather, that he exists apart from nature, but is present everywhere.

[Ramo]

Morality is a prescription for social interactions. It defines certain social interactions as either beneficial, or malevolent. While religion can offer a prescription for social interaction, it certainly isn't necessary.

As for the question of an absolute morality, religion makes no difference (unless all intelligent beings are magically forced to think a certain way about social interactions, and when they claim otherwise, they must be lying or something - but then that contradicts ideas of freewill prominent in most religions). There's no reason to say that an ultrapowerful being as automatically offering the "correct" morality, anymore than it makes sense to say that Hitler automatically offers the "correct" morality, for the concept of a "correct" morality isn't well defined. For what does it mean for one morality to be more "correct" than another? Morality is an abstract logical structure, so is not determined by anything but one's imagination. There's no absolute discrimination between any two.

[Ramo]

blah

[Elok]

Loin: There's no "justification," it's a purely abstract statement to explain the "flaw" perceived by UR. I'm talking in hypotheticals, yes, but I'm following the precedent. He said evil would need a creator, I said it wouldn't and why. What kind of justification are you looking for though?

As for the second part, you misunderstand. This probably isn't a good time for me to clarify (first saturday of the month, couple glasses of homemade wine, I'm pretty spaced), but I'm saying that the idea of "Good" and "Evil" as independent qualities, not just aspects of a greater concern, is innately theistic/deistic. If you follow good as a means to this or that, you are not following the conventional notion of "good" at all, but following whatever it is a means to by your reckoning. Whole different animal.

Whereas something that should be done, "just because," is like a god that can't change its mind. Well, it's not supposed to, since it's an absolute truth. In practice, it seems secular morality revolves around various factors such as mood, horniness, and prejudices about the people involved, just as much as any theistic morals only without the scriptural backbone. The guidance of a secular moralist is the conscience, which is a little voice inside your head telling you what you ought to do, not to be confused with envy, rage, indolence, spite, greed, hunger and lust, which also take the form of little voices in your head telling you what you ought to do. Anyway, the point is, an individual can clearly tell what's right and wrong without being told by some bishop. The voices of other men with ulterior motives are just subjective delusions, totally different from the objective discernment of those "in the know." Or something like that. I never did understand how the whole system works.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If Christ died and rose from the dead, then he must be God

Why? Jewish myth has others, not god, who died and rose from the dead. Why should Christ be special, in that light?

If he did not, then he is not god, but rather an agent of the devil sent to decieve people.

Or all the resurrection claptrap was made up later to make him appear divine, and in truth he never pretended to be more than a moral teacher. That's your middle ground right there.

The flaw in that statement is also a presupposition of the existence of the devil in the first place. He could have just been mentally deranged, or a chronic liar, too. The possibilities far exceed an either/or.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Why? Jewish myth has others, not god, who died and rose from the dead. Why should Christ be special, in that light?

I'll see you the resurrected Christ and raise you ( ) Odin (hung from Yggdrasil for nine days, transfixed by a spear, as a sacrifice to himself (!), Osiris, Attis, Inanna and Castor & Pollux.

Standing room only in the afterlife at times.

Not forgetting Eurydice too.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Elok
What kind of justification are you looking for though?

Any kind of a justification. Both you and Ben have (paraphrasing) said that evil can only be created as a perversion of good, but you haven't said why you believe that this is so. One possible justification would be to say "I believe that God is good, and that God created the universe, therefore good came before evil," but you couldn't then turn around to use the claim that good preceded evil to justify the claim that God must therefore be entirely good, which, after all, is sort of what I'm asking you to do. The point is that if morality is non-arbitrary then you ought to be able to come up with some non-arbitrary means of justifying your adherence to God's morality, but then this would imply that someone who is non-religious could independently verify that one moral code is superior/inferior to another (which defeats the morality == religion claim). If morality is arbitrarily determined by God, then I'm wondering why you follow one arbitrary set of rules instead of some other arbitrary set of rules. Ben seemed to be arguing that good must precede evil and that God's arbitrary moral code must therefore be superior to all other moral codes by virtue of the claim that God preceded everything else, but he didn't justify the claim that good must precede evil, and neither did you.

but I'm saying that the idea of "Good" and "Evil" as independent qualities, not just aspects of a greater concern, is innately theistic/deistic. If you follow good as a means to this or that, you are not following the conventional notion of "good" at all, but following whatever it is a means to by your reckoning. Whole different animal.

I agree that the idea of "good" and "evil" as independent forces or entities or whatever is innately theistic/deistic, but I don't see this as being true for the idea of "good" and "evil" as being independent qualities. Theism certainly isn't needed to differentiate between benevolence and malice, and "benevolent intentions" and "malicious intentions" are essentially synonymous with "good intentions" and "evil intentions" respectively. In other words, religion isn't needed for somebody to be benevolent or to recognize benovolence, hence religion isn't a requirement for moral behavior or moral comprehension or whatever have you.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Second point has been dealt with in response to Loin's question.

God chooses to act according to his nature, ergo he is still omnipotent, yet true to his nature.

You have no way of telling if God chooses to act according to his "nature," this is simply BAMing.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
For the first point, he can be unchanging and fixed, yet he is omnipotent. The opposite to your point is true. Remember entropy? Unless something is omnipotent, then it must decay. Ergo, something that is omnipotent, and only something that is omnipotent, could remain stable for eternity.

First of all, you have again misinterpreted the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It does not say everything must decay. It simply says that the usuable energy in a closed system decreases over time. A number of things certainly don't decay, noticably elementary particles.

Secondly, just because something is omnipotent does not mean it's eternal, these are different concepts.

Thirdly, you have not provided a counterpoint.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
For the third point - God can have a fixed nature, and can be infinite, since he is omnipresent. Now, this does not mean that he is in everything, in the sense that a table or a tree is God, but rather, that he exists apart from nature, but is present everywhere.

I don't see how being omnipresent anchors God's nature. It simply means YHWH is everywhere.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Elok
First point: We ain't manicheans, or at least I'm not. Good and Evil are not equal and opposite forces in balance. Evil exists only as a defiance of good. It is essentially nothingness, and needs no creator.

of course Evil is nothingness, it is just an abstract concept. So is Good. You can't point at an object and say, "This is Good." However, concepts still must come from somewhere. Just like democracy and communism.

Originally posted by Elok
Second point: What is morality if not a religious concept?

Morality (or ethics, if you prefer) is about ought-to's and ought-not-to's. It does not needed to be define in terms of religion.

Originally posted by Elok
Secular theories of good state a morality that works for social cohesion or some other goal. But if that is the case, morality is not really an independent concept, just a description of the means to another end.

How is that different from religious morality? The only difference is the goal has changed to "pleasing your god(s)."

Originally posted by Elok
A sense of ethics that exists independent of any other motive, good for goodness' sake, is essentially an inanimate God, followed without question or reason.

As Aggie pointed out, evolutionary psychology seems to be the origin of ethics. Simply put, humans can only survive in groups - we are just mediocre individually and makes good cat food.

Originally posted by Elok
Third: Every system needs limits to exist as a system. Witness the stupid "can god make a rock he can't lift" question. That classic basically means, "can god turn the laws of physics upside down and erase all meaning in the universe?"

Not true at all. It is a simple illustration of the inherent illogic of concepts such as "omnipotent" that they create internal contradictions.

Surely you agree that an omnipotent being can ignore the laws of physics, yes?

Originally posted by Elok
Similarly, God could destroy evil, but in doing so would circumvent the individual will that makes human existence worthwhile. The system would be broken and fixed all at once.

You are simply redefining what "makes human existence worthwhile."

Another thing is Evil does not only exist in our minds. There is such a thing called Natural Evil. For example, a volcanic eruption can kill hundreds and cause pain and suffering to tens of thousands.

Originally posted by Elok
Fourth: God can act outside his nature, but chooses not to because he is not stupid.

Appealing to the unknown isn't a very good argument.

Originally posted by Elok
The root concept here is that good and evil are fairly obvious to an unconfused mind. God didn't give us free will so we would have an opportunity to sin any more than he gave us thumbs so we could poke each others' eyes out with them.

Again, we don't have freewill if YHWH is omniscient. We have been through this many times.

Originally posted by Elok
Sin is a testament to the ingenuity of a spiteful mind-one which yearns to break the system purely for the sake of thereby making the system its own.

Is sin the same as evil? It seems not.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
There is such a thing called Natural Evil. For example, a volcanic eruption can kill hundreds and cause pain and suffering to tens of thousands.

That's not evil, in the sense that we're discussing morality. Evil requires a malevolent intent, and volcanoes can't be malevolent.