The Official God FAQ

[Elok]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Why must a system of morals be internally consistent and self-sufficient?

I don't mean the question in a pejorative sense, I'm interested as to why you think morals need these properties.

Assuming we're using the terms to mean the same thing, which may not be the case since I have only a limited philosophy background:

They should be INTERNALLY CONSISTENT because basing your actions on something self-contradictory is deeply unsatisfactory and ultimately unworkable, since you'll get both yes and no answers to some questions. And yes, I know the Bible at least seems to contradict itself; FFS let's not get into that or we'll be here forever. That's more BK's bag anyway. I'm more concerned with the raw theology of religious traditions in general, which based on whichever assumptions are made (improbable though you may think them) makes it all fit together.

Come to think of it, SELF-SUFFICIENT could mean a number of things. I meant to say that it should leave no loose ends, nothing fuzzy to be explained by hopes or unspoken assumptions or open appeals to subjective emotions. Most especially no "you should be moral because it's moral" beg-the-question cop-outs, which a dismaying number of natural moral systems seem to boil down to.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Lorizael
This shouldn't be what religion is about. Religion should be about actual divine truth. I don't see any reason why it needs to have a system of morals attached to it.

If the divine truth has nothing to do with how we live our lives, we have no reason to give a damn. The nature of God, in such a case, would be information roughly as useful as the number of moons around the seventh planet of a star in another galaxy: remote to the point of absurdity.

[Whaleboy]

Well, if you'd stop masturbating to those old Carl Sagan tapes where he says "billion" over and over in erotically charged tones, you'd discover that evolution is a perfectly amoral process which often (not always, but often) works best through rape, infanticide, theft, deceit, murder, extortion, abuse and pretty much any other bad thing you care to name.

Now now Elok, we both know you can do better than that .

Evolution is amoral of course, but then morality itself is an artificial construct created within a framework (society) facilitated by evolution; a framework which we can reasonably say depends upon the survival value of genes which favour co-operation, consensual sex, the life of your children, etc etc. To ascribe morality to evolution would be rather like saying that because I can paint, I am paint. This is an essentialist confusion often found in Christian theology (i.e., creator -> created).

And if you get to simplify my beliefs as "Jesus loves you," then I get to simplify yours as "you're descended from monkeys and have monkey cooties." Not that I'm against evolution.

What is with the obsession with monkeys? I don't get why creationists from the start latched on to this idea of humans being descended from apes as somehow deeply degenerative. Would they have said the same of what some would say is a more noble creature, the lion for example?

The point is that for the value religion has a way of putting some perspective on the world and encouraging good deeds, it has no monopoly on this and I would propose that you could find more stories of inspiration from nature. Incidentally, these would have the added advantage over religious inspiration of being based in reality.

They should be INTERNALLY CONSISTENT because basing your actions on something self-contradictory is deeply unsatisfactory and ultimately unworkable, since you'll get both yes and no answers to some questions. And yes, I know the Bible at least seems to contradict itself; FFS let's not get into that or we'll be here forever. That's more BK's bag anyway. I'm more concerned with the raw theology of religious traditions in general, which based on whichever assumptions are made (improbable though you may think them) makes it all fit together.

Interesting. I won't disagree with your central point until later, but I would why you think religion or the god concept holds the keys to morality? And you're right - I prefer to paint in broad strokes when it comes to religion, throwing around polemics based on scriptures shows a drought of the imagination.

Come to think of it, SELF-SUFFICIENT could mean a number of things. I meant to say that it should leave no loose ends, nothing fuzzy to be explained by hopes or unspoken assumptions or open appeals to subjective emotions. Most especially no "you should be moral because it's moral" beg-the-question cop-outs, which a dismaying number of natural moral systems seem to boil down to.

So you would reject a tautological morality I presume? My concern is that you seek from me a wholly naturalistic morality fuelled solely by rationality. I can provide this of course but imo it would be meaningless to rationalise an essentially non-rational process (see how that begs my earlier question to you?). It is not unlike me trying to purge you of your faith by logical proofs that there is no god. Even if I could not be refuted, you would not lose your faith.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Elok
If the divine truth has nothing to do with how we live our lives, we have no reason to give a damn. The nature of God, in such a case, would be information roughly as useful as the number of moons around the seventh planet of a star in another galaxy: remote to the point of absurdity.

And that may very well be the case.

The fact of the matter is, you're seeking morality and not divinity. Most humans are. This is why movements such as secular humanism can do alright - because humans don't actually care all that much about some remote concept of divine truth; they just want a way to live their lives.

I believe this is the wrong way to go about living. I believe that morality may be a consequence of whatever lies beyond the universe, but we need to focus on figuring out what that supernatural thing is first before we get all tangled up with questions of moral systems and the like.

Humans simply aren't patient enough to really want to know the truth; they just want answers.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Now now Elok, we both know you can do better than that .

Evolution is amoral of course, but then morality itself is an artificial construct created within a framework (society) facilitated by evolution; a framework which we can reasonably say depends upon the survival value of genes which favour co-operation, consensual sex, the life of your children, etc etc. To ascribe morality to evolution would be rather like saying that because I can paint, I am paint. This is an essentialist confusion often found in Christian theology (i.e., creator -> created).

If morality is in fact an artificial construct, then there are limited reasons to follow it: you feel bad if you don't (which isn't very satisfying as a reason), or it is to your personal advantage to go along (which it often isn't). Those are the only two I can think of.

And IIRC this tangent of ours started when you said something about improving the world through humanism. I assumed you meant something idealistic when you talked of improving the world, and that evolution could in some way be analogous to the supernatural as the origin of morality. If all you want is a sense of wonder, I think fractals are pretty cool too, but if I just wanted to stare at something and say "whoa" I'd take up smoking pot and using those Magic Eye books.

What is with the obsession with monkeys? I don't get why creationists from the start latched on to this idea of humans being descended from apes as somehow deeply degenerative. Would they have said the same of what some would say is a more noble creature, the lion for example?

I have nothing against the idea myself. We gotta come from somewhere. I thought of it as a sort of analogous strawman to "Jesus loves you," which you implied was my whole motivation. Just a friendly reminder that I'm not a fortysomething from Omaha with an eighth-grade-and-Sunday-school education and a reserved spot at the local Baptist church's annual bake sale.

The point is that for the value religion has a way of putting some perspective on the world and encouraging good deeds, it has no monopoly on this and I would propose that you could find more stories of inspiration from nature. Incidentally, these would have the added advantage over religious inspiration of being based in reality.

Mmm-hmm. Example?

Interesting. I won't disagree with your central point until later, but I would why you think religion or the god concept holds the keys to morality? And you're right - I prefer to paint in broad strokes when it comes to religion, throwing around polemics based on scriptures shows a drought of the imagination.

It's simply that naturalistic explanations invariably break down under examination. So, either morality is in fact superfluous (irrationally assumed false, just because I hate Randroids and would prefer irrationality to being one) or the explanation is not naturalistic.

So you would reject a tautological morality I presume? My concern is that you seek from me a wholly naturalistic morality fuelled solely by rationality. I can provide this of course but imo it would be meaningless to rationalise an essentially non-rational process (see how that begs my earlier question to you?). It is not unlike me trying to purge you of your faith by logical proofs that there is no god. Even if I could not be refuted, you would not lose your faith.

If the process is not in some sense rational I have very little faith in it. Maybe you're using a different meaning of "rational" though (what earlier question are you referring to?). And yes, a tautology is as good as a non-answer to me.

I'm glad you're back, BTW. You can be great fun to argue with.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Elok
Well, if you'd stop masturbating to those old Carl Sagan tapes where he says "billion" over and over in erotically charged tones, you'd discover that evolution is a perfectly amoral process which often (not always, but often) works best through rape, infanticide, theft, deceit, murder, extortion, abuse and pretty much any other bad thing you care to name.

And if you get to simplify my beliefs as "Jesus loves you," then I get to simplify yours as "you're descended from monkeys and have monkey cooties." Not that I'm against evolution.

In which case you might see sense in the following:

Systems of right-and-wrong are to be found in nature, among socialised critters such as Meerkats, where siblings protect the young of the dominant female in the interests of the 'tribe'. This is an extension of the natural parental instincts to care for the well-being of their DNA. Other 'rules' abound about mating-rights which while hardly egalitarian, or fair, in a modern human's worldview, make sense with regard to the stability of numbers and hence the long term prospects of the tribe.

In a non-reproductive capacity, the Meerkats are of course famed for their literal 'looking out for one-another' behaviour which demonstrates how activity can evolve for the good of the group.

These examples illustrate an evolutionary principal that extending goodwill beyond the individual has a positive role to play in the promulgation of the collective well-being.

Reciprocal altruism is another example. "I'll scratch your back and you'll scratch mine" is a sound basis for individuals that doesn't depend on shared genes like the previous examples and is the principal of trade and barter in humans. The relationship between flowers and bees is one of many examples in nature of different species working for each other for mutual gain. Vampire bats learn which individuals of their group 'do their bit' in regurgitated blood, and which ones cheat.

In addition to kinship and reciprocation in nature is reputation - which comes into play with the language-using humans. People have an incentive to behave because word gets around.

So much for 'naturalistic'.

You also mentioned 'internally consistent' and 'self-sufficient'. Like Whaleboy, I'm not too sure what this means, but if the scriptures are any guide, I see little internal consistency in the morality of holy scriptures. Indeed, while I can see how the fear of a supreme being who can read everyone's thoughts might encourage some people to keep to the straight-and-narrow (personally, as a 'vapid BS-filled secular humanist' I don't need this fear of God up me to act decently) but seeking consistent moral guidelines in a volume such as the OT seems to me to be a hopeless task.

"rape, infanticide, theft, deceit, murder, extortion, abuse and pretty much any other bad thing you care to name" are all approved of in certain circumstances by the OT in places, so I'd rather not get my morality from there, if you don't mind. After all, the willingness to commit infanticide on Isaac is all in a days work if you're Abraham needing to prove his faith, right?

EDIT - I see you've commented on 'internally consistent' and 'self-sufficient', although I don't feel you demonstrated how a religious morality contains these properties.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Lorizael


And that may very well be the case.

The fact of the matter is, you're seeking morality and not divinity. Most humans are. This is why movements such as secular humanism can do alright - because humans don't actually care all that much about some remote concept of divine truth; they just want a way to live their lives.

I believe this is the wrong way to go about living. I believe that morality may be a consequence of whatever lies beyond the universe, but we need to focus on figuring out what that supernatural thing is first before we get all tangled up with questions of moral systems and the like.

Humans simply aren't patient enough to really want to know the truth; they just want answers.

Nothing amoral is divine IMO. It's when you segregate the two that you run into problems. And if we're going to let morality go until we understand the supernatural, civilization will collapse long before we've even started to understand.

[Elok]

"I'll scratch your back and you scratch mine" is good. "I'll scratch your back, and steal your wallet too, seeing as your back is turned," is even better if you can swing it. And only the hopelessly naive would assume that nobody can ever manage to make it work. If crime didn't pay, there would be no criminals. The fact is, there's utility in occasional evil. Hmm, dinner time. Be back later.

EDIT: It's later. As I was saying, sometimes crime pays. And the thing about morals is, they're supposed to always apply. Mugging someone is bad; if it were a practical matter, robbing a blind old man while he's helpless and alone would cease to be "wrong," since the risk of punishment would be negligible compared to the potential reward. Also a blind old man likely isn't contributing much to society anymore anyway (not that there's a clear reason why any individual should give a damn about "society" provided it's functioning enough to support him/her).

Yet most people would think that much worse than robbing a fit person, no? We recoil at the thought of abusing the weak and vulnerable. At best, the most sensible behavior is Machiavellian: get other people self-sacrificing while you're looking out for number one. In which case we're all hypocrites (not that there's anything wrong with that) or fools.

And as for "not needing God to be a good person," review the Wiki entry on "begging the question." You're moral because it's the moral thing to do. Good for you. Me, I'm an excellent driver. My Dad lets me drive in the driveway. Uh-oh, time for Wapner.

And, as I told Whaleboy (and it seems he agrees), I'm not interested in debating the OT. For starters, it has little direct relevance to what I believe in, and I'm not educated enough in Biblical scholarship to know how much is allegorical.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Elok
Nothing amoral is divine IMO. It's when you segregate the two that you run into problems.

To me this seems like a definition of 'divine' which aims at a hypothetical state of moral perfection. Of course, God is defined in these terms, and is also defined as something we cannot comprehend, which is just as well because it's easy for us to construct hypothetical (and real) moral conundrums where tragic sacrifice has to be made for the greater good and there can seemingly be no entirely moral solutions.

I think my point here is that there is little use in comforting ourselves that only God knows all the answers when the reality on the ground is that we have to deal with it. Hence, our morality as thinking creatures must ultimately come from ourselves.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Elok
"I'll scratch your back and you scratch mine" is good. "I'll scratch your back, and steal your wallet too, seeing as your back is turned," is even better if you can swing it. And only the hopelessly naive would assume that nobody can ever manage to make it work. If crime didn't pay, there would be no criminals.

Of course, but no-one is saying that evolution is perfect in any respect. The fly that could always manage to navigate through the open part of a half-open window has yet to develop, but despite this weakness, the species survives. Likewise, despite crime and evil, morality survives.

Evolution has done its bit by giving us guilt as well as incentive. The former is not always a good thing at an individual level, particularly as it is exploited (by all stripes, including the religious and the secular) but I believe it to be an emotion developed by evolution for the purpose of enforcing game-rules and socialised behaviour, which is what morality boils down to.

[Cort Haus]

(btw, in evolutionary terms, the one who always steals the other's wallet runs the risk of eventually getting shot by an angry victim.)

[Zanarkand]

Nice FAQ, Cybershy.

I really do get why so many people spend time trying to prove that God doesn't exist. I did the same thing as an anti-christian about 2 years ago. But that didn't really get me anywhere, since it is impossible to prove that God doesn't exist. Even if science tells us that they have proof that Jesus didn't exist, the Bible makes it clear that every thing made by mankind is fallible, and since science is a tool made by mankind, that makes science fallible. Besides, science is not meant to prove or disprove anything. It's a tool meant to perform calculations of probabillity. Of course, the Bible doesn't prove the exsistence of God, and it was never meant to. If the Lord gives us proof of his existence, then it would take away our freedom of choice. The choice to believe. And to be saved, you have to choose to accept Jesus as your personal savior and invite Him into your life.
I personally got saved two years ago, and I feel the presence every day, so I've found what I've been looking for. To the people who is looking for the a way of proving that God doesn't exist, I'll advice you to look for something else, cause you'll never find what you're seeking.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
(btw, in evolutionary terms, the one who always steals the other's wallet runs the risk of eventually getting shot by an angry victim.)

That's why you shouldn't be the one who "always" steals the other's wallet. You should only steal wallets from unpopular people, or at least people who don't have guns or friends with guns. Or steal their wallets when somebody suspicious-looking is passing by to take the blame. Whatever circumstances dictate. There's not a strict dichotomy between Angel and Devil here. Very few, if any, people are entirely moral. Very few, if any, are entirely immoral, and those that come closest tend to be punished severely. The extremely moral rarely fare much better. The rest of us get by somewhere in between, and my challenge to you is, why shouldn't we? Even those of us who are skating a bit closer to the devil side of the equation, and doing better for it?

[Elok]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
To me this seems like a definition of 'divine' which aims at a hypothetical state of moral perfection. Of course, God is defined in these terms, and is also defined as something we cannot comprehend, which is just as well because it's easy for us to construct hypothetical (and real) moral conundrums where tragic sacrifice has to be made for the greater good and there can seemingly be no entirely moral solutions.

I think my point here is that there is little use in comforting ourselves that only God knows all the answers when the reality on the ground is that we have to deal with it. Hence, our morality as thinking creatures must ultimately come from ourselves.

Then why do we have this idea of a "morality" which describes us so poorly? We ought to act so differently than we really do. Isn't that just a setup for misery? Why is God a lie, but not absolute morality (which nearly everyone endorses, even most of those who say they don't)?

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Elok
Then why do we have this idea of a "morality" which describes us so poorly? We ought to act so differently than we really do. Isn't that just a setup for misery? Why is God a lie, but not absolute morality (which nearly everyone endorses, even most of those who say they don't)?

I see morality as a set of social game-rules. Imperfect, incomplete, ambiguous, confusing, relative and contradictory - but I believe our societies to be more moral in many important respects than they were in the past 200, 100, even 50 years ago. I think that's progress of sorts.

I'm not saying absolute morality is a lie, in fact I was saying it was a hypothetical perfection. If it was historically absolute and perfect, it could perhaps be evidence for a (moral) God.