A perfect god can not exist?

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;155487 wrote:

I do so based on emotions. I won't let you rape and murder around me, not because I think it's wrong but because I'll explode with anger. Emotions, most importantly empathy, are the key to morality.

They are? O.J. Simpson in rage beheaded his wife. So is OJ's anger the key to what we should do when our spouses have an affair?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;155479 wrote:

If a group of people feel strongly enough that a person has done wrong, it is up to them to correct or inform them of their "mistake".

What if a group of people condone murder? Would that make it right? Would human sacrifice be permissible if the culture in which it is performed says it is?

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;155491 wrote:

What if a group of people condone murder? Would that make it right? Would human sacrifice be permissible if the culture in which it is performed says it is?

Apparently Krumple is a firm believer in "might makes right"

1 Reply

@Extrain,

Extrain;155490 wrote:

They are? O.J. Simpson in rage beheaded his wife. So is OJ's anger the key to what we should do when our spouses have an affair?

Stopping a rape or murder out of anger is not something regrettable.

2 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;155493 wrote:

Stopping a rape or murder out of anger is not something regrettable.

Then I guess beheading your wife to stop an affair is not something regrettable either..

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;155493 wrote:

Stopping a rape or murder out of anger is not something regrettable.

tons of murderers don't regret what they did. I guess it's all good then

1 Reply

@Amperage,

Everything is permissible if "emotions are the key to morality."

2 Replies

@Extrain,

Extrain;155497 wrote:

Everything is permissible if "emotions are the key to morality."

those 'witches' at Salem got what they deserved:lol:

1 Reply

@Amperage,

Amperage;155499 wrote:

those 'witches' at Salem got what they deserved:lol:

Yes. Eye for an eye.

The problem with cultural relativism and moral non-cognitivism, is that they are so easy to *mouth,* but hardest to live. All of these consequences just fall right out of these views.

We can't make a case against hitler in an international court of law on any moral grounds for committing crimes against humanity because "crime" is a moral term, not merely a legal term because it is defined as a violation of the inherent dignity of the human being regardless of particular culture and local law. So if violations of a moral law do not exist, then no one has a moral case.

0 Replies

@Extrain,

Extrain;155497 wrote:

Everything is permissible if "emotions are the key to morality."

Try it and front of me and see what happens.

0 Replies

@Amperage,

Amperage;155480 wrote:

who are they to tell someone what is right and wrong? When they themselves have no greater stake in what is or is not right than said person would. In fact...there is no right or wrong absolutely. So they would be hypocritical for even attempting to "correct" the other gentleman. How can you "correct" someone who is not wrong???

This is exactly what you see today with Christians claiming homosexuality is wrong. Hypocrisy is evident and I was never in conflict with that. I am still saying that what ever group sides with a particular stance on what they feel is morally right or wrong, will dictate the justice system. It does make them hypocrites. That is the problem with subjective moral values.

I think the only problem here is that, theists believe that their god is the source of moral values, so they insist that moral values must be objective truths. If moral values are shown to be subjective realities then by all means it would put in jeopardy their notion that god supplies objective moral values.

They want the world to be black and white, split between good and evil. But the problem is, good and evil are often interchangeable depending on which side of the issue you are on.

Just like abortion for example. Most theists will claim that it is wrong. There are some libertarians who also claim that it is wrong. Even though I support a persons choice, I say personally I am pro life even though I consider myself secular and most secularist are pro choice. I draw the line differently on the issue. I don't have a religious motivation for criminalizing actions.

Similar to prohibition movement started by the christian fundamentalists during the 1920s. They called it tolerance movement which is funny because they lack any sort of tolerance to begin with. They just felt consuming alcohol was evil and moved to get it outlawed, which did happen, and what followed was a whole lot more bad stuff then it solved by making it illegal. Once this was recognized prohibition of alcohol sales was overturned.

So what is consuming alcohol considered then? Is it morally wrong or is it alright?

1 Reply

@Deckard,

I realize the discussion has moved on to objective morality or in more general theological terms to god as moral agent or the basis of transcendent moral values. I am still working on the original post about divine perfection. I think the argument for god as rational and creative agent is much stronger that the argument about god as moral agent. I think the Greek notion of perfection as eternal, changeless and impassive also leads to moral inflexibility since morals derived from an eternal changeless source themselves should be timeless, eternal, fixed and changeless. This idea of perfection as eternal changelessness also leads to the notion of one religion being the "true" religion. To drop the notion of "perfection" as changelessness and to adopt the notion of "perfection" as creative striving for novelty experience and actualization (the process view) is helpful for religious and cultural tolerance and for developing a coherent worldview with can accommodate both modern science and mystical theology. In what sense is eternal changeless inflexibility of more value than responsive creativity? In what sense can god be conceived of as in loving relationship to the world and also be impassive, changeless eternal perfection?. It is a contradiction from the beginning and the god of Greek Philosophy is not the god of the Judeo Christian Islamic scriptural vision and definitely not the god of mystical vision.

[QUOTE=Extrain;155153] Unfortunately, much of this sounds too much like a hasty generalization to me. When you start characterizing the end goal of mystic experiences as "the same," you gloss over these differences. So I don't think these differences are merely historical, cultural, traditional, or social. I am talking about the phenomenology of their spiritual ascent. [/QUOTE] Like the three blind men and the elephant, although the reality being experienced and sought is the same, the descriptions will be different and each will be only of partial and limited aspect of the ultimate nature of thing in itself; the divine reality.

[QUOTE=Extrain;155153] For instance, for the Western mystic like St. John of the Cross, Therese of Avila, Chrysostom, Therese of Lisieux, etc., God is described primarily in terms of relationship with this personal being guided by Agape--Divine Love. But God is also described as both personal and transcendent, supernatural and immanent, uniting both flesh and spirit, not beyond the flesh and changing circumstances, etc. And above all, the very person of Christ is always at the center of their spiritual ascent. [/QUOTE] What would you like me to say?
Christians have it right, the Jews have it wrong, the Muslims follow a false prophet, the Hindus are polytheists, that Buddhism is a philosophy not a religion. There is some truth in every religion but no human religion can contain the divine reality. Your god is too small. God is too big for one religion.

[QUOTE=Extrain;155153] Everytime I read interfaith literature, I am surprised by the differences, not the similarities. Generalizations too often lose sight of these differences. [/QUOTE] As I said, diversity is divine, you should delight in the differences, if god wanted us all to be the same, well you know. Creativity and novelty seem built into the order of the universe.

[QUOTE=Extrain;155153] And FYI, I don't see any of this alleged incompatibility of traditional orthodoxy with the results of science at all. So you will have to explain that one.[/QUOTE] I guess it depends on what you consider traditional orthodoxy.
If you think Jesus was god himself in human form come to provide a path to salvation, whose divine nature is proven by his ability to perform supernatural miracles and who bodily physically arose from the dead after crucifixion, I think that is somewhat incompatible with scientific naturalism. Then of course there are the fixity of species, special creation and the young earth creationists as well.

[QUOTE=Deckard;155159] The first time I read this paragraph I read the last phrase as "spiritual accent" which I suppose has connotations that run contrary to your point. And I like your point. The commonalities are overemphasized. It is much better to focus on the differences. Probably the motivation for overemphasizing commonalities and finding commonalities that aren't really there are noble enough i.e. the desire to see everyone as human and the same equally valuable and all that jazz. Yet the resulting homogenization of spiritual experience is more likely to silence or muffle the unique spiritual experiences of the various traditions and individuals who have them and at the same time dumbing down (or perhaps mundaning down) such experiences to the lowest common denominator. Post-modern approaches like Lyotard's recognition of disjunct and incommensurable grand narratives and his ethic of "bearing witness to the differend" is, I think, a far wiser approach. [/QUOTE]I support the practice of all the great religious traditions but I only do so in advocating humility the face of the divine reality. No single religion should claim exclusive access to spiritual truth, to salvation or to knowledge of the nature and will of god. It is always "through a glass darkly" and with partial, limited and incomplete knowledge. Only the penitent and humble man shall pass.

[QUOTE=Deckard;155159] We should not mistake a different spiritual ascent for merely a different spiritual accent! [/QUOTE] There are many paths to god and many forms of spiritual experience. If you are a true monotheist there is only one god although he is given many names and experienced in many ways. Many claim to know god's nature and god's will but I doubt these claims and much evil has been done in the name of the divine.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;155516 wrote:

This is exactly what you see today with Christians claiming homosexuality is wrong. Hypocrisy is evident and I was never in conflict with that. I am still saying that what ever group sides with a particular stance on what they feel is morally right or wrong, will dictate the justice system. It does make them hypocrites. That is the problem with subjective moral values.

About objectivity, subjectivity, and morality. To say there is no objective basis to moral judgements is to say what exactly? "Objective' is what is said to really exist in the world. 'Subjective' is 'my personal feeling or view of it' . But there are whole realms of judgement which are neither subjective nor objective, for example, the judicial system, the study of history, philosophy itself.

I think the seat of the conflict here is that democratic liberalism, as a secular value system, has no higher authority than individual conscience. If there is a moral law in this schema, then its authority is derived from my assent to it, not to any intrinsic worth. You will often note the 'aggressive secularists' on the forum grudgingly acknowledge that religious contributors have a right to their position, so long as they acknowledge that it is their private view. This is how ethical judgements have become 'relativized'.

In the traditional moral system, such as Christianity, there is understood to be a higher standard of ethical truth, which has been revealed in Scripture, and the life and teachings of Jesus. In the Indian and Chinese ethical systems, there are also standards such as 'dharma' or 'the mandate of heaven'. Now that secular philosophy wishes to rid itself of everything it sees as 'supernatural', then all it can appeal to is 'objectivity'. But as many critics have shown, unless we are dealing with simple matters of physical fact, objectivity itself has no absolute definition. Two people on a jury will be presented with exhaustive descriptions of a crime, and come to opposite conclusions about it.

The religions and much traditional philosophy generally agrees that human judgement is occluded by 'sin' (in Christianity) or 'ignorance' (in the Eastern religions and some traditional philosphies). And it is this condition which prevents one from arriving at sound conclusions about ethical matters; for the ability to do this is wisdom. Perhaps we could even say that wisdom is the ability to make sound judgements about situations that arise in life in areas where there is little objective guidance.

But of course, this is just an opinion.:bigsmile:

0 Replies

@prothero,

prothero;155522 wrote:

In what sense can god be conceived of as in loving relationship to the world and also be impassive, changeless eternal perfection?. It is a contradiction from the beginning and the god of Greek Philosophy is not the god of the Judeo Christian Islamic scriptural vision and definitely not the god of mystical vision.

So how is any of this a contradiction?

[QUOTE=prothero;155522] Like the three blind men and the elephant, although the reality being experienced and sought is the same, the descriptions will be different and each will be only of partial and limited aspect of the ultimate nature of thing in itself; the divine reality.[/QUOTE]
But how do you know someone's experiences are always experiences of the Divine reality itself, however partial? Sounds arrogant to me that you claim to know what others are, and are not, experiencing.

[QUOTE=prothero;155522] There is some truth in every religion but no human religion can contain the divine reality.[/QUOTE]

It is certainly plausible to hold the view that every religion has "some truth in it." No one denies that, not even the atheist. But how would you know what is and is not possible for God?
[QUOTE=prothero;155522]Your god is too small. God is too big for one religion.[/QUOTE]
Oh I get it. On one side of your mouth you claim not to judge, but then on the other side of your mouth you claim "your god is too small because God is too big." But wait a minute, if my God is so small, then surely he can fit into one religion. So is my God small or big? And if we all worship the same divine reality, then it therefore follows that everyone's god is too small. So is God big or small? Sounds like a contradiction.

You claim to know quite a bit about God since you think God is not a person. Since you are so wise, what does that even mean to say "God is too big to fit into one religion"? For all you know God inspires some religions but not others, or no religions at all, or only one religion and no others, or all religions and some more than others. Again, you claim to know quite a bit about God's intentions and powers..

[QUOTE] I guess it depends on what you consider traditional orthodoxy.[/QUOTE]

Quote:

If you think Jesus was god himself in human form come to provide a path to salvation, whose divine nature is proven by his ability to perform supernatural miracles and who bodily physically arose from the dead after crucifixion, I think that is somewhat incompatible with scientific naturalism.

You still haven't answered the question. How are miracles incompatible with science? Science doesn't disprove the existence of miracles. Science could care less. Miracles are only incompatible with the philosophical view of naturalism which denies the existence of miracles altogether. But now you are just begging the question. How do you know naturalism is true and supernatural intervention is impossible?

And so now God is too big to fit into any one religion, but also completely powerless to perform miracles?

[QUOTE] I support the practice of all the great religious traditions but I only do so in advocating humility the face of the divine reality.[/QUOTE]
That "your god is too small" doesn't sound like a humble position to take to me. Rather, it's a condemnatory, misinformed, and ignorant judgment.
[QUOTE] No single religion should claim exclusive access to spiritual truth, to salvation or to knowledge of the nature and will of god.[/QUOTE]
That's a bold claim coming from a self-professed person allegedly tolerant toward all religion. Do you get mad when someone whether Muslim, Christian, or Jew tells you he knows the Truth? It doesn't bother me that all religions will do this. So what? Are you afraid that one religion might be right after all? Why should religion not possess the quickest and surest path to Truth? I see no reason to believe why this couldn't be the case.
[QUOTE]There are many paths to god and many forms of spiritual experience. If you are a true monotheist there is only one god although he is given many names and experienced in many ways. Many claim to know god's nature and god's will[/QUOTE]
You claim God is too big to fit into one religion. But what gets me is that you presumably believe God is small enough to fit into all religions. How do you know this about God?

"There are those who hate Christianity and call their hatred an all-embracing love for all religions."--G.K. Chesterton

1 Reply

@Extrain,

Extrain;155460 wrote:

Yes it does. If someone thinks "Raping toddlers is wrong" he is clearly mistaken. His conscience is not functioning like it ought to be functioning. Similarly, a blind disabled man cannot determine the height of a building. The conscience is the measuring stick in moral judgments, just as the eyes and the arms are the means to measure the height of the building.

The trouble is that the conscience varies with the person, and measuring sticks don't. And there is no standard measuring stick in a vault somewhere in Paris.

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

so it's all just a matter of opinion then. Is that it?

1 Reply

@Extrain,

Extrain;155549 wrote:

"There are those who hate Christianity and call their hatred an all-embracing love for all religions."--G.K. Chesterton

"Christianity is a wonderful religion, someone should practice it" Gandhi
"I like your christ, but I do not like your christians they are so unlike Christ"Gandhi
I pretty much embrace the form of christianity which is about the primacy of love over law (creed, doctrine, dogma, etc.)
Where inner spirituality (god is love) is more important than external piety
and
where the kingdom of heaven lies before you and within you but you do not see.
I pretty much reject the form of Chrisitianity which condemns other faiths and other beliefs and claims exclusive access to god, salvation and truth.

I do not engage in personal polemics and this conversation has become too personal, so I am out unless science, facts and reason mixed with a little respectful politeness can reign.

Boris Grushenko (Woody) asks Sonya (Diane Keaton), "What if there is no God? What if we're just a bunch of absurd people who are running around with no rhyme or reason?"
Sonya replies: "But if there is no God, then life has no meaning. Why go on living? Why not just commit suicide?"
Boris, somewhat flustered, says: "Well, let's not get hysterical. I could be wrong. I'd hate to blow my brains out and then read in the papers they found something." Later in the movie, Boris, deceased yet delivering an epilogue, observes: "If it turns out that there is a God, I don't think he is evil. I think that the worst thing you can say about him is that he is an underachiever."

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;155553 wrote:

so it's all just a matter of opinion then. Is that it?

I didn't say that. I just pointed out the difference between conscience and a measuring stick. A measuring stick that contracts or expands with each person who uses it is not much use.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;155551 wrote:

The trouble is that the conscience varies with the person, and measuring sticks don't. And there is no standard measuring stick in a vault somewhere in Paris.

So? The case is a stretch. I could use the same reasoning. The problem is that there are many measuring sticks. There is no standard measuring stick to determine the correct measurement, since all measurements are conventional anyway. Meters, centimeters, inches, my own made up measuring stick? Which one is the right measuring stick?

How do we know the one in Paris is the correct measuring stick?

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;155556 wrote:

I didn't say that. I just pointed out the difference between conscience and a measuring stick. A measuring stick that contracts or expands with each person who uses it is not much use.

But it has been said (not by you) that all moral judgments are subjective. I think the idea that moral judgment is subjective is very close to saying that it is a matter of opinion. And of course, isn't this the very basis of moral relativism of the liberal democracies? Of course, liberal democracy may not really entail that, but liberalism began with the battle to assert the sovereignty of the individual conscience. Again, in the absence of a shared value system - which was often the very thing the battle was against - it is a short step from there to accepting that moral judgments are ultimately individualist, if not subjective.

2 Replies

A perfect god can not exist?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know