04 Feb 10
Originally posted by epiphinehasIf you want to say that God is just what God is, that’s fine. But as soon as you assign attributes to God (or accept attributes assigned by the Bible), then you are no longer saying that God is just what God is.
What freaky said. I am officially out of my depth.
And when you claim those attributes (holiness, righteousness, love, whatever), they have to be defined in some meaningful way if the claims are to have any meaning. If you (or Freaky) want to say that God sometimes, under certain conditions, acts compassionately—and at other times, under other circumstances, does not—that’s fine again. But the word “compassion” cannot simply be redefined any way that one wants (without running into SwissGambit’s bizarro-speech). (I’m not saying that you’re doing that, but I think that’s part of bbarr’s point.)
If one wants to say that a loving God would, or would not, act in certain ways, then they are saying something about what the word “loving” means to them. You can certainly question or dispute their understanding of “loving” (and you can do that without presumptively assigning any hidden motivations to them). If you can’t agree on what constitutes loving (versus unloving) behavior, then how can you agree about whether or not God is loving? (The same for any other attribute.)
Suppose you want to say that God is sovereign, and stop there. Suppose that you are using that word “sovereign” in a conventional way, and there is no dispute about that usage. I fail to see how sovereignty, of itself, merits either worship or love. A sovereign could be a tyrant, and there certainly have been religions with tyrannical gods.
So if you want to speak of a personal god who is deserving of worship and love, then you are stuck with claiming attributes for that god that are deserving of that kind of response. And then you have to argue that the behavior of that god is consistent with those attributes. You might appeal to natural revelation or scriptural revelation, or both, but simply claiming attributes does not render them unquestionable or unarguable.
Since I am a non-dualist, I don’t believe in the kind of personal God that you do. You can say that God is—well, whatever you want: compassionate, cruel, whatever. But if what you say seems inconsistent (or to fall under the bewitchment of “bizarro-speech” ), then why should I, or anyone else, not question that?
04 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrYou could still define God as the ultimate standard of rightness, but then it would follow that compassionate action is not mandated by your account of rightness. That's a tough pill to swallow.
Look, it is easy: If you see somebody who, in response to unnecessary suffering, fails to do anything about it when it would be very easy to do so, you would not attribute 'compassion' to that person. So, you know how to use the term; you have grasped its meaning. Now, if you claim that God can know of unnecessary suffering, fail to do anything about it eve ate action is not mandated by your account of rightness. That's a tough pill to swallow.
Hello, old friend! I hope all is well with you and yours.
Someone is righteous (the word Freaky used) when they act rightly—that may be a tautology, but it’s a first step in avoiding bizarro-speech. The question follows as to what acting rightly entails. For example, in this case, if someone argues that acting rightly does not always mean acting compassionately, then I’d have to ask for some (concrete) explanation.
It has been argued that God always acts rightly—if only we knew what God knows. But I don’t think that says anything more than that the person saying it doesn’t know that God always acts rightly, but assumes so on faith (perhaps because that’s what their scriptures tell them). But then, it seems to me, that person can’t say anything about anyone acting rightly, or not, without knowing everything about the actor, the persons affected by her actions, and the circumstances. And so all meaningful talk about "righteousness" or "unrighteousness" just stops.
04 Feb 10
Originally posted by bbarrClear;
Look, it is easy: If you see somebody who, in response to unnecessary suffering, fails to do anything about it when it would be very easy to do so, you would not attribute 'compassion' to that person. So, you know how to use the term; you have grasped its meaning. Now, if you claim that God can know of unnecessary suffering, fail to do anything about it eve ...[text shortened]... ate action is not mandated by your account of rightness. That's a tough pill to swallow.
Very glad to see you back here my friend😵
04 Feb 10
Originally posted by vistesdHey my friend vistesd,
[b]You could still define God as the ultimate standard of rightness, but then it would follow that compassionate action is not mandated by your account of rightness. That's a tough pill to swallow.
Hello, old friend! I hope all is well with you and yours.
Someone is righteous (the word Freaky used) when they act rightly—that may be a tautology ...[text shortened]... tances. And so all meaningful talk about "righteousness" or "unrighteousness" just stops.[/b]
Bokushu asked a monk:
-- "Where have you come from?"
The monk shouted on the spot:
-- "Iii -iai!"
Bokushu said:
-- "I have been scolded by you with a Iii -iai"
The monk shouted again instantly:
--- "Iii -iai!"
Bokushu said:
-- "After three or four shouts like that, then what?"
The monk remained silent.
Bokushu immediately hit him hard saying:
-- "You idiot!"
😵
04 Feb 10
Originally posted by black beetleIii - iai!
Hey my friend vistesd,
Bokushu asked a monk:
-- "Where have you come from?"
The monk shouted on the spot:
-- "Iii -iai!"
Bokushu said:
-- "I have been scolded by you with a Iii -iai"
The monk shouted again instantly:
--- "Iii -iai!"
Bokushu said:
-- "After three or four shouts like that, then what?"
The monk remained silent.
Bokushu immediately hit him hard saying:
-- "You idiot!"
😵
04 Feb 10
Originally posted by black beetleAt least he got hit😵
Hey my friend vistesd,
Bokushu asked a monk:
-- "Where have you come from?"
The monk shouted on the spot:
-- "Iii -iai!"
Bokushu said:
-- "I have been scolded by you with a Iii -iai"
The monk shouted again instantly:
--- "Iii -iai!"
Bokushu said:
-- "After three or four shouts like that, then what?"
The monk remained silent.
Bokushu immediately hit him hard saying:
-- "You idiot!"
😵
04 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdI think the really difficult question for me, is whether or not 'acting rightly' is a universal law, or merely an individual judgement. It seems to me that most Theists when claiming God is righteous, take it to be a universal law, whereas I tend to go for personal judgement.
But then, it seems to me, that person can’t say anything about anyone acting rightly, or not, without knowing everything about the actor, the persons affected by her actions, and the circumstances. And so all meaningful talk about "righteousness" or "unrighteousness" just stops.
If God does something that I believe to be wrong, then who are you to tell me it is right?
If on the other hand you claim that God declares what is right or wrong, then does 'right' and 'wrong' still carry the same meaning as typically used in English?
Or if there is a universal 'right' and 'wrong' and God is always 'right', then does that carry the same meaning?
Finally, if there is a universal 'right' and 'wrong', can it be determined by us mere mortals or can we never know or in certain instances must we take it on faith that any given action is 'right' or 'wrong' because God tells us so, or because of his actions? And do we really care?
Certainly, if somebody tells me that God ordered children to be put to death and that such an action was right, I would claim that unless there were extraordinary extenuating circumstances, his description of Gods action does not match my understanding of 'right'.
04 Feb 10
Originally posted by bbarrBut it is not in reference to God that we, or at least many of us, learn the term 'compassion'.
But it is not in reference to God that we, or at least many of us, learn the term 'compassion'. Different folks, with different conceptions of God, or no thoughts on God at all, can master the typical use of this term. We are pretty good at recognizing when an action qualifies as compassionate, or when a motivation or disposition does. In tough cases, we kn ...[text shortened]... e sounds in a way that departs fairly radically from how we use sounds.
Perhaps not directly. The same could be said for honesty, truth, justice or any other commendable attribute of 'oughts' we are taught. As most of us are aware, the Golden Rule is not unique to Christianity, nor does Christianity need to be immediately referenced for authority when creating a structured morality. It is possible to be at least superficially good on our own steam--- provided nothing goes awry, of course.
For instance, in our God-less morality, what shall we value more: kindness or honesty? Justice or compassion? How will we scale each of the values in such a way that we will know the better path? If any one attribute trumps another, does it always trump it--- or only in certain situations?
allowing people to suffer and be harmed unnecessarily, when it would be easy to prevent
That's a whole 'nother discussion, but one immediate question comes to mind: who qualifies 'unnecessarily,' or 'easy?'
04 Feb 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think that most theists would say that there is a universal standard for right and wrong, that right and wrong generally entail behavior that humans (you and I) are able to recognize as such, and that God is the source for that standard. However, they would also say that our judgments in specific cases are limited by not having at our disposal the full information that God has.
I think the really difficult question for me, is whether or not 'acting rightly' is a universal law, or merely an individual judgement. It seems to me that most Theists when claiming God is righteous, take it to be a universal law, whereas I tend to go for personal judgement.
If God does something that I believe to be wrong, then who are you to tell me i ...[text shortened]... his description of Gods action does not match my understanding of 'right'.
If on the other hand you claim that God declares what is right or wrong, then does 'right' and 'wrong' still carry the same meaning as typically used in English?
Well, if right and wrong are simply whatever God says, then No: I would say that those terms then have no moral signification at all.
04 Feb 10
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI don't think it is possible for us to be good at all on our own steam. We need to be properly morally educated, and we need networks of support, friendship and love. I do think, however, that we can be fine and noble, and fully virtuous, despite the fact that God is a fantasy. Things go awry for both Christians and Secular Ethicists all the time. I've seen Christians fall apart and treat people cruelly. I've seen Secular Ethicists act excellently in the face of profound hardship. This is matter of character, not a matter of religious belief. Of course, your religious belief informs your character, but my thinking and writing about moral philosophy informs my character, as does my being raised in a particular manner. Whatever psychological support, or sense of moral clarity or certainty you derive from belief; whatever sustains you during your trials, I derive from my commitment to the virtues and the values and goods they take as their objects. Positing God does nothing essential, as far as ethics is concerned, except lead to bizarre consequences (pace the Euthyphro dilemma, and the contortions that pass as responses to it).
[b]But it is not in reference to God that we, or at least many of us, learn the term 'compassion'.
Perhaps not directly. The same could be said for honesty, truth, justice or any other commendable attribute of 'oughts' we are taught. As most of us are aware, the Golden Rule is not unique to Christianity, nor does Christianity need to be immediately n, but one immediate question comes to mind: who qualifies 'unnecessarily,' or 'easy?'[/b]
The question 'What shall we value more: kindness or honesty?" is, from my point of view hopelessly misguided. It is not as though the virtues, or the values and goods at which they aim, need to have some lexical ordering or definite rank in order to be useful. In some cases it is better to be kind than honest, and in other cases it is better to be honest than kind. Figuring out how to balance your reasons is part of developing moral judgment or, as Aristotle called it 'phronesis' or practical wisdom. It is much the same in other practical domains. How should you answer the question "What shall we value more: Bishops or Knights?". The question itself reveals a profound ignorance about the nature of the game. It depends on the circumstances of the game. That we cannot rank the relative importance of pieces in chess (or strategies, or heuristics) in the abstract does not mean that there are not objectively better or worse moves, or that nobody can master the elements of the game and consistently play well.
Further, it is not as though these questions are avoided when one is a theist. What should the theist value more: Mercy or Justice? Scriptural support for both can be found. The theist will believe that God balances these perfectly, or that by his actions he sets the standard for what such a balance will look like. But that doesn't help the theist in determining what to do. The theist may believe that there is some ultimate standard; that the question of Mercy or Justice has a determinate answer. But that is irrelevant if the theist still has to puzzle out the answer. It is not as though Christianity provides some deliberative algorithm, employable whenever norms or values are in apparent tension, the use of which guarantees a unique and optimal moral solution. Rather, you go and consult Scripture, or the experts in your faith, or you pray, and then you think very hard about what this all means, how it is to be reconciled and balanced, and what it entails about what you should do. You have your own balancing act to attend to, no different than the Secular Ethicist. In fact, I doubt you even believe that these questions have to be settled. You probably know people who are more inclined towards justice than mercy, and those with the opposite inclinations. You probably think that there are good Christians with both dispositions, and that sometimes one can act more justly than mercifully, or more mercifully than justly, and either action is permissible as long as it not too extreme. What matters is being appropriately sensitive to a broad array of reasons, and giving them their due consideration, even if there are ways to do this slightly differently, and a range of variation in the actions different courses of deliberation respectively recommend.
EDIT: I use the term 'unnecessarily' to refer to logical non-necessity (i.e., P is logically non-necessary if and only if ~(~P>(P&~P)). That is, a contradiction is not entailed by the presumption of the falsity of P). I use the term 'easy' in the way in which it is used. Seriously, do you not know what 'easy' means? It means 'with little or no required effort', or 'without a whole lot of bother', as in "It is easy to understand what 'easy' means, since I speak English".
05 Feb 10
Originally posted by bbarrI don't think it is possible for us to be good at all on our own steam.
I don't think it is possible for us to be good at all on our own steam. We need to be properly morally educated, and we need networks of support, friendship and love. I do think, however, that we can be fine and noble, and fully virtuous, despite the fact that God is a fantasy. Things go awry for both Christians and Secular Ethicists all the time. I've see ...[text shortened]... in "It is easy to understand what 'easy' means, since I speak English".
Why not, exactly? Meaning, what is it that prevents us to be unable to act morally in our natural state?
I've seen Christians fall apart and treat people cruelly. I've seen Secular Ethicists act excellently in the face of profound hardship.
Me, too.
This is matter of character, not a matter of religious belief.
Agreed.
Of course, your religious belief informs your character, but my thinking and writing about moral philosophy informs my character, as does my being raised in a particular manner.
Well, kinda. While my character is constantly refined by my belief system, my character is--- at the end of the day--- what it is. As is yours.
Positing God does nothing essential, as far as ethics is concerned, except lead to bizarre consequences (pace the Euthyphro dilemma, and the contortions that pass as responses to it).
Well, let's leave that for another discussion.
Figuring out how to balance your reasons is part of developing moral judgment or, as Aristotle called it 'phronesis' or practical wisdom.
Still searching for the compass.
It depends on the circumstances of the game.
Ah, there we go. Again, however, we're still looking for the legend. Upon what are we determining the priorities?
What should the theist value more: Mercy or Justice? Scriptural support for both can be found.
Thankfully, we have our balance set for us in Scripture.
It is not as though Christianity provides some deliberative algorithm, employable whenever norms or values are in apparent tension, the use of which guarantees a unique and optimal moral solution. Rather, you go and consult Scripture, or the experts in your faith, or you pray, and then you think very hard about what this all means, how it is to be reconciled and balanced, and what it entails about what you should do. You have your own balancing act to attend to, no different than the Secular Ethicist.
Holy Spirit. Oh, and don't forget the panorama of Scripture which was designed to illuminate our path.
I use the term 'unnecessarily' to refer to logical non-necessity (i.e., P is logically non-necessary if and only if ~(~P>(P&~P)). That is, a contradiction is not entailed by the presumption of the falsity of P). I use the term 'easy' [b]in the way in which it is used. Seriously, do you not know what 'easy' means? It means 'with little or no required effort', or 'without a whole lot of bother', as in "It is easy to understand what 'easy' means, since I speak English".[/b]
You still haven't qualified the terms... or at least, what informs those terms.
06 Feb 10
Originally posted by vistesdSo if you want to speak of a personal god who is deserving of worship and love, then you are stuck with claiming attributes for that god that are deserving of that kind of response.
If you want to say that God is just what God is, that’s fine. But as soon as you assign attributes to God (or accept attributes assigned by the Bible), then you are no longer saying that God is just what God is.
And when you claim those attributes (holiness, righteousness, love, whatever), they have to be defined in some meaningful way if the claims ...[text shortened]... bewitchment of “bizarro-speech” ), then why should I, or anyone else, not question that?
Interesting. I never thought worship of God depended on whatever attributes we were able to conceive about Him, rather that worship (reverence, adoration, etc.) of God arose as a genuine response to who God is.
But the word “compassion” cannot simply be redefined any way that one wants (without running into SwissGambit’s bizarro-speech). (I’m not saying that you’re doing that, but I think that’s part of bbarr’s point.)
Rousseau said, "God created man in his own image. And man, being a gentleman, returned the favor." That seems to me to be the problem here. God as He is in Himself is beyond all attributes; it cannot be said that God is an embodiment of any one attribute, since attributes are only the humanly applicable/conceivable aspects of His essentially ineffable, unified Person. Therefore, it doesn't seem remarkable at all when folks like bbarr and others create an intellectual problem for themselves by imaging God as beholden to man's definition of what a compassionate person is. Of course a Being Who is infinite and beyond all attributes is going to challenge our ability to understand Him. Pointing out the inconsistencies between our moral standard and God's modus operandi, therefore, is hardly grounds as a defeater for Christian belief (or even theism in general).
09 Feb 10
6 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm not sure why you insist on a legend, or on some abstract specification of those considerations germane to determining, on a case by case basis, whether some value or another is to given practical priority. I had hoped the chess analogy would be instructive here, but perhaps I was unclear. If you ask whether the bishop or knight is better, I will ask you to provide the position within which I'm to make that determination. If you ask whether, on some version of secular ethics, compassion or honesty is better, I will ask you to provide the details of the particular case under consideration. Given some position on the board, I can tell you whether the bishop or knight is better because I have some modicum of understanding of the game. Perhaps there is an important diagonal, or perhaps you can only threaten on certain colored squares. Or perhaps there are pawn chains that inhibit movement, or perhaps there is an available fork, or that mate is on accomplishable with a knight but not a bishop. Here I will give considerations that relate, instrumentally, to success at the game. So, I guess you are asking, with regard to the ethical domain, what considerations are analogous to these. That is, you are asking what considerations are of the sort that could function in a particular case to determine whether compassion or honesty is more important. Well, what is typically ethically relevant? I think autonomy is important, and authenticity and integrity. I think the fruitful pursuit of permissible interests in important, as are nourishing interpersonal relationships. I think that contentment, pleasure and the absence of unnecessary suffering is important. I think knowledge and moral character are important. I mean, these are among those things to which we advert when determining how it would be best, all things considered, to treat another. There are a plurality of values that are instrumentally related to checkmate. There are a plurality of values that contribute to, or are constitutive of, our well-being. Chess is simpler than life, and so it is easy to specify the former than the latter values, but this does not impugn the analogy. The point here is that, in the abstract, ethical life is uncodifiable, non-algorithmic, and messy. You don't want an ethical theory that is more precise than the domain to which it applies. And if you think that you get this sort of specificity from theological ethics, you are fooling yourself. God may be perfect at balancing ethical considerations, but you are not. That there is a perfect legend does not entail you have perfect access to it, and to claim otherwise is merely posturing. In fact, this is precisely the type of posturing that, when taken seriously, leads to those lamentably familiar forms of fundamentalism that myopically attempt to reduce the breadth of human ethical experience to some handful of strictures.
I don't think it is possible for us to be good at all on our own steam.
Why not, exactly? Meaning, what is it that prevents us to be unable to act morally in our natural state?
I've seen Christians fall apart and treat people cruelly. I've seen Secular Ethicists act excellently in the face of profound hardship.
Me, too.
This is m ll haven't qualified the terms... or at least, what informs those terms.