Posted on 05/01/2003 8:44:18 AM PDT by RJCogburn
That seems to be a logical statement. ;-`
Tell that to Matt Groenig. ;-)
betty boop reports.
I decide.
And speaking of philosophy for Christians, I just saw the header quote on http://www.quodlibet.net:
And Jesus said unto them, "And whom do you say that I am?" They replied, "You are the eschatological manifestation of the ground of our being, the ontological foundation of the context of our very selfhood revealed." And Jesus replied, "What?"
It's not about us.
Moral systems cheerfully offered, FOC ;)
Unfortunately, pragmatism doesn't preclude the mafia don or murderous Pharaoh who, by "getting away with it," can be "winners" in the same sense as an honest man. We can say it's wrong -- but really we can only justify retaliation based on our communal dislike for what they do; we have no objective basis for saying it's wrong.
Well, we can reason from the consequences of such behavior, and judge whether the sort of society that would tolerate and accept the existence of such behavior is really one that we would want to live in. Such a system would probably not be "objective" in the strong sense, but on the other hand, it wouldn't be completely detached from reality - we would have some rational basis for moral tenets, even if they failed to exist independently of moral actors.
In any case, the common failing of all moral codes is that none of them preclude the actual existence of mobsters and murderers - it's rather difficult to see how one would. At best, what a theistic system offers is another factor for potential violators to weigh as they consider their acts, by proposing further consequences to those acts beyond the merely physical consequences imposed by society. And it's not at all clear from the last few millennia that those additional consequences serve to moderate behavior much at all - murder and mayhem are not twentieth-century inventions of objectivism, secular humanism, or atheism.
Instead, I propose something akin to an innate sense of morality that functions within people, albeit more strongly in some than in others - whether instilled by God or the byproduct of evolution or originating someplace else entirely being neither here nor there. Consider: suppose for a moment that it were rationally proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that God does not exist and never has existed - this is purely hypothetical, so nevermind the inherent impossibility of such a thing. Would you then feel no constraints upon your personal behavior, such that you felt no compunctions about murder or theft or adultery or whatever? Something makes me doubt it, because I suspect that this innate moral sense would continue to operate within you regardless of whether you felt that there were consequences beyond the here and now. I suspect that most people operate morally for reasons beyond mere fear of the consequences, whether societally imposed consequences or divinely imposed consequences.
And that brings me right back to agreeing with general_re --- you can no more be objective about any “rational moral view” than I can be objective about “the absolute moral law of God.”
I am at odds with metaphysical naturalism – along with any philosophy which elevates self to parity, or above, God. That is an abomination to me; it is utterly pointless to try to convince me otherwise. Conversely, I have it on highest authority of my faith that anyone who willfully excludes God in their pursuit of knowledge will be given over to a reprobate mind (Romans 1:28) – therefore, it is futile for me to discuss knowledge much less wisdom, with a metaphysical naturalist.
And the futility is only more clear with your own statement: Everyone tends to see things as they are. A metaphysical naturalist can only see the world through a metaphysical naturalist’s eyes. A born again believer can only see the world through a born again believer’s eyes.
Very true, but the fact that we are not privy to everything does not obviate that which we do observe. We don't have to find a mountain high enough to observe all of creation in order to see that evil exists here, which it undeniably does. Mill would, I suspect, point out that the suggestion of some grander plan which we cannot see being operant is likely to be small comfort to the victims of the evils created by an omnipotent God. "We cannot see how it fits into the big picture" does not affect where the problem begins - with the undeniable fact that evil exists.
A rather limited sort of omnipotence. Perhaps you're on to something, though, and God is ultimately self-defining. Thus, it is a mistake to try to attach any sort of label at all to God, whether that label be "omnipotent" or "perfectly good" or whatever - IOW, "perfect is as perfect does", which is not likely to be comforting to all those who think they've found the "right" little box to fit God into. And there's certainly no shortage of folks like that, in my experience ;)
Almost right, except that, it is not "a certain rational moral view," as though there were more than one, but "a rational view," because, there is only one reality, and a rational moral view is based on reality. There is only one rational moral view.
Hank
Of course, regardless of which eyes one employs, the actual truth is not affected a whit. Which, in turn, does not make it any less curious that there seems to be little agreement about which truths are objectively true ;)
Ha ha. Thanks. I needed that. 8^)
I suspect that unless all are willing to undergo a thought experiment on the order of Descartes’ there will be little agreement on the matter of actual truth. We’d have to agree to take everything off the table – including space, time, geometry, particles, energy – and obviously people, possessions, persuasions, prejudices. We’d have to ponder whether we are figments of each other’s imaginations, parts of vision or visions --- indeed if and, if so, then what we are.
As an example, much of the objection to God I’ve read on this thread is that He cannot be omnipotent on the one hand and have created evil on the other. The presumptions in that statement are myriad, e.g. good v evil, their origins, that omnipotence and evil are mutually exclusive, that mortal minds can comprehend the mind of God, the significance of events within space/time to events outside space/time, etc.
So, if anyone seriously wants to explore actual truth I strongly suggest they first clear the table entirely and then build a language by defining each term as it used.
Well, really that it's not possible to be omnipotent and perfectly good and create evil. The last two Mill sees as mutually exclusive - one cannot be "perfectly good" and create evil. Something has to give, according to his reasoning, and so he chooses to abandon omnipotence as a way of avoiding the necessity of assigning responsibility for evil to God.
The presumptions in that statement are myriad, e.g. good v evil, their origins, that omnipotence and evil are mutually exclusive, that mortal minds can comprehend the mind of God, the significance of events within space/time to events outside space/time, etc.
Well, one at a time. If objective morality exists, evil must also objectively exist. And, in fact, we can observe evil all around us every day just by turning on the evening news. As for the origins of good and evil, an omnipotent God, creator of everything, must have created good and evil - surely you're not going to argue that good and evil exist independently of God? ;)
As for the last two, whether mortal minds can comprehend the mind of God is not strictly relevant to Mill's argument - Mill observes God's handiwork, His creation, and reasons backwards to determine what sort of being would create evil. Answer: not a being that is "perfectly good". But this is not acceptable to Mill, or, he suggests, to most people, and so he posits instead that God is in fact perfectly good, but not omnipotent, and so could not necessarily have prevented the creation of evil - as opposed to an omnipotent God, who we have little choice but to accept created evil Himself. And by the same token, its significance in some larger-than-life sense is not strictly relevant either - the mere fact that evil exists is where the problem comes from, in Mill's thinking.
Evidently Mill has a problem with this view.
So a being that is perfectly good can create evil and still be perfectly good? Like I said above, perfection is going to be easier to attain than I thought ;)
I’m not agreeing that objective morality exists. I’m asserting that absolute moral law is decreed by God. It is not objective.
No, I'm not saying that the substance of it is objective, but that the fact of its existence is objectively true. I mean, either it is or it isn't - forget about what it is, surely you believe that it exists in an objective sense. After all, if you're proposing that the existence of God's law is only subjectively true, this will be a much shorter discussion than I thought ;)
He also created beings with free will and communicated His will through His Word which encompasses His moral law. The knowledge of good and evil was not intended for all the beings with free will. But having obtained that knowledge, man now has the duty of the moral law.
And all of this is on top of societal laws to which must also comply (and hope are compatible with the absolute moral laws of God.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.