Posted on 01/05/2002 11:44:50 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
I am not claim that philosophical demonstration in metaphysical matters amounts to proof. It does not amount to proof as the term is commonly used- philosophical proof is held to a different standard. One must deal with the level of accuracy that is attainable within a specific subject matter. We will not obtain the same accuracy in matters of metaphysics as in physics. However that does not mean that all such arguments are false or that they can be 'proven false.' In fact to assert their falsity is to also to make a metaphysical assertion. In fact one cannot avoid making metaphysical commitments.
That said, I think the strongest metaphysical argument is for the existence of God.
I will however argue that my point stands, in that there the seems to be an arbitrariness built into the very nature of the evolutional system. If morality is the product of evolution and evolution will always produce change- is it not merely a matter of time before morality and human nature are altered?
What kind of revelation?
There is no one specific argument I would point to- just as there is no one argument you can point to that God does not exist. I will be glad to debate the issue if you wish. If so, I would also require arguments from you of why you believe God does not exist.
The revelation of Jesus Christ- the Word made flesh. This is, I acknowledge, an object of faith and not reason.
So your argument is entirely based upon your own subjective experience, is it not?
I will grant that I cannot know God would not change the moral order on philosophical grounds. I admit it is an object of faith to hold this. It is not, however, entirely subjective. Faith is rooted in reason, reason is rooted in faith. I am saying that there are reasonable grounds for having faith in a God who would not alter morality arbitrarily.
Furthermore, my indictment of morality as a product of evolution as being inevitably arbitrary still stands. Is it not simply a matter of time before such a morality changes?
But what are these reasonable grounds? Where does reason find a toehold in your argument? I understand your contention about evolutionary morality, and am not arguing with you on that point.
If God does exist as portrayed in the Bible, then hasn't he already altered morality arbitrarily at times?
I will not lay out a laundry list which would consist of an objective/cosmological approach and a subjective/personalistic approach.
To give you something to work with I would start by pointing to our moral sense. We experience morality as something binding. This importance of this binding can be seen in the roots of the word 'religion' which is derived from 'ligare- to bind.' Our conscience does not adapt well to being refashioned- whenever we try to convince ourselves some aspect of traditional morality is not binding the results are harmful on a level which far surpasses the 'wellbeing of the tribe.' I am arguing that reguardless of any societal aspects of morality- there is a 'sickness of the soul' that comes about through immoral action. Even if we act in manners entirely socially acceptable and even laudable- if we engage in personal immorality it does integral damage to the person and who he is at his deepest levels. For instance, I would claim that one who views pornography in the privacy of his home is damaging his self irreparably. These personal sins (even if one acts as a moral paragon in society) are experienced as they truly are- violations of the structure of morality that we did not create. They sense of guilt and shame one feels can either be accepted or discarded- to discard it will lead to a damaged conscience and a damaged person.
Just as the body can get sick, and the intellect can wither, so the soul can shrivel up if one does not cultivate it. In positively cultivating virtue we go far beyond arbitarily generated checks on harmful behavior. A chaste man or woman is viewed as weak rather than strong in the eyes an evolutional morality. Those who submit to being killed rather than quieting their conscience would be considered weak in a evolutionary morality. Evolution is based upon the concept that the strongest survive. Traditional theistic morality is based upon a conception of a soul that flourishes even the body is obliterated. This goes for entire communities as well- how could be to the evolutionary advantage for an entire community to submit to martyrdom?
I'm sorry your God does not exist to offer you eternal life - that's fine for you if you are comfortable with that. I gather from what I read you must also believe Life (or the existence of someone) ends at the physical death of the body - still if that's fine for you - okay. "For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: "
Eat and drink to your own contentment I say - but my heart is not inclined to agree with you....
If God is not eternal and immutable- then I could not intellectually stomach my own faith.
2) If your description of God is based on the Bible (as seems reasonable), then you're loopy. God changes drastically and sometimes quite rapidly in the Bible. The Old and New testaments speak to that.
I believe wholeheartedly in faith and reason. Wherever there is a conflict between the two there is error. Faith cannot contradict reason and reason cannot contradict faith.
I do accept the authority of the Bible- but the Bible is a complex document. While I believe the primary author of the Bible is God- the secondary human authors play a fundamental role in the text. It is not just God's words about man, it is mans words about God.
As such it can only be fully understood through means of literary and historical analysis. One must understand what the author is trying to convey and then put it into context. To try it read the Bible like a modern work will lead to serious distortion of its message.
When God is spoken of as changing and even at times getting emotional (changing his mind)- this is not to be understood literally. It can only be understood anagogically. The words have convey through temporal means what is eternal and unable to be put into words.
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.