The nature of morality seems to be an ever present hot topic of discussion especially amongst the philosophical bloggers. I have addressed this subject often on this blog, but I feel the need to unearth it once again as I have been talking with bloggers outside of this forum regarding this topic. I am still encountering a lot of misconceptions regarding the Christian view of morality and so I hope to untangle the web of misconstrued ideas to provide some clarity. For those who have discussed this topic at length with me already, please excuse my return to the subject. What follows will be from the Judeo-Christian worldview regarding this subject, at least as best as I am able to represent it and communicate it herein.
All people of all cultures, tribes, nations, societies, have a moral infrastructure within their nature. Everyone has what Francis Schaeffer terms “moral motions” and C.S. Lewis often calls “the moral ought.” We all feel obligatory to some form of ethics and morals even if it is subjectively our own system of what we think or feel are the best course of conduct. Granted while there are great similarities the world over in particulars there are also many variances between cultures and within cultures. Even between families and down to differences between individuals. We all have different particulars of what we see as right or good.
In addition to this, we have the revealed laws given from God to man as recorded in Scripture. Some of these would be in line with what was already figured out by man naturally, but others are somewhat different to what would seem natural and yet often we see the goodness in them and sometimes we just have to trust that it is good. The Scriptural revealed morality is not exhaustive and it is not intended to be. The Old Testament law had a purpose in helping men through an external law to do what is good for them and it had a primary purpose of showing mankind our fallen state and our need for God’s salvation by grace. The law was setting the stage for the next phase of humanity that would soon open the door to freedom from a life in subjection to external laws. God was providing a way to heal the heart so that the laws become unnecessary for out of the heart a man acts if the heart is restored to righteousness the actions will follow.
Let us go back to discussing morality outside of a revealed law. Let us consider the people who have never seen any revealed laws or do not seek them for their moral instruction. These people still have a moral understanding. They feel they know the difference between right and wrong and know they “ought” to do what is right. Their idea of “right” may be skewed, the particulars may be wrong, but the idea that one “ought” to do what is right if only we can figure out what is right is universal. No one says they ought to do what is wrong. They may do what is wrong willingly, but they know they ought not to. The problem consists in figuring out what is the good, the right. The second problem is how to accomplish it for if we think a certain action right we struggle to do that which we think is right despite our convictions of its goodness. So even if we can be certain that A is the right course of action rather than it’s opposite we still encounter the struggle to do A. And even if we succeed several times at doing A, we might not the next time.
So in our natural understanding of morality we have a struggle to do what we think is right as well as having uncertainty regarding what is right. The only thing we really know is that there is a right/good and we ought to be doing that. However, I do realize that there are those who do hold the position that there is no right and wrong, but few if any seriously live out that philosophy in their daily life. Seldom do I meet an atheist who doesn’t think that there is a right and wrong even if our apprehending of the particulars is wrought with subjectivity. Moreover, I understand that atheists argue that morality is arrived at by agreement of a people group or by evolutionary progress of humanity by which our moral understanding mirrors what is beneficial for our survival.
This could naturally explain the moral obligation, but I do not think it satisfies our knowledge of the attainment of the good. We all seem to have this understanding even if we do not philosophically accept this that there is a right, good, true ideal of sorts by which we want to use to measure what’s right and good. However, when we try to actualize this without a God construct it eludes us. Plato spoke of good as being rooted in an abstract form, but his form had no being, no personality. It was just this allusive abstract thing with nothing real from which good could flow.
I present to you that there is this good true right absolute is not an abstract form, nor a subjective collective of humanity, but is found in a real ever present personal holy and eternal being; God. We strive to do what is right because we were created in the image of God. We were made good in a good world by a good God. But something happened that actualized evil and corrupted the good creation. Our struggle between good and evil and even attaining some semblance of certain knowledge of what is good has been brought on by this corruption. We still see glimmers of good, we have moral motions to attain what is good and yet we fall short of the goodness of God for the corruption of creation and our own sin that is in our beings separates us from God. We can see enough to lead us to the path of righteousness, but our efforts are futile without accepting His aid which He has given freely through the work Jesus did in our place to bring an end to the corruption thus bringing restoration to a path of fruition.
Through faith we accept the gift of grace from God to step out of a world of corruption and into the normal good world found only in Him. The real, the good, is rooted in His being and when we step into Him we find what we are looking for. The reality of our being is changed in an instant giving us complete and perfect righteousness free from any performance, work, duty, or moral obligation. It is a gift of grace. Then we start day one afresh walking a new life being born into righteousness and learning along the way how to actualize the reality of our new restored condition awaiting with eager expectation the day when all who are in Him and all of creation will see the full and complete restoration of all things. The glory and goodness will be free from all corruption, sin, death, and decay and it will all shine in the perfect goodness we sometimes see glimpses of when we see a sunrise, the birth of a baby, or some other magnificent beauty of nature that captures our hearts in wonder.
So where does this bring us regarding morality? Morality then becomes obsolete for we don’t earn moral goodness we are given it by the grace of God. We are given righteousness. Our identity changes from one who is unrighteous and struggles for the elusive good to one who has been made righteous and learns to live a new life. Just as when we are naturally born into this world we have to learn how to live this new life. We don’t instantly know how to live it, it is a process being worked out in us. We are not alone in this process, we journey with God’s presence aiding us each step of the way as we go from learning to sit up, to crawling, to walking, and onward as we grasp the reality of this new life. Our transformation is from the inside out; our restoring heart produces new actions that are in line with truth and goodness. We journey as a community helping and encouraging each other in our walk with Jesus. So morality then comes from the inside from our new being as righteous people and not from obedience to laws. The right actions then follow truly from our righteousness in Christ instead of from futile moral obligation to rules that only lead to guilt. Christ sets us free from this guilt of moral failure and gives us the goodness we once sought through obligatory duty to what is right. He makes us right and then shows us how to live right in freedom.
I know this is a whole lot of information, but I attempted to give a thorough treatment of the topic. Each paragraph could easily be an essay or a chapter in a book in and of itself and I am willing to discuss any aspect of these thoughts in further depth in future posts. To those of you that read here regularly and have repeatedly given me your positions on this subject please don’t feel the need to reiterate as this post is more for those who are new here and to those I am conversing with in other forums. However, if you do have any questions or things you want me to expound on I am always willing to hear what you have to say. Thank you for your patience and time.
29 comments:
karla said: All people of all cultures, tribes, nations, societies, have a moral infrastructure within their nature.
You could also say that they have an 'in-built verbal infrastructure' - and yet there are, and have been, countless variations in laguage and dialect since the beginning of human kind.
karla said: Seldom do I meet an atheist who doesn’t think that there is a right and wrong even if our apprehending of the particulars is wrought with subjectivity.
People who have no concept of right and wrong are normally referred to as sociopaths and should generally be avoided. It should come as no surprise, however, that atheists also have ideas about morality. We are after all still human beings and cultural beings.
karla said: I understand that atheists argue that morality is arrived at by agreement of a people group...
Well, I don't think we sit around as a group and decide on issues of right and wrong. We are all born into cultures that already possess ideas of morality. Generally as we grow up we adopt these ideas. If we had been born in different places at different times we would simply have different ethical ideas.
kalra said: ....or by evolutionary progress of humanity by which our moral understanding mirrors what is beneficial for our survival.
It's not really that simple (again). Culture provides the moral fluid that we all swim in. But there are currents and eddies that change morality over time. Morality doesn't evolve in the same way that physical bodies do but it does adapt to changing circumstances. This is why Medieval morality is different from Industrial morality - because the underlying structure of society has changed. 'Good' ethical practice might aid in the survival of some of our genes but I'd hate to have to guess which ones!
karla said: We all seem to have this understanding even if we do not philosophically accept this that there is a right, good, true ideal of sorts by which we want to use to measure what’s right and good.
You seem to be making the assumption (which I view as unfounded) that there is a single yardstick which all morality is measured against. How then do you explain the wide variations of moral behavious exhibited throughout the world and throught history? If you believe that the Christian yardstick is *the* yeardstick (well, you would say that wouldn't you?) how can you show this to be the case? Can you do anything more than simply state your belief that this is so?
Same contradictory mish-mash of ideas that don't quite work as usual.
Karla will also avoid the fact that humans are not the only social/moral animals. In fact, we see morality in all social animals, which is a fact that apologists avoid like the plague.
Cyber “You could also say that they have an 'in-built verbal infrastructure' - and yet there are, and have been, countless variations in language and dialect since the beginning of human kind.”
True. I’m not saying there aren’t different particulars. You agree that all have communication abilities even though they are different there are many similarities in languages. I repeat, I am not arguing that the whole world sees what is “right” the same, but that the whole world sees there is a right even if we disagree on what that is.
Cyber “People who have no concept of right and wrong are normally referred to as sociopaths and should generally be avoided. It should come as no surprise, however, that atheists also have ideas about morality. We are after all still human beings and cultural beings.”
True. Atheists do have a moral construct. I’ve never argued differently. That is precisely my point, that all people save sociopaths have an idea of there being a “moral ought” even if we disagree on particulars.
Cyber “Well, I don't think we sit around as a group and decide on issues of right and wrong. We are all born into cultures that already possess ideas of morality. Generally as we grow up we adopt these ideas. If we had been born in different places at different times we would simply have different ethical ideas.”
Different ones, maybe, but we all still have the understanding that we ought to do such and such and not the opposite. Where does that come from? Where did it originate?
Cyber I thought you argued before that if everyone agreed that euthanasia was right then it would be right. Did I mishear you or did you change your position?
Cyber “It's not really that simple (again). Culture provides the moral fluid that we all swim in. But there are currents and eddies that change morality over time. This is why Medieval morality is different from Industrial morality - because the underlying structure of society has changed. . ."
Makes sense, one could not have ethics regarding the specificity of medical abilities these days such as cloning and all before it were possible. But we still base the formation of these “new” ethics on the foundation of the values already resonate within us. You are still bringing the discussion to particularities instead of the foundational. Why should anyone develop Industrial ethics or medical ethics? What drives us to do things a “right” way rather than a beneficial way? Something might be beneficial, such as cloning, but yet we struggle with the moral implications of it. Why the struggle? What inside us compels us to wrestle with these questions? We do not seem free to just do what we want, we struggle between doing what is right and doing what is best for us or beneficial or what have you.
Cyber “You seem to be making the assumption (which I view as unfounded) that there is a single yardstick which all morality is measured against.”
A point of reference, yes. A good that we have some knowledge of, but not complete knowledge of and our own fallen ways of thinking muddle up and produce different conclusions.
Cyber “How then do you explain the wide variations of moral behaviors exhibited throughout the world and through history?”
I think we don’t see the good clearly, we make laws and rules to follow to appease our moral construct of doing what is right, and some of those mirror the good and some are our own fallible constructions of it. We feel the need to adhere to some standard and we aren’t quite sure how to, so religions and cultures create moral laws thinking that if they adhere to these they will attain goodness and be alright. The thing is our moral compass is off kilter and while we still retain some right understanding by which to guide us and protect us from the things that would harm our beings we don’t get it all right and we all have our own ideas of what right is. Yet, we agree there is a right. It is this that I’m capitalizing on to try and explain that we all see there is something by which we ought to be measuring up to and we set all these rules of conduct in our attempts to do so.
The good news is that that system is there to point us to the One who will pull us out of that system all together. Our actions follow who we are as a person and when we accept Jesus, He restores our being to righteousness and out of the righteous being the good flows. Not because we follow external rules, but because we are true to our hearts. This is why Jesus says if someone hates their brother they do not know Him, because hate isn’t in a heart that is truly His.
Cyber “If you believe that the Christian yardstick is *the* yeardstick (well, you would say that wouldn't you?) how can you show this to be the case? Can you do anything more than simply state your belief that this is so?”
I think there is both a understanding of the moral ought within all people even if they have never read the Bible or heard of Jesus. On top of that there is a revealed law in the Old Testament that God gave to the Hebrew people to protect them and to show the way to Jesus. When Jesus came He fulfilled that law and said all He asks is that we love Him for He has first loved us, and that we love our neighbor as ourself. He came and freed us from needing to follow external laws, but instead to have a heart transformation where we begin to live anew under a new way of thinking by which we learn to do what is good because we know Him who is good and He has made us righteous.
So, no, it’s not so simple as saying that one needs the Christian laws to do the right thing. The moral compass is in each and every one of us showing us the reality of our need for freedom from the bondage to doing what is wrong and the bondage of struggling between the two. We have such peace and freedom when we realize we don’t have to earn God’s favor, that He gives it to us and does the work for us to start us on a new walk of freedom.
"Why should anyone develop Industrial ethics or medical ethics? What drives us to do things a “right” way rather than a beneficial way?"
It's called group dynamics and culture. All social animals exhibit this type of behavior.
"We do not seem free to just do what we want, we struggle between doing what is right and doing what is best for us or beneficial or what have you."
Yet, we supposedly have free will? Do you hold to the different ideas of human depravity? The idea there is that we are drawn to commit evil. Here, you seem to be arguing the opposite.
"We feel the need to adhere to some standard and we aren’t quite sure how to, so religions and cultures create moral laws thinking that if they adhere to these they will attain goodness and be alright."
All you are doing here is adding on an unnecessary layer. Show us all that absolute morality exists and you'll show your argument.
"It is this that I’m capitalizing on to try and explain that we all see there is something by which we ought to be measuring up to and we set all these rules of conduct in our attempts to do so."
You're making an un-justified jump. We already know that social animals develop moral heirarchies and structures in order to live and co-exist in groups. Adding, "goddidit" to the mix is neither warranted nor instructive, and is nicely excised by Occam.
"The good news is that that system is there to point us to the One who will pull us out of that system all together."
That's only good news if you ignore the fact of the bad news that would necessarily have preceeded it - namely that the One put us in a situation where we face eternal damnation unless he decides to grace us and pull us out. And, if it is by grace alone, then how is that good news? It can only be considered good news if you are one of the ones selected.
"This is why Jesus says if someone hates their brother they do not know Him, because hate isn’t in a heart that is truly His."
He also says that hating someone has the moral equivalency of murder, thus enshrining thought crime as being as bad as physically wronging another. It's not much of a moral system.
"On top of that there is a revealed law in the Old Testament that God gave to the Hebrew people to protect them and to show the way to Jesus."
The same law that you claim is not binding (IIRC) and is obviously sub-par.
"When Jesus came He fulfilled that law and said all He asks is that we love Him for He has first loved us, and that we love our neighbor as ourself."
How exactly does one "fulfill" a law? And, why did god not simply set forth the better code of conduct from the beginning that Jesus came with?
"He came and freed us from needing to follow external laws, but instead to have a heart transformation where we begin to live anew under a new way of thinking by which we learn to do what is good because we know Him who is good and He has made us righteous."
Do you really, honestly think that being friends with the right guy makes you more moral?
GCT, "How exactly does one "fulfill" a law?"
He provided the ultimate payment of the law having never broken one law, He took on the consequence of breaking all of them thereby freeing us from life lived in subservience to external laws.
GCT "And, why did god not simply set forth the better code of conduct from the beginning that Jesus came with?"
Because it was never about being obedient to laws, but being in relationship with God. The laws were a temporary response to our fallen nature until the permanent answer was made manifest in Jesus in our history.
GCT "Do you really, honestly think that being friends with the right guy makes you more moral?"
Being one with Christ absolves my need to strive by external means to enter goodness. For He gives me complete righteousness without my striving to follow external laws. Then from that righteousness I can walk a new reflecting the good that is internal on the external. Yes relationship with God brings me righteousness which is better than following my fallen moral compass to try and be good on my own.
karla said: I repeat, I am not arguing that the whole world sees what is “right” the same, but that the whole world sees there is a right even if we disagree on what that is.
Though you are dancing around your belief that there is *one* right way of moral behaviour - the Christian way. Am I correct?
I do not regard the many languages of Earth to be shadows cast by a perfect language. Likewise I do not see the various moral structures that exist, have existed and will exist in the future to be pale imitations of some ideal perfect morality that, rather strangely coming from a Christian, just happens to follow her religious beliefs.
karla said: That is precisely my point, that all people save sociopaths have an idea of there being a “moral ought” even if we disagree on particulars.
I think we also disagree on fundamentals, do we not? Such as the foundations of morality - where it comes from. I don't think that we all have *a* moral 'ought', we actually have *many* different moral 'oughts'. I've tried to get this point across to you many times though you seem to have issues taking it on board. We are most certainly not singing from the same hymn sheet here.
karla said: Where does that come from? Where did it originate?
He's an example. My moral outlook is a product of several things (as is yours actually). These are: the Culture I was accidentially born into, my upbringing and home life, our peers, my education and life experiences and, probably, a smattering of genes. This adequately explains why morality is different in different places and why it changes over time. Your explanation seems to rely on us looking at perfection through a glass darkly and repeatedly failing to get things 'right'. An explanation which I feel is both inadequate and quite bizarre.
karla said: Cyber I thought you argued before that if everyone agreed that euthanasia was right then it would be right. Did I mishear you or did you change your position?
Indeed. If a culture considered euthanasia right it would be - for them. Just as we once considered slavery to be right or the subornination of women, or the imperialist conquest of so-called inferior races. As our culture has changed so has our moral outlook. What was once moral is now immoral. What is moral today will undoubtedly be considered immoral in the future. All of that seems pretty straight forward to me.
karla said: Makes sense, one could not have ethics regarding the specificity of medical abilities these days such as cloning and all before it were possible.
That's not what I meant. I mean that the way people think about things is influenced by the way their societies are structured. A classic example is the treatment of women. The Medieval view of women is deeply repugnant to many living in the 21st Century. This change did not happen simply because of some kind of moral evolutionary process. It's because the very system that produces the way we think has changed radically since those times. Although some still try to restrict the activities of women in modern society its very difficult to justify using what are, in effect, outdated thought patterns.
karla said: We do not seem free to just do what we want, we struggle between doing what is right and doing what is best for us or beneficial or what have you.
We are social creatures who have been socialised to live in the culture we are born into. But we are not simply robots. We have, or at least appear to have, free will which allows us to make independent decisions on morality - which is as it should be (from my cultures point of view which I have adopted before you ask). That is the reason for the struggle and the angst you speak about. We struggle because we think and feel.
There is no exhaustive codified system of morality even in Christianity. But yes where the Bible touches on moral actions it is true and good in what it says. Please let us not go into a conversation regarding the authority and content of the Bible. I'm just throwing that out there to answer your question. I am trying to keep the discussion apart from direct revelation since you and most of my readers do not accept it.
I think there is still a misunderstanding of what I speak of when I say moral ought. I am not talking about the right thing to do in a given situation, but that there is a right versus a wrong to think about no matter what the situation or what the choice. Even if we picked the wrong every time and thought it right it wouldn't change what I am trying to get across.
The first part of what I am talking about is that we feel compelled to find the right or good way to do a thing regardless of if we agree on that path or even accomplish that end we think about it and we think their is a right or a way that is more right than another.
The second point is a discussion of finding the source of the notion and origin of the right or good. But there is no need to proceed to that without understanding of the broad moral ought that each of us operate under even when the specifics are different. Maybe I ought to call it the moral compulsion to follow a right way rather than a wrong way.
Just to give a heads up, after today and maybe tomorrow I won't be on my blog for a weeks time.
"He provided the ultimate payment of the law having never broken one law, He took on the consequence of breaking all of them thereby freeing us from life lived in subservience to external laws."
Gibberish. What does "ultimate payment of the law" mean? How does one pay a law?
"Because it was never about being obedient to laws, but being in relationship with God."
Then, why would god establish a system that he knows is sub-par?
"Being one with Christ absolves my need to strive by external means to enter goodness."
This is an abdication of moral duty.
"For He gives me complete righteousness without my striving to follow external laws."
And yet, you claim that there is an absolute moral law. Contradictions.
"Yes relationship with God brings me righteousness which is better than following my fallen moral compass to try and be good on my own."
Empirically, this is false.
"The first part of what I am talking about is that we feel compelled to find the right or good way to do a thing regardless of if we agree on that path or even accomplish that end we think about it and we think their is a right or a way that is more right than another."
Your argument is one big non sequitor.
1. Humans have morals (observed)
2. Humans think about moral issues (observed)
3. We have words that we use to figure out how to describe actions ("right," "wrong," "good," "bad") (observed)
4. Therefore god exists and absolute morality exists.
Simply put, number 4 does not follow from the three previous points.
I have not said there is an absolute moral laws as if there were some codified exhaustive external system of morality. I have said there is a good God and that laws have served a temporary purpose in leading us to Him. That goodness isn't found in adhering to moral laws, but in being redeemed by a good God and thereby freed from the need to obey external laws for any reason. Our good actions thus are to flow from our righteous nature and not from obeying external laws.
"I have not said there is an absolute moral laws as if there were some codified exhaustive external system of morality."
If there is an absolute morality, then it should be possible to codify it.
"I have said there is a good God and that laws have served a temporary purpose in leading us to Him."
And, that purpose one would suppose would be to act in moral ways. Apparently you are arguing that god had no intention of setting up laws/guidelines to enforce/promote/teach morality?
"That goodness isn't found in adhering to moral laws, but in being redeemed by a good God and thereby freed from the need to obey external laws for any reason."
The laws simply codify what someone should do in a situation in order to do the most moral thing. You've got it backwards here. You don't become moral by simply believing in god and then doing whatever it is that you want to do, and it is not absolute morality. Absolute morality means that there are absolutes for moral behavior that can be expressed as laws or guidelines.
"Our good actions thus are to flow from our righteous nature and not from obeying external laws."
Whether you do it because you are obeying laws or because you want to doesn't negate the fact that one should be able to codify moral behavior if it is indeed absolute.
I'm not arguing for absolute morality. I'm arguing for an absolute God who is good. Moral laws are a temporary necessity for humans, but being conformed to the righteousness of God is a different matter.
I think you are responding to me as if I am arguing for something you would expect a Christian to argue for, but I am saying something different.
I am trying to talk about what is good apart from particularities of behaviors or actions we think conform to goodness. I am talking about the basic understanding that there is something right we ought to conform to and that that "right" is not an absolute system of codified morals existing in written, verbal, instinctual or spiritual form, but a Being that is perfect goodness and right-ness.
The laws codified or otherwise are a product of our fallen nature --some we make up subjectively that sometimes conform to the good and sometimes do not and some we were given through revelation for a particular purpose as a result of a new condition of fallen man.
The good we are all scrambling to conform to in our own subjective fallen ways is based on our perception which is not perfect by any means even for those of us who are believers. We still don't know it all. You don't need me to tell you that. But just the same when we try to perceive the right we do have some signs to it in nature, in revelation, in our nature, but the good isn't that which conforms to laws even God's laws, but he who has become righteous by God's grace through faith in Christ.
"I'm not arguing for absolute morality."
So, you don't believe in absolute morality?
"I'm arguing for an absolute God who is good."
Based upon what do you claim that god is good?
"I think you are responding to me as if I am arguing for something you would expect a Christian to argue for, but I am saying something different."
Yes, I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt that you know what it is you are talking about.
"I am trying to talk about what is good apart from particularities of behaviors or actions we think conform to goodness."
Then, you have to show that there is some sort of entity or "goodness" that is a thing.
"I am talking about the basic understanding that there is something right we ought to conform to and that that "right" is not an absolute system of codified morals existing in written, verbal, instinctual or spiritual form, but a Being that is perfect goodness and right-ness."
And, as I've pointed out, this is a non sequitor.
"The laws codified or otherwise are a product of our fallen nature --some we make up subjectively that sometimes conform to the good and sometimes do not and some we were given through revelation for a particular purpose as a result of a new condition of fallen man."
And, my point is that if there is an absolute moral system, then we should be able to use it to codify moral behavior. You can't very well argue that god is absolutely moral and good but that absolute morality and goodness do not exist. And, if they do exist, then it is possible to codify those morals and behaviors that lead to the absolutely correct moral position. After that, one is left to wonder why god gives us moral codes and strictures that are sub-optimal. This is especially so if he is going to judge us for not being optimally moral. If I follow his codes to the letter, then I am not being optimally moral, but I am following his strictures precisely, and this would lead to punishment from god presummably. Here's another instance where your theology is contradictory.
"But just the same when we try to perceive the right we do have some signs to it in nature, in revelation, in our nature, but the good isn't that which conforms to laws even God's laws, but he who has become righteous by God's grace through faith in Christ."
Sorry, but this is gibberish. Please unpack everything after "in our nature" because I understand all the words, but they don't make sense on the page.
Beyond that, are you claiming that we learn our morals through revelation? If that is the case, I'm going to ask you to provide some evidence for it and explain why so many different revelations lead to different ideas of morality.
I see your post and will respond soon as I can. Lots going on right now.
My point is that goodness isn't found in laws but in a personal being, namely God. God has given laws to govern our behavior for our good, but the laws themselves are not where goodness is found. The laws God has given through revelation are true, but there is something greater than laws. Laws whether created by man or God or some combination of the two govern the external actions of a person.
Goodness is only possible when rooted in a being who is absolute good. Otherwise the term is only ever relative and can never be more than that. If "the good" is objective and outside of our subjective limited view . . . if it is greater than ourselves then what would that mean? It would necessitate a good being or else there is no good and all we are left with is whatever we decide is good and what meaning is in that?
I am proposing, not proving, that there is a good standard and that that standard is the good nature of a good, personal, eternal Being.
The non-theist alternative is that there is no good other than whatever humans decide to claim as good. Good does not exists, it has no true meaning nor does evil for if there is no good, there is no evil and all is amoral.
Please if this alternative is still something you do not see as accurate, enlighten me as to where good gains true meaning outside of human agreement and sentiment.
Karla,
Your thinking on this is clearly muddled...
"My point is that goodness isn't found in laws but in a personal being, namely God."
I understand what you are saying...
"God has given laws to govern our behavior for our good, but the laws themselves are not where goodness is found."
The laws are descriptors of what one should do in a given situation in order to conform to what is defined as moral, however that is defined. So, even if god has some measure of how to define good, then laws can be codified in order to describe what is moral or not.
"The laws God has given through revelation are true, but there is something greater than laws."
Then you are advocating subjective morality, since the laws that we live by and find to be moral are not what is codified in the OT.
"Laws whether created by man or God or some combination of the two govern the external actions of a person."
Exactly, and in contradiction to what you just got done saying.
"Goodness is only possible when rooted in a being who is absolute good."
Wrong. Absolute goodness is not necessarily the same as god-given goodness or objective goodness.
"Otherwise the term is only ever relative and can never be more than that."
Incorrect. Do you think that it is impossible for the two of us to come together and decide whether an action is moral or not? Given that, would we be able to convince others? Given that, could we conceivably write an objective moral code based on that? Can't this objective moral code also be based on empirical observation and how the universe operates?
"If "the good" is objective and outside of our subjective limited view . . . if it is greater than ourselves then what would that mean? It would necessitate a good being or else there is no good and all we are left with is whatever we decide is good and what meaning is in that?"
Wrong again. There's no necessary logical link between an objective good and an entity.
"I am proposing, not proving, that there is a good standard and that that standard is the good nature of a good, personal, eternal Being."
Correct, you are proposing...and not supporting.
"The non-theist alternative is that there is no good other than whatever humans decide to claim as good."
Incorrect, as I've shown above.
"Good does not exists, it has no true meaning nor does evil for if there is no good, there is no evil and all is amoral."
Incorrect, and a non-sequitor. Even if we decide that all good and evil is subjective, that does not mean the concepts do not exist.
honestly, GCT, I haven't fully grasped this topic. I used to think there was this external moral law that was absolute in and of itself, albeit, created by God. But now I'm not so sure. I don't know if I can argue for absolute morality. That is not to say that there aren't moral truths. But I'm starting to rethink what the term absolute means and whether anything outside of God Himself can be absolute.
This is something I'm still trying to explore in my own thinking.
That might be the most honest comment I've ever seen from you. Thank you.
Other than that, you should try to work out what it is that you believe and are arguing for. The concept of absolute morality is a strange and difficult thing to grasp, because it leads to issues like Euthyphro's dilemma and the difficulties with demonstrating or proving that absolutes exist (among other difficulties). OTOH, it seems to be something that is wrapped up in the concept of an omni-max god. So, when you talk about an absolute goodness of god, you are also talking about an absolute morality. Don't worry though, people have been struggling with the concept for a long, long time.
I've always been honest to my knowledge. I, however, as I have said don't have all the answers and am still learning and seeking understanding myself. This is a subject, like you have said that is vast and many have written on it at length.
I am not backing away from God's goodness, but the idea that morality is rooted in any other absolute than God Himself.
I don't know if I can argue for what most apologists term "the moral law" or a moral absolute system apart from God Himself, even though laws are created by Him and are true.
Yes it would help to have my thoughts in line before talking about them, but the subject is vast and I find in writing I can think through things and refine as I go along.
Please do not mistake my confidence that pervades my writing style as me having all the answers in a neat little box or something.
Just thinking some more on this topic. . .
Moral values exude from God. In order for morality to have any meaning it has to be apart of person hood; sentient beings. So we have pretty much two choices, one is that they are rooted solely in humanity or two that moral values are given to us by God.
Now these need not be mutually exclusive. God can be the origin of our having a need to conform to the moral good, but we also make our own ethics and rules that we govern by that seems good to us. That doesn't mean they are good, but we do in fact make up rules and laws and values of morality. I'm not about to argue that we don't. There are plenty of examples of this.
Plato as we have discussed rooted the moral good in the abstract forms, which is essentially nothing of any substance. It was as if he saw morality coming from an outside source but didn't go far enough with his idea about it.
If we link morality solely to finite beings then we lack a source outside ourselves which to give true meaning to our moral values. This is not to say we come up with something we want to be a moral truth and call it God's will and impose it on others. Some have done this, but this isn't what I'm talking about. Every one can cite abuses of truth.
But does evil and tragedy have any real meaning if there is no transcendent good? If the good is what we make it, what value is there in the good? What good is good, if we are it's author and we could one day decide do something else and call that good or give up altogether and just live how we want.
There are lots of questions I think that would need to be raised and answered to continue in the idea that goodness only comes from human ideology or desires.
But if goodness is transcendent and tied to the eternal personal being of God then not only is good given value from an infinitely good source but evil is given meaning as something abhorred and we can be justified in our abhorrence of it.
"In order for morality to have any meaning it has to be apart of person hood; sentient beings. So we have pretty much two choices, one is that they are rooted solely in humanity or two that moral values are given to us by God."
Can I take it from this that you are not arguing that good/morality is a thing in itself then? Either way, we have more than those two choices - you're setting up a false dichotomy. And, what do you mean by "Moral values are given to us by god?"
"God can be the origin of our having a need to conform to the moral good..."
What do you mean by that?
"If we link morality solely to finite beings then we lack a source outside ourselves which to give true meaning to our moral values."
How does linking it to an infinite being change that, and what does any of that even mean? What does it mean to have "true meaning"?
"But does evil and tragedy have any real meaning if there is no transcendent good?"
Yes.
"If the good is what we make it, what value is there in the good?"
Whatever value we place on it, even if it comes solely from us, means that it is not valueless.
"What good is good, if we are it's author and we could one day decide do something else and call that good or give up altogether and just live how we want."
First of all, we have reality to contend with. That said, this is very close to what actually happens. As humans evolve and change over time, old rules are thrown out in favor of new ones. It's not an overnight change, but it does happen, as opposed to people have a-ha moments and showing everyone how we've all been misinterpreting the Bible all these years or something like that.
"There are lots of questions I think that would need to be raised and answered to continue in the idea that goodness only comes from human ideology or desires."
First of all, I'm not making that argument. Secondly - since I assume you think this is the argument I'm making from the evidence - like what? What questions need to be raised and answered in order to state what the evidence shows?
"But if goodness is transcendent and tied to the eternal personal being of God then not only is good given value from an infinitely good source but evil is given meaning as something abhorred and we can be justified in our abhorrence of it."
What does this mean? What does it mean for goodness to be transcendent and/or tied to an eternal personal being of a god? Why would this make us abhor evil? How do we explain the obvious evil in the world that comes from god? How do we explain god's evil in the OT and NT, or in hell?
GCT "What does this mean? What does it mean for goodness to be transcendent and/or tied to an eternal personal being of a god? Why would this make us abhor evil? How do we explain the obvious evil in the world that comes from god? How do we explain god's evil in the OT and NT, or in hell?"
Goodness need an origin, correct? It either comes from something external to us, or it is internally created by our own thinking. Is there another option that you see?
I am positing that a transcendent good, a good that is external to our thinking that we do not create is necessary for objective morality.
This cannot be left to abstraction of some ideal good just being out there somehow. It needs a personality and a mind for it to have origin. It need being.
A good Being that is different from humanity, uncreated, eternal, would need to exist to sustain the existence of a good that is external to human creation.
To answer the last questions I need to move from the broad spectrum of theism to the particular of Christianity.
Why we abhor evil?
The Christian answer is we are created in the image of God and it is designed into our nature to be connected relationally to the living holy good God.
Evil is that which is not good, that is a distortion and corruption of what was good. We intuitively abhor it because it is the opposite of what we were designed for. It causes us to be out of alignment with righteousness and the Bible also tells us that these things are written into our knowledge that even those who do not know God have a moral understanding.
The reason we do evil anyway and have the struggle between the two is all linked to the corruption of our nature at the fall. Please let us not get into is this just or not for it is out of the scope of this discussion. I know you don't think it is, but this is the Judeo-Christian view of why we struggle with doing what we know we ought not to do.
Evil--that which is not good, does not come from God--it is a perversion of the good. Goodness is not defined as only that which is pleasant. The just thing may not be pleasant or beneficial to the one on the wrong side of the justice, but it is the good thing.
Now again, all of this is presupposing God's existence and the validity of the Christian theology.
Please try and look at this as whether it would make since if such a God exists.
"Goodness need an origin, correct? It either comes from something external to us, or it is internally created by our own thinking. Is there another option that you see?"
"Goodness" is a concept that we use to describe the world.
"I am positing that a transcendent good, a good that is external to our thinking that we do not create is necessary for objective morality."
And you've been shown to be wrong. You're talking about absolute morality, and even then I'm not sure that Plato's idea of a form is necessary.
"This cannot be left to abstraction of some ideal good just being out there somehow. It needs a personality and a mind for it to have origin. It need being."
There's no reason to suspect that this is true or that this is the case.
"A good Being that is different from humanity, uncreated, eternal, would need to exist to sustain the existence of a good that is external to human creation."
But, why wouldn't "good" also have to be external to that being's creation? This is special pleading.
"Why we abhor evil?
The Christian answer is we are created in the image of God and it is designed into our nature to be connected relationally to the living holy good God."
So, god has made us so that we are compelled to abhor evil? How does this work with your concept of free will or the concepts of us all being sinners, etc?
"...and the Bible also tells us that these things are written into our knowledge that even those who do not know God have a moral understanding."
How? Why? How does this fit into us all being sinners, etc?
"The reason we do evil anyway and have the struggle between the two is all linked to the corruption of our nature at the fall. Please let us not get into is this just or not for it is out of the scope of this discussion. I know you don't think it is, but this is the Judeo-Christian view of why we struggle with doing what we know we ought not to do."
Fine, we don't have to get into this, but this simply sounds like a just-so story that is contradictory and makes no sense. It's also tantamount to "goddidit" in direct opposition to the fact that we have evidence for why humans are moral.
"Evil--that which is not good, does not come from God--it is a perversion of the good."
Everything comes from god, else god is not omni-max.
"Please try and look at this as whether it would make since if such a God exists."
That's the point that I've been making. Your theology does not make sense because it is inherently contradictory. Even if such an omni-max god does exist, none of these things would follow or even could follow, because they are contradictory to the idea of an omni-max god.
GCT "Goodness" is a concept that we use to describe the world.”
That’s meaningless. There is, then, no quality and purpose in goodness.
GCT ”You're talking about absolute morality, ”
Please what do you mean when you say absolute morality? I think we need to define our terms. You’ve stated murder to be wrong. Is it always wrong? You state it as being objective, but is it not an absolute statement more so than an objective one if it is created by humans to be a rule rather than discovered by humans to be a rule?
”But, why wouldn't "good" also have to be external to that being's creation? This is special pleading.”
Because God is the eternal great being that is able to be perfectly good. He isn’t created. He isn’t limited by outside externals, if He needed to be, He wouldn’t be God. Nor is a “good” external to God and to man just hovering in the abstract cosmos have any meaning or realness attached to it. You would be speaking of something with no substance; with no root in anything real and true. We can’t even conceive of it and are left with abstract meaningless notions.
We have two choices, the good is created by human feeling and reason and is subjective as Cyber argues, or it exist outside of us and is discovered by us and revealed to us. If it exists outside of us, that means a Being, a Mind, a Personality is required to be the giver of that good, a giver of those morals that reflect what is good. God would be necessary for such a morality to exist. You can deny such a morality exists, but it seems illogical to accept objective morality, but deny its source. Cyber has accepted morality to be subjective in light of the lack of such a being existing. You seem to see objective morals so that leaves the alternative still open to you for consideration that they have a source.
GCT ”So, god has made us so that we are compelled to abhor evil? How does this work with your concept of free will or the concepts of us all being sinners, etc?”
No, He hasn’t made us to abhor evil. We abhor evil because we were designed good for a good world by a good God. We were also giving freedom; true freedom means you can do the wrong thing or the right thing. If you choose the right thing, you choose freely, if you do the wrong thing you freely choose that. But the wrong thing isn’t good for us, for it is the wrong thing—the not-good, hence evil. We abhor evil because it is antithetical to who we were designed to be. God doesn’t make us abhor evil, He simply made us good.
The struggle between the two came about by a misuse of our freedom. We can use that freedom to accept the free gift to return to righteousness or to continue on our own path.
GCT “How? Why? How does this fit into us all being sinners, etc?”
I think I explained that above.
GCT “Fine, we don't have to get into this, but this simply sounds like a just-so story that is contradictory and makes no sense. It's also tantamount to "goddidit" in direct opposition to the fact that we have evidence for why humans are moral.”
Yes you can make natural explanations of it through science if you want to, but if you put both answers side by side and really look at the ramifications of both and the fullness of them you may see that one picture seems more right than the other even though the other can be reasonably argued for as well. Truth seldom fits into a nice neat scientific formula. There is mystery to it.
"Evil--that which is not good, does not come from God--it is a perversion of the good."
Everything comes from god, else god is not omni-max.
Yes, every “thing” comes from God. God created every “thing”. Evil is not a thing. Therefore God did not create evil. Evil is a result of humans misusing their freedom. A finite world has limits that are good for it and when those limits are freely broken not good results (ie evil). God didn’t create evil, unless you want to argue that He ought not have created at all. Then you would be arguing for your own non-existence being better than your existence.
GCT “That's the point that I've been making. Your theology does not make sense because it is inherently contradictory. Even if such an omni-max god does exist, none of these things would follow or even could follow, because they are contradictory to the idea of an omni-max god.”
If we went over these things you see as contradictions with great thoroughness and if it were possible for me to help bring clarity to the point you see it all making sense, do you think you would be interested enough to reconsider your atheism?
"That’s meaningless. There is, then, no quality and purpose in goodness."
Rubbish. If it's meaningless, then so is math and science, yet math and science have allowed us to go to the moon, develop medicine, develop technology like the computer you are using and the internet, etc.
"Please what do you mean when you say absolute morality? I think we need to define our terms."
Moral for all times/cultures/situations is one simplistic definition.
"You’ve stated murder to be wrong. Is it always wrong?"
I don't know. I think so, as it's part of the definition, but I don't know that absolute morals exist.
"You state it as being objective, but is it not an absolute statement more so than an objective one if it is created by humans to be a rule rather than discovered by humans to be a rule?"
No, I state that it can be objective. There's a difference, and you not getting that difference is part of the problem. As for created vs. discovered, which are you claiming is which?
"Because God is the eternal great being that is able to be perfectly good."
What does that matter? According to you, we can not make objective laws unless they come from an external source. god, therefore, can not make objective moral laws for himself without taking them from an external source to god. Else, it is special pleading.
"He isn’t limited by outside externals, if He needed to be, He wouldn’t be God."
Who said anything about "limited by outside externals," and what does that even mean? I know what you mean by it, but I have no idea how it fits into the discussion at hand (answer: it doesn't).
"Nor is a “good” external to God and to man just hovering in the abstract cosmos have any meaning or realness attached to it."
You are contradicting yourself and not making sense. First you wish to contend that "goodness" exists as a thing, and now you are claiming that it doesn't? Make up your mind.
"We have two choices, the good is created by human feeling and reason and is subjective as Cyber argues, or it exist outside of us and is discovered by us and revealed to us."
Not only are you once again relying on a false dichotomy, but it's not even right! "Good" isn't created by human feeling even according to CK. "Good" is a concept we use to describe the world around us.
"If it exists outside of us, that means a Being, a Mind, a Personality is required to be the giver of that good, a giver of those morals that reflect what is good."
That's a non-sequitor. There is no logical necessity for some being to give us "good" even if good is an absolute.
"You can deny such a morality exists, but it seems illogical to accept objective morality, but deny its source."
Only because you don't understand the terms or the logic.
"No, He hasn’t made us to abhor evil. We abhor evil because we were designed good for a good world by a good God."
Make up your mind, will ya?
"We were also giving freedom; true freedom means you can do the wrong thing or the right thing. If you choose the right thing, you choose freely, if you do the wrong thing you freely choose that."
Yet, you are also claiming that god has put tendencies in our heads to be moral, so that's not true freedom as you define it.
"I think I explained that above."
Only if you consider making contradictory claims to be an explanation. I don't.
"Yes you can make natural explanations of it through science if you want to, but if you put both answers side by side and really look at the ramifications of both and the fullness of them you may see that one picture seems more right than the other even though the other can be reasonably argued for as well."
Occam's Razor would side with me.
"Yes, every “thing” comes from God. God created every “thing”. Evil is not a thing."
Then, good is not a thing either. I'm sorry that you can't create an idea that is consistent, but you'll have to make up your mind at some point.
Regardless, anything that happens, etc. has to be from god else god is not omni-max.
"God didn’t create evil, unless you want to argue that He ought not have created at all."
False dichotomy, or are you going to contend that heaven does not exist?
"If we went over these things you see as contradictions with great thoroughness and if it were possible for me to help bring clarity to the point you see it all making sense, do you think you would be interested enough to reconsider your atheism?"
I have always maintained that if one can provide evidence for god that I would abandon my atheism.
Post a Comment