Re: Is there a god?

On Sep 24, 9:03 pm, micha...@xxxxxxxxxx (michaeld) wrote:
DianelosGeorgoudis wrote:
[snip]

The is/ought problem only exists within a naturalistic understanding
of reality. Within a theistic understanding the fundamental aspect of
reality (i.e. what at bottom exists) is not mechanical but personal
and hence must be described in personal/psychological terms. Now
observe how our sense of morality is a basic part of our own personal/
psychological make-up. So within a theistic understanding of reality
the "ought" forms part of the "is".

Both naturalists and theistic idealists generally agree, I think, that our
sense of morality is a basic part of our personal/psychological make-up.
The "problem" is not how to justify that but how to justify the derivation
of "I should do X" from that sense of morality we possess (or from
anything else for that matter).

If this is a problem at all, it seems to me the theistic idealist is
really in no better position to solve it than the naturalist is.

It's a little like trying to reach the peak of a mountain in dense fog
[1]; one kind of senses which way brings one higher. I tried to
explain this in a post in this thread, see:
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.religion.christian/msg/a84463fdbcf5d9d3

[1] To be pedantic, assume that the mountain's topography is
positively curved at all points.
[snip]

No we are not "obliged" in any external sense; it's just that it
doesn't make any sense to go against how we are. You see, there isn't
such a thing as freedom not to be what one in fact is. After all, what
is is :-)

And yet there is such a thing as freedom to make wrong moral choices. So
making the wrong moral choice can't strictly be a violation of one's
nature - because, like you say, to violate one's own nature is a logical
impossibility.

Our nature is to ultimately become perfect as God in heaven is. But to
violate this nature is in no way impossible; we do this every day of
our lives.

There isn't such a thing as freedom to change the
fundamentals of reality and make "becoming worse persons" better than
"becoming better persons". If you like, there is no freedom to
construct hell and make ourselves like it there - that would be kind
of pointless, don't you agree?

I fear you may be equivocating on "better" here (and elsewhere). The word
"better" might be taken to mean either "more like God" or "as we should
aspire to more", but you can't just equate these two meanings without
justifying that they are the same thing. And justifying that they are the
same thing is, essentially, the entire point.

I am not sure I am trying to justify something here. I am just
describing how reality is, in my view. And reality is such that it is
in our nature, in the purpose of our being, it is the very joy and
meaning of our life - to become closer to God. In other words in the
context of my understanding of reality "what we should aspire" and "to
become more like God" mean the same thing. Does this make sense to
you? If not, please let me know for I would like to understand what
problems you see in this from within the context of theism.

So, what if one rebels against having been created for that
purpose? What if one says: "Thanks very much but you know I don't want
to realize that for which I was created." Well, one has the freedom to
do that, and indeed we all kind of make that choice every day of our
lives. On the other hand to go against one's own nature is ultimately
disagreeable and literally self-defeating,

Disagreeable meaning imprudent? Or what?

Disagreeable meaning painful. Please do not understand this as some
kind of punishment, but as a logical consequence. If it is the case
that becoming better persons is a joyful experience then becoming
worse persons entails failing to experience that joy, and this is
painful. Maybe it's not the "roasted over fire" kind of pain but
rather the "emptiness inside" kind of pain, but it's a disagreeable
experience nonetheless.

So ultimately one should be moral, in part, because being such is joyful
and the alternative is painful.

If self-interest is a valid basis for ethics - which I have no problem
with btw - then how is the naturalist in any worse a position than the
theist, as far as the foundation of morality is concerned?

I think the naturalist is a worse position on two levels: On the
conceptual level naturalism contradicts some of the deepest intuitions
we (or at least many of us) have, namely moral realism. Further it
does not offer any grounds on which to build an ethical theory,
except, incoherently enough, on our moral intuitions. On the practical
level, which I judge to represent the by far more serious problem,
naturalism fails to offer any logical path away from evil.

(I'm talking about enlightened self-interest of course - not the
short-termist, solipsistic notion of "self-interest" or "selfishness" you
often hear.)

Of course enlightened self-interest is the valid basis for ethics.
Actually it seems to me that it is a psychological impossibility to do
something against what one thinks is best for one (the question of
course is to know what is best for one). And it should be obvious that
a perfectly good creator would not require of us to do what is not in
fact good for us. And if any Christians are reading this the same is
quite explicitly stated in the Gospels, see for example Mark 8:36, or
Matthew 6:19-21.
[snip]

Let's get back to the big picture. Imagine that God, perfect in all
respects, does exist. If, for some reason it were incoherent for God
to create persons identical to Him/Her in perfection, don't you agree
that God would at least create persons in His/Her image, and hence
capable (and ultimately destined) to become as perfect as S/He is?

I agree that that's plausible at least. I'm not sure how that relates to
the discussion though.

It explains how come morality is objective in a theistic reality. It
explains how in a theistic reality you can derive an "ought" from an
"is" because in fact the "ought" forms part of the "is".

Not to mince words then to resist the purpose of our own
creation is radically stupid.

Well, I can't agree with you there. I wouldn't look down on members of a
tribe bred for the purpose of going to war, if they decide to resist their
intended purpose and become pacifists instead. (Of course I appreciate
it's possible for you, as a theist, to agree with me on that but deny that
going to war really is their purpose, on the grounds that the purpose of
their ultimate designer, God, supersedes the objectives of anyone else.)

Yes, exactly. And indeed your point is a very good one: We should not
follow the purposes that society tries to impose on us, but the
purpose we find kind of written in the structure of how we are.

In my example, the warring purpose of this tribe might be not just an
external expectation but could very well also be written into their
nature. For example they could have been selectively bred, or even
genetically engineered, to be ruthless killers, to hate and want to kill
everyone of a different colour, etc. It would be extremely difficult for
such people to resist their inbuilt tendencies, but if any managed it,
through sufficient self-enlightenment, I would hardly regard that as
immoral or stupid.

Right. But the way I think reality is has nothing to do with the
picture you paint above.

Indeed
I never understood why humanism is considered to oppose theism. As far
as I am concerned theism and its belief that we are made in God's
image implies humanism.

Good. I certainly think that theists and atheists alike should feel
honoured when certain Calvinists condemn us as being "humanists".http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxZKJSNVgqM

Agreed.

Indeed what an awful awful sermon that speaker gives. No wonder there
are so many atheists; when I listen to such talk I really feel like
becoming an atheist myself. Actually let me clarify this: God as
described by that speaker is very far away from St. Anselm's
definition of God as the person greater than whom we cannot conceive,
and I am indeed an atheist as far as any such God-concepts is
concerned.

Similarly I don't consider it stupid when we resist what appears to be our
purpose from an evolutionary perspective. (Same disclaimer applies.)

Right. And I find it misguided when some naturalists try to define
morality contingent on Darwinian evolution, for this obviously does
not work. Thinking from the evolutionary perspective would in many
contexts move us to behave very immorally indeed.

I think some naturalists confuse the question "what is the foundation of
ethics?" with "how can systems of morality have ever arisen in humanity?",
and proceed to give a Darwinian answer to the latter when they're actually
asked the former.

But some theists make a slightly different error. I think there's a deeply
ingrained belief running across much of theism that 1. purpose, value and
morality are intrinsic and absolute and 2. they are necessarily derived
from the nature of our being and, especially, our origins. Even though 1.
and especially 2. are completely alien ideas to many atheists, including
me, some theists nonetheless apply 1. and 2. to us godless evolutionists
and conclude that our beliefs imply we ought to hold some ridiculous
social-Darwinian system of objectives, values and ethics - or perhaps be
nihilists.

Well, I think I agree with 1. and 2. and also believe that they apply
to all persons, including atheists. Indeed I think that as a matter of
fact most atheists' ethical beliefs is founded in their human nature
(which for me has a spiritual origin). And I do agree that you can't
build a theory of ethics on Darwinian principles. Having said that it
also seems to me that a naturalistic ontology when rigorously applied
implies moral nihilism. If as a matter of fact so many naturalists are
good people it is so because they put more importance on how they feel
inside than on what their ontology at face value implies. Some
atheists are already trying to transcend naturalism and assert the
existence of some kind of spiritual dimension of reality - without of
course grounding that spiritual reality on God.

I cannot conceive that even one human
person will choose to rebel for ever against what is really oneself.
Why not? Because human stupidity and stubbornness are limited
quantities, whereas God's love and time are limitless.

Well I can honestly say that I sincerely hope you are correct (though I
don't think you are) - which I certainly can't say for the vast majority
of theists. :)

Don't worry about what the majority says. Here's the real deal: If God
exists then all reality should be utterly perfect. So a good exercise
for people of all ontological stripes (theists and atheists alike) is
this: Try to conceive not only the greatest possible person, but also
the kind of reality that such a person would create.

The problem is that people's ideas of what perfection is seem to be very
different. People who believe in, say, eternal hell do generally appear to
genuinely think that this is compatible with God's perfection, as
ridiculous as this idea seems to you and me.

Ah, but what interests me in our discussion is what you think about
this matter.

And then see
whether that reality 1) is compatible with our condition, and 2)
explains our condition [1].

Just FWIW, I'm quite sympathetic with your preferred Irenaean theodicy as
far as 1) goes - but much less so on 2) (especially in any sense that
would actually give your worldview an edge over a godless worldview).

I hope to be able to defend both 1 and 2 in the near future when I
post a description of my ontological beliefs.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: VT massacre, Creationists, apology?
    ... theists, ... I am making a claim about reality, ... no evidence that their real meanings are true is dishonest. ... dead, there is no good reason to believe that jesus rose from the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: CERN
    ... accomodate a switch to a model which better reflects reality without ... any evidence that theists find these any less plausible now than they ... people's opinions about theism". ... based on empirical evidence has ...
    (uk.philosophy.atheism)
  • Re: VT massacre, Creationists, apology?
    ... theists, ... I am making a claim about reality, ... any real evidence that relates to my belief. ... dead, there is no good reason to believe that jesus rose from the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: VT massacre, Creationists, apology?
    ... theists pick and choose which parts of science to ignore ... a claim that a god exists. ... claims about how reality in fact works. ... from the dead,* and that upon our deaths, we will either go to eternal ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Query
    ... laws of physics in our local realm of reality. ... Suppose some intelligent creature purporting to be a genuine vampire ... Now perhaps being methodological naturalists, ... And on and on the evidence piles up, ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
Loading