Yeah. Even if morality is absolute and fixed, some [del]moistened bint[/del] supernatural being proclaiming their opinion of morality doesn’t change the underlying morality any moreso than if you or I were to do it.
(Bear in mind here that I’m totally an atheist, and am mainly arguing just for the sake of argument…) I think there’s a big difference between
(1) a supernatural being who just shows up one day, demonstrates its supernatural powers, and then say "oh, and here are some rules of morality that you should follow: ", and then lists some new commandments, and expects us to follow them. (Granted, maybe we ought to follow them just because now we’re actually quite sure there’s a powerful supernatural being watching us who might smite us, but there’s no reason to actually view those rules as moral or ethical)
and
(2) a supernatural being who shows up one day and demonstrates repeatedly through its acts that its conception of moral and ethical match, and even exceed, our own. So it demonstrates and proves some level of godlike goodness, and then once it has done so it says “ok, here’s another rule, one that I realize will seem weird and arbitrary to you, but I guarantee it will make people happier overall, you’re gonna have to trust me on this one…” or something like that.
“… that homosexuality is inherently immoral”
“… that it is moral to commit genocide against those who refuse to sign on to my program”
“… that it is moral for you to kill your son on my otherwise pointless request just to show how far you’re willing to go to obey me”
How far are you going to trust him on this one?
My point is that no matter how good this dude’s track record is, at some point you’re going to use your own judgment, and you should.
We might have to agree to disagree on this one. I think we both understand each other’s position. I think that having sufficiently advanced intelligence or foresight might actually change moral calculations. For example, sufficient knowledge of future events would reasonably have a major affect. We can only reason about the outcome of future actions probabilistically (and our gut feelings do a very poor job of that). Someone who could reason with much greater predictive power would almost certainly have a very different concept of morality. Their actions might even appear capricious or crazy to us because we can’t comprehend the timescale or knowledge on which they base moral decisions.
No. My mention of power as a difference between humans and dogs (and some hypoethetical powerful being and humans) was not intended to imply that a more powerful being was more moral. It was simply pointing out that we would be controlled by this being just as we control dogs. Dogs don’t have to agree that our method of doing things is superior. It doesn’t matter what they think of our motives because we can make them do what we want anyway and destroy the ones that don’t.
I just don’t think it’s possible to reach a valid conclusion when reasoning about the motives of a much more capable and powerful being. We’d be like the dog who decides that its owner is an arbitrary sadist because he insists on its not crapping on the rug. It’s not cowardice to recognize that our ability to understand others’ actions is limited. Hell, we’re only so-so at figuring out why other people do the things they do, and what a good set of rules for moral behavior is within our own species. And the ability to reason about other humans’ motives has been subject to powerful evolutionary pressure.
I’m not sure what we accept from a god. I think for practical purposes, we accept whatever’s requested within the bounds of what we can do. I agree that a powerful being demanding that we think or feel a certain way about it seems sort of silly, since we can’t consciously change the way we think or feel. That seems like a pretty good argument against many traditional concepts of gods desiring worship. On the one hand, a powerful being that cares what we think about it sounds pretty silly. On the other hand, people often seem to care what their pets think of them. Either way, given evidence of a powerful being that cared what I thought of it, I’d try to keep an open mind.
Until what point?
Again, this discussion is going nowhere, because everyone is refusing to define exactly what kind of god we’re talking about here. What are this god’s characteristics? What are its abilities? What will it ask of us, exactly? How will it run things?
We have to know these things or else the whole exercise is meaningless. We have to have specificity.
Without any of that, given the presence of a superpowered entity, we have nothing but a superpowered entity. What are the believers asking that we make of this superpowered entity?
I’ve been thinking about this and just couldn’t come up with anything that would sway me until I came across this:http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/certificate1.jpg?w=500&h=388
It’s the obviously authentic Chuck Norris signature that tipped the scales.
There have been numerous attempts, on this board and elsewhere, to nail that particular piece of Jell-O to the wall. All so far have been spectacularly unsuccessful.
Bearing in mind that we’re talking about an extreme hypothetical (an active and clearly-existing God who has been actively and visibly involved in guiding the world, and whose advice has consistently proven to lead to great happiness) I guess it depends. But I think that in such a ridiculous extreme it would be pretty bizarre for me to say “wait, I shouldn’t wear hats? Why not? You’d better explain it to me or I won’t obey you despite the fact that every other one of your commandments has clearly and self-evidently improved the quality of life for the citizens of earth”. I’m not saying that you should abandon your own judgment, but I’m also saying that putting a LOT of trust in such a God would clearly be the smart thing to do.
As far as I could?
I don’t think you need to define those things exactly to have a reasonable discussion. Obviously, you do have to in order to come to any conclusion about real claims of gods. But I’m not advocating for the belief in any particular deity (or any at all. I’m an atheist). I’m just saying that it’s silly to quibble over whether a being is really a “god” or just a powerful non-god being. If the premise is that some apparently magical powerful being shows up and says do X, or else Y, then really, all you have to do is weigh whether you’d rather have X or Y, and whether you even can do X. It’s like another fundamental law of the universe has just been discovered. X or Y. You don’t have to like it. You don’t have to understand the reason for it. You just have to believe that the being can make Y happen, and that it will if you don’t do X.
If the powerful being says worship it or else burn forever, I’ll give that worship thing a shot. If the powerful being says I should teleport around instead of walking, and to stop emitting so much annoying electromagnetic radiation, well, I hope option Y isn’t too bad.
Even if you have managed to curse yourself with The Great Impending Emptiness (not that you necessarily have, mind you), you will still be hearing the solumn (and catchy) hymn of the Wee God Thusa whenever you shower. Unless you decide to bathe instead. Or use a hose. To Thusa’s mind, dousings from a cold hose don’t count.
And Thusa doesn’t care what else you do. He’ll do you one little favor if you throw him a little acknowledgement. Other gods may proclaim about Good and Evil and Sin. Thusa concentrates on toilet paper. Maybe if you’re reeeeeeally grateful, he’ll be sure it never rips in that unfortunate way.
People have tried to find a way to achieve a prohibition on children and pets unrolling it into a big pile on the floor, but Thusa apparently doesn’t get the need to avoid that. If it’s there, even on the floor, It is satisfied.
Like Thusa would notice. It’s on to the next invitation in the god game.
You’re still stuck with the Holy Earworm.
Regrowth of an amputee’s missing limb. Or the return of my beloved parakeet, Scout.
Sure as hell I’d hum along. Here are my steps:
- Hum along.
- In the middle of the night, in a hotel room in a strange city, get up, go to the bathroom, lock the door, take all the toilet paper, go out, lock the door behind me, put the toilet paper out on the balcony.
- Hum along.
- Check the bathroom.
If there’s toilet paper in the bathroom at that point, I’m a believer.
That said, I’ve been thinking about the problem of evil, and may be a bit like the Monty Hall 3-doors problem. Which is to say, when I initially encountered that problem, the solution seemed very clear: it didn’t matter whether I stuck with the original door or switched to the new one. It took some people who are better at math than me to convince me that what I was certain was correct was actually incorrect.
The problem of evil seems insurmountable to me: it seems very clear to me that an omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity couldn’t be in charge of this universe. HOWEVER, I’m certainly open to being convinced of my error by an entity better at moral reasoning than I am.
That’s not to say that, because I could be wrong, I can’t judge “God”. I’ve got to go by my best guesses, and given that there’s nothing I’ve encountered that rules out the possibility of an asshole God who’s just messing with us for his own pleasure, that’s my second-best guess right now (the best guess of course being God’s nonexistence). If I learn of a God, I’ll give it a chance to convince me that the problem of evil is’nt a real problem, but I start in the position of thinking it’s a real problem.
If an atheist told a believer, “Tell your God to do X, then I’ll believe,” I suppose the response would be, “God doesn’t have to prove His existence. The true faithful believe without proof.”
If he wants to distinguish himself as real, as opposed to the thousands or millions of other gods people have believed in over the millenia, then yes, he really does have to prove his existence.