By the way, Half Man Half Wit, note that in writing the program, you are establishing the essence of what everything will be before the program is executed. It is analogous to essence preceding existence (which we discussed at great length in Part III.)
But isn’t edification, too, a matter of opinion? I don’t mean whether someone actually has been edificated is a matter of opinion (I believe you’re considering edification as an objective label), but rather that in order to edificate a person’s opinions must be taken into account. I mean, offering to pray for someone might be edifying for some recipients, but the opposite for others, because of the view they have on prayer (or the offerer). So when we’re talking about these things, are we taking those opinions into account, or are we going by a sole authority?
I mean, to give an out there example, a serial killer might be edified by being told he’s doing a good job. Would such a thing be valued by God simply by being edification, or does God’s opinion on what should be edifying apply to everyone, in which case it may not be?
One of your arguments has been that God has created us so as to convey goodnes, that being what he values. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to say, then, that God does judge us, in that he judges us as worthwhile colleagues in increasing value?
I wouldn’t call them “opinions”, but I essentially agree with you. I would call them “viewpoints” or some similar term. If I pray for you, and you are not receptive to prayer, then there has been no edification. That’s one reason I’m very careful in the death and sickness threads to mention God or prayer only if I know for a certainty (or really, only if it seems obvious) that the person is receptive to that. Otherwise, I offer only condolences or something similar.
Edification, in the sense I’m using the term, occurs only when both agents have been edified. I believe I’ve said this before, but I’ve written so much that I can understand how it could have been missed.
God is, of course, the moral standard. I don’t think a serial killer would be edified by being told that he’s doing a good job, but I do believe he would be edified by being stopped. Moral depravity is not aesthetically pleasing to God. However, certain other things (in the serial killer case) are: like contrition, regret, a change of viewpoint and habit. The serial killer is obstructing love. The only way to edify him is to love him. (Please keep in mind how I define love.) It’s all over John the Beloved’s writings. Here is but one example.
"My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you."John 15:12
Thanks for the opportunity to clear that up. God does not make moral judgments; He does, however, make aesthetical judgments, just like all other free moral agents.
Now, the question might arise, "Why do you call them ‘free moral agents’ when the judgments they are making are aesthetical in nature? Why don’t you call them ‘free aesthetic agents’?
And the answer is that free moral will — using “will” in the classic philosophical sense — allows moral agents to decide for themselves what is good and what is bad. Were they not free to make these decisions for themselves, then their aesthetical decisions would not be volitional. That is to say, free moral agency is necessary for making aesthetical judgments. Why? Because if your morality were somehow programmed into you, and you could not decide what is good and what is bad, then your aesthetical judgments would not be volitional. It is almost analogous to the reason why socialism as an economic scheme is impossible to implement, as proven by Nobel Laureat F. A. von Hayek. If someone else makes your moral decisions for you, then your aesthetical judgments are his, not yours.
“Viewpoints” is a better term, i’d agree. I would think that considering others when making a decision as to how to interact would count as edification of the initiator, so your approach makes sense to me.
But are edification and that which holds aesthetic value to God intrinsically linked? It seems to me like you’re saying here that the serial killer would not be edified because his moral depravity is not aesthetically pleasing to God; that’s the issue i’d like to know more on, if I may. Is what can edify us reliant upon God’s viewpoint? Could someone be edified by an act that God does not find pleasing?
It seems to me that there are possible problems either way. Wouldn’t it be fair to say that, contrition and regret themselves being painful and unpleasant, and likely to lose the killer some love for himself and his actions, that convincing him he is wrong is, in part, also obstructing love? And that the same is true the other way around - telling him he’s doing a good job obviously obstructs love through the deaths of those he kills, but it increases his love for himself and his work? I’m lacking the insight into why the two ways of loving him are different enough that one is edification and the other isn’t.
I think i’m missing a piece of the chain. God makes aesthetical judgements, but that alone is no reason to prefer that which is valuable over that which is not valuable. What is the grounds for God preferring the valuable to the non-valuable, if not a moral judgement?
Actually, I would like “worship” and “Spirit” defined… if worship is the way we contact Spirit, and Jesus is Spirit, they seem important items to clarify (and it might help me understand how essence is identified).
What is the difference between “metaphysical existence” and essence?
Good. Then that means that we have a mutual understanding of terms and concepts. Obviously, there are just a few things to clear up as your post progresses.
Intrinsicaly linked? I don’t know. But what God values aesthetically above all else is goodness, and so goodness is in that sense linked to God, but “intrinsically linked”. I don’t think so. I suppose it is possible to apply the philosophical principle of transitivity, which would link “edification” and “what God values”. The only tricky term is “intrinsically”. It is important to understand that God CHOOSES to value goodness. It is not something that He is compelled to choose. And so, there is no “intrinsic” goodness to God per se. It’s just that goodness is, so to speak, His favorite thing. That attraction to goodness is a part of His essence. And so, I guess you could use “intrinsic” in that sense. It’s just that one must take great care to be precise about it.
An excellent question (by implication). And an important one. And the answer is that God is unconcerned with the serial killer’s moral depravity. He (God) is in fact unconcerned in general with the morality of the serial killer (as we have defined morality). God does not judge the serial killer’s morality or moral code. Neither does His Son, Jesus. Both of these, I’ve already documented from the Beloved’s writings. Note that the statement was very specific. God (and that’s speaking only of God) is not pleased with moral depravity of any kind, which is quite natural since God Himself is morally perfect. It is similar to how a pianist like Yang Yang would not be pleased with a viewpoint that music sucks, or with an internal code that sought the destruction of music. Of course, Yang Yang is not perfect, but you get the idea. Analogies are never perfect. That’s why it’s called “analogies” and not “logic”.
Note that I never said anything about an act of any kind.
(And I do realize how all this can seem to imply every manner of thing, but I really am trying to be precise, and am attempting to the best of my ability NOT to make any implications. They are reserved for the debate thread, where I will lay out my belief system as an informal deductive theosophy.)
God is not concerned with actions. Rather, he is concerned with what people value. Yes, I realize that actions can take place as a result of what people value. But that is a completely different matter. Recall that early on (in the Morality thread, I believe), it was pointed out that there are nearly infinitely many ways that a person can act out his morality and his aesthetical decisions. He can edify another free moral agent in as many ways as the universe will all if he values X.
Here is what I’m saying about that: Valuing X does not necessarily result in action Y. And conversely, action Y does not necessarily imply a positive evaluation of X.
We really cannot discern from what actions people take, what it is they value. It is not a linear construct. But to answer your question directly: yes, it is possible that a person could be edified by an action which is a result of a moral code that opposes the moral code of God. Remember that sin is not that which opposes morality. It is that which opposes love.
No. To use a rather weird analogy, we could say that contrition is a cleansing process, and regret is a rinsing process. What remains is a clean man. Now, in that way, it is very much like the child who needs a bath but doesn’t want to be given one. The good parent will not say to the child, “Oh, okay. Well, you can just be filthy then.” Rather, the good parent will say to the child, “Get your ass in the tub, or I’ll put it in there for you.”
Of course, analogies can take us only so far. And there are always holes in them. (Again, that’s why it’s called analogical and not logical.) But God has determined that forgiveness heals. It heals both the person who forgives and the person who is forgiven. When my wife and I argue, and it gets out of hand, the enmity can be ended simply by taking her lovingly in my arms and asking her forgiveness. It is simply a fact of metaphysical nature that humility results in a lifting up, while pride (of an unhealthy sort, which I’ll define if needed) results in a humiliation. God lifts up those who humble themselves to Him, and He puts those who approach him with snobbery and conceit in their place. (Conceit is what I meant by an unhealthy pride.)
In that sense, He does nothing that you and I don’t do. When a poster responds to us with humility, and says something like, “I realize this question must seem stupid to you, but…”, it is only natural that you (who values the feelings of other people) would begin your response with something like “Oh, no. That’s actually a very good question.” Let us set aside the fact that most (if not all) questions are good questions. You will react differently if a poster approaches you with arrogance and conceit. “Your argument is stupid. There’s no way…” Your response to him (if you bother to respond) will include some kind of attempt to put him in his place, because he is approaching you as though he is better than you, smarter than you.
God behaves in much the same way. (Don’t miss the “much”!) When the serial killer is contrite, God lifts him up. When he comes to regret his choices, God forgives him. God does not hold a grudge. If you think about it, a god who holds grudges would oppose its own scheme of growth. A null aesthetic that can be restored is a wonderful thing.
Now, to be clear, it depends on who is the person the serial killer is being contrite toward: the cop, the defense lawyer, the judge, a TV interviewer. I suppose it’s the case that contrition could be spoken of positively in those circumstances. But when I spoke about contrition and regret, I was talking about contrition toward God, and regret expressed toward Him
Yes, that’s right. The obstruction of love interferes with God’s growth. The only agent edified in that scenario is the serial killer, I suppose by the increase in his self-esteem. But the people that he murdered were not edified (other than in the sense that their spirit was released from its physical prison, but the timing and circumstance of that is not for the serial killer to decide.)
I honestly don’t think you’re missing anything. What you’re doing is adding stuff. Love is not always the cuddly, nurturing “Oh, you poor dear. You suffered so in your childhood.” Love might be the righting of a wrong, or more to the point of what we’ve discussed — love might be the stern, angry, “Stop doing that! It is harming you!”
Every parent will know what that means. But for those who are not parents, perhaps you have friends whom you would protect against themselves. Maybe one of the them is too drunk or high to drive, and you fight him for his keys. You are doing the same thing a parent does for his child. Or at least, something very similar.
Well, I’ve already said that it is the moral judgment that leads to the aesthetical judgment. Somewhere (probably in the morality thread) I spelled out the sequence. But I will do so again here, and in more detail. And I’ll do it narratively, rather than as a list. Let’s use Mr. Smith as our primary agent and Mr. Jones as our secondary agent (i.e., it is Mr. Smith’s decisions that we are examining, and we are pretending to be omniscient):
[ul]
[li]First, Mr. Smith encounters Mr. Jones.[/li][li]Second, Mr. Smith makes an aesthetical decision: how much does he value Mr. Jones?[/li][li]Third, this aesthetical decision is drawn from Mr. Smith’s moral code.[/li][li]Fourth, his metaphysical decision (meaning, his aesthetical decision) is communicated to his brain by some means as yet unknown, except for the very promising work of neuro-scientists who are finding unmistakable links between man’s limbic system as his spirituality.[/li][li]Fifth, Mr. Smith’s brain makes a decision on how to respond to this aesthetical decision. (It is important to remember that the aesthetical decision can be that Mr. Jones has no value, and yet Mr. Smith does nothing, other than walk by him. It is not necessary that Mr. Smith murder everyone he holds to be worthless.)[/li][/ul]
Great. And you’re absolutely right. We should formally define both those terms and others, and I will give my definitions here:
Spirit: a metaphysical presence
Presence: a state of existence characterized by ubiety and effect
(Note: The next terms is one of those terms that carries multiple meanings depending on its context. This definition will not too obviously derive from the definition given above to “metaphysics”)
Metaphysical: outside, above, beyond, or over that which is physical
Worship: listening quietly for the voice of God
Now, let me explain a couple of those definitions. A presence may be analogous to a quantum particle. The question, scientifically, is whether there actually IS a quantum particle. That is, there is controversy in the scientific community (and has been since the earliest days) over whether particles actually exist or are simply mathematical constructs. (Much like 72 degrees is not a real thing: it is just a mathematical construct of temperature.)
I’m going to go ahead and bypass the premature debate that the above statement might cause by comparing my definition of presence to something else. So, even if you are firmly on the side of particles being real or firmly on the side that they are not, it doesn’t matter for the purpose of understanding my philosophy. Rather than comparing presence to a particle, you can compare it to a string. String theory holds (and yes, I know there are many varieties and competing models, as well as models that compliment other models) that there are dimensions (the number varies in accordance with the model) that we are unable to detect with our senses. They may be tiny. (And I mean tiny, as in tiny compared to a proton.) Or thin. Thinner than a neutron. In any case, the all are invisible, bu they all are a part of the universe.
And so, that’s where the analogy to a string might break down. (As all analogies break down at some point.) Except that a string need not be a part of the universe. In fact, the assumption that any of the dimensions in string theory are a part of the universe is an unfounded one. If they are a part of the universe, then there ought to be some scientific way to falsify their existence. But there is not.
I’ll even go beyond that, since even String Theory can sometimes be controversial and open to debate. “My version of string theory is right, and yours is wrong,” one poster might say. And the other might respond. “Nonsense. You lack sufficient dimensions to account for your variable, ‘y’.” I’ll compare presence to something simple and, I think, uncontroversial.
Presence can be compared to locality. Something is where something is. And for the metaphysical — here comes the controversial part, since there are no physical bounds (see above definition of metaphysical), the Spirit’s presence is everywhere at all times. (We cannot separate space from time.) It (spirit) is bound by no physical law or limitation. It interacts with our perception of reality (three or four dimensions, depending on your viewpoint — i.e., whether time is a dimension of the universe, like length, width, and depth. Who knows. Whatever) It does this through our brains. It is the point at which spiritual experience meets sensory object. There has to be some such point, and it should be no big surprise that the brain is it.
Essence is what something is intended to be before it exists. For example, let’s say you’re a programmer. Even amateur or whatever. Let’s just say. And you decide to write a scheduling program. The essence of what you are about to unleash on the world is a scheduling program. Then you write it, and then you launch it, and then it runs. That order is important, because what the program was to be (Aristotle, remember) preceded the existence of the program itself. No one (discounting weirdos and such) writes a bunch of code and then decides what it is. There must first be an idea before there can be code written. (That’s not to say that people can’t just write random code and call it “art” or something. There’s always a semantic way around a statement) But essence helps identify things as well. And they can be things that don’t exist. Like unicorns and leprechauns. So essence does not compel existence. But whatever exists first had (or was) an essence.
Metaphysical existence just means existence outside, above, beyond, or over that which is physical. The whole notion of metaphysical existence is highly controversial, especially here on this board. And I anticipate that it will figure heavily in the debate. I’m just hoping it’s done in a civil and respectful way. I hope to see something like, “I do not believe that anything exists outside the universe,” and not something like “Metaphysical existence is just a crazy notion.” Because the former is the expression of a belief or opinion; whereas the second is nothing more than a gratuitous (and rude) assertion. I’m hoping we’ll have one of the best debates in the history of the board. From what I’ve seen so far in these witnessing threads, I’m optimistic.
Errors:
========================================
He can edify another free moral agent in as many ways as the universe will all if he values X.
should read
He can edify another free moral agent in as many ways as the universe will allow if he values X.
========================================
(Note: The next terms is one of those terms that carries multiple meanings depending on its context. This definition will not too obviously derive from the definition given above to “metaphysics”)
should read
(Note: The next term is one of those terms that carries multiple meanings, depending on its context. This definition will not derive too obviously from the definition given above to “metaphysics”)
========================================
They may be tiny. (And I mean tiny, as in tiny compared to a proton.) Or thin. Thinner than a neutron. In any case, the all are invisible, bu they all are a part of the universe.
should read
They may be tiny. (And I mean tiny, as in tiny compared to a proton.) Or thin. Thinner than a neutron. In any case, they all are invisible, but they all are a part of the universe.
========================================
Presence can be compared to locality. Something is where something is. And for the metaphysical — here comes the controversial part, since there are no physical bounds (see above definition of metaphysical), the Spirit’s presence is everywhere at all times.
should be punctuated as
Presence can be compared to locality. Something is where something is. And for the metaphysical — here comes the controversial part — since there are no physical bounds (see above definition of metaphysical), the Spirit’s presence is everywhere at all times.
========================================
(That’s not to say that people can’t just write random code and call it “art” or something. There’s always a semantic way around a statement)
should be punctuated as
(That’s not to say that people can’t just write random code and call it “art” or something. There’s always a semantic way around a statement.)
========================================
I apologize for confusion caused by these errors.
One more errror. Sorry.
========================================
Fourth, his metaphysical decision (meaning, his aesthetical decision) is communicated to his brain by some means as yet unknown, except for the very promising work of neuro-scientists who are finding unmistakable links between man’s limbic system as his spirituality.
should read
Fourth, his metaphysical decision (meaning, his aesthetical decision) is communicated to his brain by some means as yet unknown, except for the very promising work of neuro-scientists who are finding unmistakable links between man’s limbic system and his spirituality.
Hmm, I don’t think anybody holds the view that string theory’s extra dimensions are not part of the universe in some way; I’m not even sure what that might mean. And the presence (or absence) of these extra dimensions is accessible to scientific inquiry: if they exist, gravity would be stronger on small scales (think around Planck length) than currently accepted models predict it to be; we can’t yet test that, lacking the means to achieve the energy density necessary to probe those scales, but if accelerator technology continues to develop at its present rate (or if we find a way to reliably make observations of naturally occurring high energy events), it’s only a matter of time. And if the extra dimensions are sufficiently large, there might even be observations that can be made at the LHC to provide evidence for their existence – the creation (and near immediate evaporation) of microscopic black holes would point towards something like that, for instance (conversely, I think that if there are large extra dimensions, there’d pretty much have to be MBH generation; so I think a failure to find them would amount to a falsification of that theory at least in its current form).
Just a small nitpick, I know, but you seemed to imply that there exists a certain element of dualism (or something analogous to it) present in string theory, but, at least to my knowledge, there isn’t – in fact, the way I see it, physics comes down pretty strongly on the materialist side of things, mainly because there doesn’t seem to be any way to provide an ‘interface’ between the metaphysical and the physical.
I do appreciate your pointing that out, despite that it puts a toe close to the line of debate. (Although I know you meant it for information purposes only.) Your participation has been valuable.
If you read carefully — well, frankly, if you read casually — you’ll see that after my comment on string theory. I broke paragraphs, which indicates that a topic break has occurred. And I began the new paragraph with this:
And so, that’s where the analogy to a string might break down. (As all analogies break down at some point.) …thereby acknowledging that the analogy was imperfect. I then proceeded to offer my own reasoning that falsification of some string theory propositions is not possible. (For example, if a string leads to some other universe(s) within the alleged multiverse, where our theories of physics do not apply, then there is naturally no way to falsify that claim.)
That paragraph comprised solely my own reasoning, and in no way implied the opinions of anyone else, including quantum physicists or cosmologists. (Though I can understand your concern that some people might infer it that way. People often take inferences where none exist.) Comments in the prior paragraph, however, stating (not just implying) that string theory is controversial and that there are multiple models should be taken as factual, and not speculative.
In any event, I then continued, after the contentious paragraph in question, to write:
I’ll even go beyond that, since even String Theory can sometimes be controversial and open to debate…which you have demonstrated here to some degree. In fact, I provided three separate analogies specifically to avoid as much controversy as possible (as I stated at the time.)
I proceeded then to compare presence to locality for the sole purpose of avoiding controversy. Notice that I wrote:
I’ll compare presence to something simple and, I think, uncontroversial…although after stating the uncontroversial comparison, I then proceeded to write something quite controversial, but I tagged it as such. It is important to understand that all comparisons break down at some point. They have to. That’s the nature of analogics. No two things are exactly alike, unless they are the same thing, in which case there are not two things at all.
Please note that the following does not apply to you, Half Man Half Wit, but I believe it merits mentioning — strike that — it merits shouting from the rooftops. Analogies are not intended to model what they compare in every detail. They are chosen because there is some resemblance between Thing X and Thing Y. It is in the spirit of a genuine desire to understand what someone is saying to accept the (often very small) piece of similarity offered, while refraining from comment on the portions that are not comparable and not relevant. It is, I’m afraid, too common a practice, on this board especially, to shoot down an analogy simply because there is some technical detail that differentiates the items being compared.
Now, that is not to say that analogics can’t get ridiculous. It certainly can. I can compare a tennis ball to the sun. Both are spherical. Both are yellow. But unless I am talking about spheres or colors, then an analogy between the sun and a tennis ball is pretty “out there”.
I hope this helps to clear up any misunderstanding you or anyone else had. The whole purpose of these pre-debate threads is to define our terms so that we have complete mutual understanding once we enter the debate. I will be setting forth an argument, using the terms throughout this series in the manner that they are defined. I believe it is the best way, as I said very early on, to avoid the “ships passing in the night” syndrome so typical of Great Debates threads.
A respectful forewarning: be prepared in the debate thread to defend your assertion that “there doesn’t seem to be any way to provide an ‘interface’ between the metaphysical and the physical”, since modern neurological science might indeed have found just such an interface. I mentioned it briefly in passing before, when quoting one of the world’s preeminent neurological researchers.
And I reacted solely to that paragraph, i.e. the one I quoted. To the best of my knowledge, it simply isn’t the case that string theory makes any propositions unfalsifiable in the way you allege; and I don’t know how a theory of physics could be able to predict its own inapplicability, anyway – if we live on some (3+1)-dimensional D-brane slice of a higher space, it’s indeed possible that there are other D-brane slices ‘floating’ alongside ours, and open strings could attach to our brane and to another – however, this would make the other brane an object of string theory just as well as ours is, and not something where our theories of physics don’t apply. I’m not saying that such couldn’t exist; however, I have a hard time imagining a physical theory making predictions depending on the existence of such a realm, for lack of a better word. However, I really don’t want to sidetrack this thread with such minutiae, and I don’t have any issues in general with your definition of presence – it’s as good as any other.
However, if you wish for your analogy to be demonstrative rather than merely illustrative, that resemblance must exist in the salient features the analogy is meant to demonstrate – to go with the sun and the tennis ball, if you propose that the sun may be a round, yellow thing, you can well point to the tennis ball to establish the existence of round, yellow things, and hence show that your proposal is not impossible; there actually are round, yellow things. However, if your tennis ball is, in fact, blue, or cube shaped, then your analogy doesn’t just break down, it’s useless, since it fails to demonstrate the possibility of things being round and yellow. Of course, an illustrative analogy is free from such constraints, but it doesn’t carry any weight in an argument. If the round and yellow nature of the sun is not in question, you can, for purposes of illustration, explain this round and yellow nature to somebody by pointing at a blue tennis ball and saying, ‘like that thing if it was yellow’. If, however, you want to establish the possibility of the sun being round and yellow, that wouldn’t do; similarly, if you want to establish the possibility of an interaction point of the spiritual with the physical, and attempted to do so by pointing at string theory’s prediction of interaction with dimensions that are not part of our universe, that is only valid in a demonstrative way if string theory actually made such predictions. Pointing this out is not an attempt to shoot down an analogy because of some technical detail.
Well, I was merely speaking from a physical perspective, and even there only from my own limited understanding; as for the neuroscience perspective, I’m not qualified to comment on that, however, I am casually familiar with Ramachandran and his discoveries (saw an excellent TED talk by him a while ago), and it’s probably worth noting that he’s nothing if not careful in stating the implications of his research, which to him have been overextended by both camps.
Anyway, I’m sorry if you feel I’ve entered this thread a bit harshly and guns a-blazin’, I’ll perhaps best resign myself to lurkerdom for the time being, and maybe say my piece in the debate that’s to come.
On, no no! Please don’t.
It is absolutely not the case that you have behaved in any way untoward whatsoever. And I agree completely with your comments on analogics. You were, as you say, merely bringing attention to a matter which you believed to be important. And that’s exactly what we all are doing in here. So you’re just fine. You “got it” when I described presence, and that’s the thing that matters. If there is an apology, it should be from me to you for seeming to push you away, when that is the last thing on earth I want to do.
The debate thread will be limited to people who have read all four preceding threads, and who accept my definitions for purposes of understanding the theodicean OP there. You are one of the people I definitely WANT to participate. You have the sharpness of intellect and the right temperament that I’m looking for. I want a vigorous debate, not a walk-through.
Then would it be fair to say that, not only does the existence of goodness require God, but that even the existence of God does not necessarily mean that goodness exists?
I suspect i’m missing something, because I don’t see how God can be unconcerned in general with the serial killer’s morality, and also displeased by his moral depravity. Or how he can be displeased without making the judgement that moral depravity is something that displeases him.
You’re right, and I think I understand this train of thought (and agree with it, actually), but I would express it in a different way. To judge by actions means we’re slaves to opportunity; we can only judge by how a person has lived their lives. A person who gives money to charity would be judged better than a person who would give money to charity if they could, but are too poor or have no chance to. It’s much more fair to judge on “What would they do?”, if we have an omniscient being to know that. As you say, it’s a matter of knowing what people value, because that’s what leads to the actions, even if those actions never have a chance to occur.
Would that mean that such edification was morally bad in nature? And, to the opposite route, if a person may be edified by an action (well, not action, but I can’t think of a good way to phrase it) which arises from a moral code opposing that of God’s, is it also possible that a person may *not *be edified by an action which arises from a moral code entirely in keeping with God’s?
I don’t see how it isn’t both. A minor obstruction to create a larger aid. I’m not questioning the idea that contrition or regret are at all aids to love, only as to whether they may, in part, be obstructive. The child may be clean at the end, he may be the better for the process at the end of it, but it wasn’t all enjoyable.
That’s the part i’m trying to understand, I think. That sometimes, a little unpleasantness is requires for a larger pleasantness. A little hurt for a large heal. In the same way, why doesn’t encouraging the killer to contrition count for obstructing love for a small part, though it will aid love to a greater extent?
As compared with your list, my question is whether the fifth part is not a moral decision. Mr. Smith, having decided to what extent he values Mr. Jones, must decide whether value is something that is good or bad for him; whether a greater value is a good thing. An aesthetical judgement is essentially a summation of all the little value judgements that affect a decision, but left alone all it is a solution to a maths problem. Isn’t a further judgement of some kind necessary to decide that value is something to be desired (or, of course, not desired)?
I have not participated in this series of threads, but I have skimmed them. Over the years, I have found Liberal’s threads to be intriguing even though, or probably because, I don’t agree with his conclusions. This sentence is the one where we part company in this argument. I can grant you a definition “God == Love” but I cannot allow the jump from there to “God is a free moral agent” because I don’t see Love as an agent but a relationship between agents.
Liberal, I encourage you to take this mass of thinking and put it into book form. You have certainly done enough work to justify one.
Just to nip it in the bud, could you also provide your definition of “Physical”?
I’m pretty sure I understand the gist of your definition of “Worship”, but I’m also pretty sure it does not involve your eardrums and His vocal cords. Would you mind clarifying/expanding on this before the debate gets underway?
Ditto.
NOTE TO MODS: I did the multiple quote thing, and there is one huge blob of text in a single paragraph from both posters. I have to scroll down to their actual posts to see where they broke off their questions and/or comments, and started new paragraphs. I might raise this issue in ATMB, except for the fact that so much is on their plate, and this would be a bugger to fix, especially since there has been some third party coding. But from now on, until this is fixed, I’m going to respond to a single post at a time. That way, paragraph structures remain intact. A heart felt thanks in advance for your kind indulgence.
================================================
That’s correct.
As a free moral agent Himself, He could choose to value something else besides goodness. He could value — let’s see… if I’m thinking like an omniscient and omnipotent being, what might I value? — oh, how about showing off. In that case, he might have used us as beings who would constantly be wowed by His works. Worship would mean something like commenting, “Dude! That was the bomb!” or some such. And there would have been no need for Him to breathe His own spirit into us. We would need nothing more than intellect and emotion. (There would be very very few, if any, atheists.) He might have been like Q on Star Trek Next Gen or something. I mean, who knows.
It’s a very important question, because as the Beloved indicates Jesus is teaching us (which I’ve already quoted and sourced), God breathed into us His own Spirit, thereby making us dual creatures: (1) animals like any other, and (2) spiritual beings, just like God. And let me emphasize that: our spiritual component is truly, really, completely just like God. In fact it is fair (and accurate) to say that God lives within us. This is true whether we are believers, skeptics, non-believers, or even anti-theists. It is therefore important that there be the capacity for God to “connect” with us. (Another undefined term that should be understood.)
But there is a third, and even more important reason why the question is important. The fact that God values goodness above all else (a statement about God’s aesthetics) tells us something about God’s essence. Surely, He must be *essentially *good because of the fact of His aesthetics. It is my opinion that we are what we are (and, in fact, are what we were to be — again, Aristotle). God, likewise, is what He was to be: namely, good. He is, therefore, the very source of goodness. And so, in that sense, we may say that goodness compels God to exist.
Oh, okay. Well, it’s not like that. I’m not saying that he “can be displeased without making the judgement that moral depravity is something that displeases him” (or any paraphrase of that). What I am saying is that he can be displeased with a moral code (remember, God’s moral code is internal to Him, as we defined morality) while still being unconcerned about the moral codes of other people. You might even say He is almost libertarian in that regard. In other words, He might personally believe that something is wrong and therefore He will not do it, while allowing for the fact that other people have different moral codes. (That is the essential nature of free moral will.)
This is clearly taught to us by Jesus through John the Beloved. Consider this passage:
At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”
[…snip…]
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
John 8:2-11
Jesus is teaching us that He (and by extension, His Father) does not condemn us for our own moral codes. Maybe He condemns us for something else (although I’m pretty sure that’s not the case.) But He does not condemn us for our morality.
I do realize that Christian fundamentalists are going to go ape-shit about the final words, “Go and sin no more.” (Paraphrase, alternate translation, whatever.) But note that we have defined sin as the obstruction of love. This simply meant that Jesus believed the woman was not edifying (many or most of) the men she encountered (some of whom, for example might have felt guilty, or who were too emotionally immature, or who thought of her as nothing more than an object for their pleasure, etc.)
That aside, Jesus often met with people of ill-repute: prostitutes, tax collectors, gluttons, hypocrites (like some of the Pharisees and Sadducees), and the like. He had dinner with them. He told them stories. And you really have to keep in mind how stupendous this was — God Proper; that is, God Himself was walking into these people’s homes and communing with them.
And so, just as it is between you and me: I have my moral code, and you have yours. If you reveal it to me, I might find part of yours repugnant (or simply displeasing), and you might feel the same way about mine. But I give you your space, and you give me my space. I do not have to condemn you for your moral code. American politics might benefit from this understanding, but that’s for some other thread.
Well said. That’s as good a way to put it as any. Probably better than the way I put it. And it leads to the same conclusion.
Consider this brief passage from Mark, with I’m certain the Beloved would agree:
Jesus sat down opposite the place where the offerings were put and watched the crowd putting their money into the temple treasury. Many rich people threw in large amounts. But a poor widow came and put in two very small copper coins, worth only a fraction of a penny.
Calling his disciples to him, Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, this poor widow has put more into the treasury than all the others. They all gave out of their wealth; but she, out of her poverty, put in everything—all she had to live on.”
Mark 12:41-44
That was a practical application of what both you and I said.
You know, I really don’t know. I really don’t. But whether something is morally bad or good is, again, truly irrelevant. Maybe I have not stressed this enough, but God is not at all about morality; only aesthetics. And so, I guess the only way I can answer your question with any certainty is to say, basically, that it doesn’t matter whether it was morally good in nature or morally bad in nature. This is of no concern to God.
(And yes, I honestly do realize how head-shakingly difficult it might be to grasp this as a concept, especially after a life-time of hearing about God as some kind of moral judge. Nevertheless, the teachings are plain. God is concerned not with what we believe is good and bad, but with what we value. Specifically, it is His desire that we value the same thing He does: goodness. That way, He grows.)
Yes. Edification has nothing to do with morality. Not to make light of the concept, but you can’t affect anyone with your morality alone. What are you supposed to do, stare into their eyes and convey your moral code by brain waves? Edification is the building up of people who otherwise might be lower; e.g., lower self esteem, helpless in some circumstance, in need of a kind word or some affirmation of them as a person. Both the object and the subject are edified (with the caveats provided before: e.g., the subject is not sociopathic or otherwise brain damaged or immature.)
I’m not sure where enjoyment entered the picture in our discussion. See, the notion of goodness (believe it or not) is either anathema or completely unimportant to many people. AND they’re not crazy. They’re just businessmen, people who govern, or even just people like you and me. They are so obsessed with their goals of wealth and power (which they value), that they have not even received the many acts of goodness proffered them. They might not have been edified at all by the smile in the elevator. They might have had their minds on how to make money from you. Or they might have judged you by the power you had (as a deciding factor in whether to engage you). Or an ordinary person might have simply thought it was creepy for you to smile at strangers. Who knows.
But “salvation” (which I’ll define in a moment) need not be an enjoyable process. Lewis wrote a whole (short) book about it, but sometimes people just do not want to release their burdens. Over time, they have become familiar to them, and familiarity can mean comfort. (Although, it can also mean contempt.) And so some people choose to stay with the familiar when the perception of a threat to comfort comes along. But there have been many examples of conversion or salvation in which people came along kicking and fighting. We know, too, that there are examples of this in everyday life, as when the nearly drowned man fights you in the process of fighting for his life. Or when the drug addict is angered by a much need session of intervention.
The Apostle Paul wasn’t exactly charmed by his first encounter with Jesus. And Peter was frankly leery until after the Resurrection. And so on.
Salvation: becoming One with God (i.e., valuing what He values)
For the same reason that we don’t say paying taxes on a hundred-million-dollar lottery harms the person. (Though some of us might argue differently.) Put another way, it’s the same reason that investing a thousand dollars to make two thousand dollars has not in any way debilitated the person. In other words, it is a net gain. Now, if love is completely obstructed (resulting in an empty aesthetic), or mostly obstructed, it is fair to say that edification has failed. And of course, love fails as much as it succeeds. That’s the nature of free moral agency.
Possibly. I just like to keep things as simple as possible. It’s another chicken and egg question: does an aesthetical decision come from a moral code? Or is a moral code formed by an aesthetical essence? It seems to me that there can be an aesthetical essence, and yet a moral code can “trump” it (undefined). That is, a person can be kind and gentle natured and still kick a puppy. But I think it is clear that what the brain acts out is the aesthetical decision, and that it (the aesthetical decision) is drawn from the moral code. The brain acts in accordance with how valuable the person or thing is. Or often, with whether the person or thing will increase his own value only. (No goodness involved, obviously — goodness edifies both agents.)
I see your part as well. However, there is nothing that says love cannot be both an agent and a relationship between agents. Therefore, there must be some possible inferences that can be made that connects one with the other. I’ll take care of that in Part V.
I appreciate that. But no one would publish it. I have no educational or professional credentials of any kind. I am auto-didactic, and have studied my philosophy by reading the books written by philosophers (and a few — just a few — books about the books by scholars and other opinionated people with credentials.)
Made of atoms. Or strings. Or the quanta du jour. A part of the universe.
It just involves contemplation and mediation. If one has a thought that is given by God, then it will manifest as edification. (Both you and Him.)
Again, greatly appreciated. But who would read a book by me?
This was advertised as an epistimology thread, yet it seems that’s the one thing ya’ll ain’t discussing. Liberal, could you please lay out whatever you think is important on that topic, submit it to discussion and then proceed to Part V? Frankly, I’m more interested in the thesis than the preliminaries. The sooner we get there the better, as far as I’m concerned.
As an aside, and please don’t respond here (either cover it in the OP to Part V or wait for me to raise the issue again), I notice that folks are equivocating on the word morality. As often ordinarily used, it has been defined here as ethics. So, whether it was appropriate to judge the adulterous woman is a question (under the definitions here) of whether it was appropriate to make an ethical judgment.
God, you’re right. In a way. I mean, we’re all in a bit of a hurry. But it’s kind of like a classroom. There are some who are ready, and some who are not.
But I will do this for you. I will finish laying out the pertinent passages from John (and a few other books) that will form the epistemological basis for my argument. BUT if anyone wishes to ask questions about any of those, or comment on any of those, then I’m sorry, but I’m not going to leave them unanswered or unacknowledged.
I have a doctor’s appointment shortly, I have to do some chores (I’ve lost 45 points and counting by working outside), I have to cook my wife’s dinner (Tangy Tenderloins with real mashed potatoes today), and it will take quite some time to type out or copy-paste the passages. And it may take me more than an evening to get it done. (I take care to remove footnote marks and verse numbers and all that, because it interferes, in my opinion, with the continuity of the reading.)
So it could be tomorrow or the next day, and if I have to take time with responses, that’s what I’m going to do. They are my first priority. There’s no point in laying out an epistemology (which actually, I have already done quite much of) without a mutual understand.
All that okay by you?
Incidentally, PBear, this thread has not yet even gone to a second page. I’ve laid out many scriptures and made comments on them. People have asked about them. I’ve responded. Please don’t take this the wrong way, but perhaps you wouldn’t mind exercising just a bit of patience and empathy with your fellow posters. (But I will still keep my commitment to you.)