Inspired by this thread and most particularly the debate between The Ryan and Shodan and others I thought about this point.
Shodan’s position (and I hope I’m not misrepresenting him here) was that a meaningful morality:[ul]1. cannot be derived just from life, nature, the need to get along etc as a humanist would argue
can only be derived from God.[/ul]
This line of thinking is hardly unique, I have heard it expressed by others. Indeed I seem to remember from dim and distant philosophy classes that it is a position espoused by some of the renowned religious thinkers.
So I then thought: given point 1 above, how can one know point 2?
To expand, if humans are unable, on their own, to decide what is moral, then they have no basis to judge whether the morality espoused by God is moral. They have no way of knowing, from their own thought, whether they should do what God says or not. For all we know, God could be evil. We have no baseline against which to judge.
Christians could perhaps say that they know that God is moral because of the Bible, or their personal experience of God or something, but that seems to be to amount to: “we know God is moral because he says so”, which just begs the question severely.
I dunno, there was that Lucifer fellow who decided he’d rather rule in hell than serve in heaven.
There’s also a semi-obscure folklore tale about a guy who was too good a person to be condemned to hell and yet unwilling to bow to God and was therefore doomed to roam the earth forever (this has something to do with jack-o’-lanterns but I forget the connection). Or more modern versions I’ve seen on t-shirts, “Heaven doesn’t want me and Hell’s afraid I’ll take over”
The answer is really very simple, Princhester, though individuals could easily get into complicated discussions about it. In a nutshell it is simply this: the Spirit of God is within each one of us and it will recognize its own. Some persons shut out this part of themselves while others are more attuned to it.
God’s Will is just the conscience and innate sense of right that we are already born with, but often smother with justifications and excuses when we would like to do wrong and get away with it.
I’m sure you understand what you are saying, but I’m afraid I don’t. What does it mean to say that the spirit of God is within each one of us and it will recognise its own? And how does that answer the question?
Your spirit or lifeforce (and everyone else’s) came forth from God. When that piece of you (your spirit) connects with Him in whatever form of Him (His word, an action, response from prayer, connection through prayer, etc.) you will respond with an instantaneous recognition.
Depending upon whether a person is attuned to that spirit(ual) part of themself or shuts that out, the mental gymnastics may begin a second or two later. You provided an example of the gymnastics I refer to:
So, Edlyn what you say amounts to: “if you instantly know that something is moral, then it is, if you have to think about it, it may not be”.
How did you arrive at this methodology? From whence does it derive?
Also, it seems to me that you are saying that your morality derives from a part of God within you. Are you not begging the question? How do you know that you should do that which his spirit in you tells you to do?
And erislover I was not aware that Christians considered there to be two different moralities: human and God’s. Certainly I don’t understand that to be Shodan’s view, which as I understand it is to the effect that but for God there is no morality.
Before Shodan’s views can be seriously considered, before point 1 or 2 can even be discussed, we need a sense of what is meant by “a meaningful morality.” What criteria is he saying point 1 fails and point 2 succeeds with? Otherwise, the discussion is liable to devolve into nonsense.
It’s also highly important to explain what the heck is meant by a morality being “derived from God.” I find all too often in these sorts of debates that an explanation is contrasted with a non-explaination that happens to have the word “god” in it. It’s ALWAYS more easy to criticize explanations than non-explanations, and too many divine-command moralities attain their seeming flawlessness precisely by avoiding explanations of morality at all. They mention god, and they mention morality, but otherwise make no connection that wouldn’t have been rejected in an instant in any other account of morality.
For that matter, what does “derived from…” even mean as far as “morality.” At least if we can make meaningful sense out of the concept of an “objective” morality, then the idea of it being “derived” seems itself nonsensical.
Personally, I’ve never been able to take point 2 seriously since Plato’s Euryp. arguement. If there is any adequate response to it, I’d love to hear it, but so far, I’ve heard nothing convincing (lots of changing the subject though)
I don’t think that I am the one begging the question. It’s appears that you somewhat followed along with what I explained, but you do not have a full understanding of what I said. I hope you will reflect on it a bit more while I consider another response that you can relate to.
erislover
Judging from Princhester’s latest comment to you, did I misunderstand your comment?
Don’t you? I ask the question how do we know we should do God’s will and your answer is because his spirit is in us and if we do what we know to be right without thinking, then we will be following that part of us that is the spirit of God. Pardon? The question was not “how do we know what God’s will is?”
Apos you would have to ask Shodan for an explanation. You may or may not get more of an understanding if you wade through the thread to which I linked. I am certainly not an advocate of his position.
I suppose when I started this thread I was essentially looking for Christian responses rather than atheist criticisms of the premise, which for the most part I have no trouble formulating myself.
God is infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient. Therefore, He has all knowledge. Nothing is out of his reach. Therefore, He knows, absolutely, what Good is and is Good. Of course, since he made this universe at his own desire, Good is Him.
Besides your insulting attitude towards atheists, there are several problems with that response.
First, how do you know that this is true? You may say that you have faith, but the OP didn’t ask how you believe, but how you know. No amount of faith can take you from “believe” to “know”.
Secondly, you’ve simply shifted the problem from God to the Spirit of God. How do you know that we should follow the Spirit of God?
smiling bandit
That assumes both that omniscience applies to moral knowledge rather than just factual knowledge, and that God’s will coincides with His knowledge.
I’m a bit unsettled with the way you rephrased my words, but given that an individual is attuned to the spiritual connection with God, you will know Him and the question of whether you should follow His Will is not one you would ever need to ask. If you find that you need to ask that question, then you don’t know Him, and in that case, you could not do His Will. It really isn’t a matter of “should”, but if your “able to” and then if you “willing to”.
This is my understanding which of course you are free to consider or reject.
Your problems are not mine, including some perceived attitude you think I have with atheists. Last time I noticed they were just regular people.
What was sought was an explanation from Christians and I attempted to share my understanding on this matter. Whether you or anyone else accepts it or not is your right of personal choice to make.
Now if you still want to feel insulted, go for it.
—given that an individual is attuned to the spiritual connection with God, you will know Him and the question of whether you should follow His Will is not one you would ever need to ask.—
Just because one is compelled not to ask the question hardly answers the question. Even one accepts your argument that knowing the spirit of god immediately leads one to feel that they should follow its will, that in no way makes this decision a moral one. You simply cannot do an end run around the question: you must confront it directly: why is it moral to do God’s will?
—God is infinite, omnipotent, and omniscient. Therefore, He has all knowledge. Nothing is out of his reach. Therefore, He knows, absolutely, what Good is and is Good.—
The second conclusion does not follow from the first. It would be perfectly possible for him to be all knowing, and evil. If you deny that this is possible, then you drain the term “good” of any meaning.
—Of course, since he made this universe at his own desire, Good is Him.—
Case in point: this sort of definition of “good” wont work, because it makes the concept meaningless. Anything god desires, would have been, by definition alone, good. That is, it is nonsense to call god’s will good whenever whatever it could have been would have also been called “good.” It’s nonsense.
I rarely feel compelled to ask a question that I already intuitively know the answer to. In saying this, I anticipate that you’ll not find this as an answer and assume that I am running around the question again.
I’m okay with that because of my realization that spiritual matters are something that one experiences and gains understanding of. Regardless of how much I would like to, I cannot make this connection for you. My wishes do not trumph your free will, nor should it.
It’s appears that you somewhat followed along with what I explained, but you do not have a full understanding of what I said. I hope you will reflect on it a bit more while I consider another response that you can relate to.