Philosophy of Religions?

sidhe · Oct 6, 2008

This pagan's solution runs like this:

Bad things happen.

The Gods are like us - temperamental, petty, vindictive, and such, just way more powerful and operating by a moral code that would cause modern Judeo-Christian Western thought to have Head Asplodey...but are not omnipotent or omniscient beyond their sphere (i.e. The Morrigan can see your death, and can cause your death, but she couldn't tell you if the harvest is going to be good or the lottery numbers or cause your apple trees to be unusually abundant).

People do unpleasant things.

The Gods do unpleasant things.

Unpleasant things aren't evil any more than pleasant things are good. They merely are what they are and we can do with them as we will.

Life goes on.

So there is no "problem of evil" from my view.

NegativeCool · Oct 7, 2008

RebYosef said:
I'd be interested in hear theistic arguments against this, outside the Jewish/Christian realm. More specifically, Baha'i and Pagans.

sidhe said:
The Gods are like us - temperamental, petty, vindictive, and such, just way more powerful and operating by a moral code that would cause modern Judeo-Christian Western thought to have Head Asplodey...but are not omnipotent or omniscient beyond their sphere (i.e. The Morrigan can see your death, and can cause your death, but she couldn't tell you if the harvest is going to be good or the lottery numbers or cause your apple trees to be unusually abundant).

To summarise with both the question from RebYosef and Sidhe's post in mind the argument is as follows:

Pagans generally don't see their gods as omniscent, omnipotent and morally perfect, thus the definition of God is wrong to start with and invalidates the whole argument. The best that it can do when presented to a Pagan is confirm that God isn't omniscent, omnipotent and morally perfect which is their basic position to start with.

Is this a fair assessment?

Eudaimonist · Oct 7, 2008

oneshot012 said:
I will first describe my worldview and perhaps raise a few questions of yours indirectly in the process but I will leave the first engagement primarily to you.

Thanks for your post. Here are my comments and observations.

Evil in my worldview is understood in light of an objective moral good.

That is roughly true for my worldview as well. However, I wouldn't quite say that there is an objective moral good, but rather an objective good that sets a natural standard for judging all means to this good, such as moral virtues and values. And so there is no need for a moral lawgiver, just a discovered understanding of cause and effect.

Let me illustrate this with an example. The practice of medicine properly aims at the health of the patient. Medicine is not arbitrary -- you could easily kill or injure your patient if you misidentify either the problem or the remedy. All medical procedures are discoveries about what works well (cause and effect) at achieving the natural standard of biological health. This standard provides a means to judge all medical procedures for their ability to achieve a good result.

So too is it with moral virtues and values, which properly aim at the health of the moral agent. While different understandings from individual to individual, and culture to culture, of virtues and values are possible and likely, nevertheless there is a reality-oriented standard by which such understandings may be judged for their goodness. Morality is not a purely subjective or culturally-relative matter for my worldview.

[God] sets the boundaries between good and evil and even if no one obeyed this moral law it would still exist inspite of human choices.

Note that the standard of human well-being also exists in spite of human choices and beliefs.

Humanity was originally created good and still maintains much of that goodness inspite of the fall where it is believed in the Christian tradition that humanity chose self over God.

I personally think about morality very differently than the God/self distinction you draw here. I'm curious what you mean by the word "self", because it is probably very different from my understanding. For me, the "self" mainly refers to the capacity we as human beings have to reason and choose, and does not refer to childish desires.

So, for me, the "self" is not a dirty word, and is actually something good and to be nourished and perfected through wisdom and virtue.

Even when one thinks of the good of others, does that really work? What if it is only the good for the 51%? What about the other 49%?

I'll just note here that I'm not a utilitarian. I favor virtue ethics.

The best good for humanity must be understood in light of something objective rather than some pragmatic feeling.

I'm with you here.

That ultimate way objectivity is the moral law that God has placed in the heart of all humanity.

I wish I could believe this. While we do have natural moral capacities, such as empathy and conscience, I don't think we are born with a complete implicit moral understanding.

For some reason I don't think humanity has to teach people the sancitity of life. I believe even the evolutionary arguement would agree with that.

Sort of. Perhaps not to the extent that one might like, given the prevalence of violence in the world.

However, how does it explain love? How does the evolutionary element account for selfless acts of love?

I think that evolution does quite well with its studies into biological altruism, and keep in mind that the human capacity to generalize, which comes from our mental ability to abstract, can explain how we can extend this natural behavior beyond direct kin. If you conceive of non-kin, and perhaps the entirety of humanity, as your "brothers and sisters", then you may extend your biological altruism quite far.

I don't wish to get into a big discussion on evolutionary science since I think that will lead us too far astray. Just one thing, though... evolution is based on reproduction and the transmission of genes, not on survival as such. There is nothing in evolution to prevent social species.

My last point in discussion for now is that evil is ultimately an invasion of the good that we desire to do. Evil is not inherently a part of us nor does it belong here. I believe that almost every worldview would say that.

Very few Christians here say that. I'm happy that you do. I hear too often that human beings are inherently sinful and evil.

This is not your problem, of course, but I'd say that the idea that human beings are evil by nature is not a fringe view, but a mainstream view, at least in America.

I don't think evil ultimately has a purpose if it did why would many people not want death, destruction or violence.

Why do many people want death, destruction, or violence?

eudaimonia,

Mark

Druweid · Oct 7, 2008

RebYosef said:
I'd be interested in hear theistic arguments against this, outside the Jewish/Christian realm. More specifically, Baha'i and Pagans.

Sidhe explained the overall Pagan perspective very well, though I want to note for the record it is from the perspective of a hard Polytheist. Soft Polytheists, or the VERY few Pagan Monotheists (of which I am one), will have notable variations on this. For that matter, Pagans and Neopagans will, by nature, have quite a variety of different views stemming from that same basic concept.

That having been said, I have my own concepts where "evil" is concerned, which vary somewhat, but not significantly, from a typical Pagan POV. I do not see "evil" as a force unto itself, but as a concept used to understand the absence of "good," much the same as cold being the absence of heat, or darkness, the absence of light. Also, I do not believe using classifications of "good" or "evil" (at least not as a verb or adjective) in the absence of manifest intent is correct, as I believe intent is implied.

I believe the human psyche gravitates toward "good" as a natural function, and gravitates toward "evil" as a result of flawed thinking. This flawed thinking would be the result of a lack of knowledge, a lack of understanding, or a lack of mental capacity (including insanity), to name a few. Selfishness or Greed are sources of "evil," and on a technical level, I would classify them under a lack of understanding.

As for the argument from evil, I gave the link provided a cursory glance (I apologize, not having more time this morning, it's a lengthy essay), but I find it as flawed as any other I have read. I find these types of arguments arrogant because they (at some point) depend on the concept that the inherency of "evil" is measured, and in fact MUST be measurable, by the *human* ability to understand that inherency. As I said, I only glanced at the essay, but I'm willing to bet there is no proper argument exploring the postulate "If God is omniscient, they can understand an inherency to evil that is beyond our ability to fathom."

I do believe there is an inherency to "evil" that is presently beyond our ability to fully understand. I do know that, on this planet, there are climatic extremes that can kill humans. Elimination of those extremes (assuming we could do so) might improve conditions for humans, but would destroy the planet. There are animals on this planet that are a significant threat to human survival, and yet to eliminate entirely them would disrupt the ecosystem, again, affecting the survival of the planet overall. But most significantly, in simple terms, all the "evils" of the world have always existed, and yet from the dawn of time, we, as a world culture, have consistently advance on a multitude of levels. This has happened, not in spite of these "evils," but as a result of them.

Okay, now my head hurts. Time for more cawfee.

Just my thoughts,
-- Druweid

sidhe · Oct 7, 2008

NegativeCool said:
To summarise with both the question from RebYosef and Sidhe's post in mind the argument is as follows:

Pagans generally don't see their gods as omniscent, omnipotent and morally perfect, thus the definition of God is wrong to start with and invalidates the whole argument. The best that it can do when presented to a Pagan is confirm that God isn't omniscent, omnipotent and morally perfect which is their basic position to start with.

Is this a fair assessment?

Fair assessment. But, like Druweid said, I'm coming at it as a hard polytheist.

To expound further on Druweid's view of evil (which is not unlike that expounded by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware of the Orthodox Church), I take a slightly askew view of that.

Anything to excess is bad. I'm a dark half of the year critter. I love cold, frost, leafless trees, brown grass, fall leaves, snow, and all those things. However, traditionally that was also a time of rationing food and lean hunting. However, cold can cause hypothermia, ice makes walking or driving dangerous, and a blizzard can cave in your roof. Similarly, heat can cause exhaustion and stroke, droughts kill crops and cause wildfires, etc. Excess = bad.

Of course, I also like to point out that darkness is the natural state of things, and that light results from destructive and unstable reactions that when deprived of fuel ultimately revert to darkness. But I'm frakkin' strange.

Naturalist_Atheist · Oct 7, 2008

Welcome to CF

RebYosef · Oct 7, 2008

Shalom Sidhe and Druweid,

Interesting. May I ask who you guys believe is the First Cause or Creator of the Universe(If there is one)?

RebYosef · Oct 7, 2008

Shalom Mark,

Eudaimonist said:
I think that evolution does quite well with its studies into biological altruism, and keep in mind that the human capacity to generalize, which comes from our mental ability to abstract, can explain how we can extend this natural behavior beyond direct kin. If you conceive of non-kin, and perhaps the entirety of humanity, as your "brothers and sisters", then you may extend your biological altruism quite far.

I don't wish to get into a big discussion on evolutionary science since I think that will lead us too far astray. Just one thing, though... evolution is based on reproduction and the transmission of genes, not on survival as such. There is nothing in evolution to prevent social species.

What this leads into is Sociobiology and you are correct in your statement that this leads us more into the Philosophy of Biology really, then the Philosophy of Religion. Have you ever read E.O Wilson? Great stuff.

sidhe · Oct 7, 2008

RebYosef said:
Shalom Sidhe and Druweid,

Interesting. May I ask who you guys believe is the First Cause or Creator of the Universe(If there is one)?

I don't believe in creator deities. So...Big Bang?

Druweid · Oct 8, 2008

RebYosef said:
Shalom Sidhe and Druweid,

Interesting. May I ask who you guys believe is the First Cause or Creator of the Universe(If there is one)?

sidhe said:
I don't believe in creator deities. So...Big Bang?

Merry met RebYosef,

I go along with Sidhe, with one very significant twist. I believe that there is a "big bang" every zillion years or so, replacing the old universe with a new one. I also believe there is a non-physical force/entity that influences the formation of said universe, much like a magnet influences metal particles, but on a far grander scale (similar to the ID theory).

$magnet.png$

You see, everything in nature moves in cycles, and is renewable to some degree. This is especially for plant life, where death is just a precursor to new life. If this is how nature works on the smallest scale, shouldn't it then be true on the largest scale as well? So not a "First cause," per se', I have no thoughts on what started the cycle, I simply believe it has always existed. Ah well, just a theory on my part.

Brightest blessings,
-- Druweid

Naturalist_Atheist · Oct 8, 2008

I don't think death is a precursor for new life. Sex is a precursor for new life. Death is the end of life.

oneshot012 · Oct 8, 2008

Eudaimonist said:
Thanks for your post. Here are my comments and observations.

That is roughly true for my worldview as well. However, I wouldn't quite say that there is an objective moral good, but rather an objective good that sets a natural standard for judging all means to this good, such as moral virtues and values. And so there is no need for a moral lawgiver, just a discovered understanding of cause and effect.[/quote]

So thinking in lines of like the Forms for which Plato thought of in terms of Beauty, Truth, Goodness etc?

Where do we get the good from? Where does that objectivity come from? Where is the first cause from the good?

[/quote]
Let me illustrate this with an example. The practice of medicine properly aims at the health of the patient. Medicine is not arbitrary -- you could easily kill or injure your patient if you misidentify either the problem or the remedy. All medical procedures are discoveries about what works well (cause and effect) at achieving the natural standard of biological health. This standard provides a means to judge all medical procedures for their ability to achieve a good result.[/quote]

But is morality the same way? How do we create a consistent ethic of life like this if we hold to our experiences as being the moral exemplar?

I feel that points of references are good for holding moral values however and that they are tested in our experience I don't think that our experience can have the final say. I feel that would lead to a sort of pragmatism that could lead to the gas chambers of the Nazi's.

[/quote]
So too is it with moral virtues and values, which properly aim at the health of the moral agent. While different understandings from individual to individual, and culture to culture, of virtues and values are possible and likely, nevertheless there is a reality-oriented standard by which such understandings may be judged for their goodness. Morality is not a purely subjective or culturally-relative matter for my worldview.[/quote]

What unites the virtues? What is the essence that is bringing together this unity?

[/quote]
Note that the standard of human well-being also exists in spite of human choices and beliefs.
[/quote]

Yes, I would agree with this. I think that would point to an overall moral law.

[/quote]
I personally think about morality very differently than the God/self distinction you draw here. I'm curious what you mean by the word "self", because it is probably very different from my understanding. For me, the "self" mainly refers to the capacity we as human beings have to reason and choose, and does not refer to childish desires.[/quote]

Yeah, self is one of those words with a broad semantic range. I use self to refer to individual. Not so much self as the ability to reason but self as the individuality of the person.

[/quote]
So, for me, the "self" is not a dirty word, and is actually something good and to be nourished and perfected through wisdom and virtue.[/quote]

There is something to nourishing self and taking care of self but most times we chose self over others. We think of our own good over the well being of others when it comes down to it.

[/quote]
I'll just note here that I'm not a utilitarian. I favor virtue ethics.
[/quote]

I actually am too in favor of virtue based Ethics. I believe that situational ethics don't make sense. It is the virtues that flow from God to the person created in the image of God and therefore, we live them out through knowing and understanding him better. Unfortunately there are many who call themselves a Christian and don't do this. But that is precisely the point of why we believe we need a savior because we can't do it on our own because we are broken and we do need to be restored.

[/quote]
I wish I could believe this. While we do have natural moral capacities, such as empathy and conscience, I don't think we are born with a complete implicit moral understanding.[/quote]

You don't believe that we inherently have a capacity for love, doing good and right and wrong? I am not suggesting that is complete but I just don't see how these are truly learned behaviors. Even children who grow up in terrible environments still long for love and affection. I still believe that they long to do good and love.

[/quote]
I think that evolution does quite well with its studies into biological altruism, and keep in mind that the human capacity to generalize, which comes from our mental ability to abstract, can explain how we can extend this natural behavior beyond direct kin. If you conceive of non-kin, and perhaps the entirety of humanity, as your "brothers and sisters", then you may extend your biological altruism quite far.

I don't wish to get into a big discussion on evolutionary science since I think that will lead us too far astray. Just one thing, though... evolution is based on reproduction and the transmission of genes, not on survival as such. There is nothing in evolution to prevent social species.
[/quote]

I won't engage this further not because I agree with you on the biological altruism but because you are correct that this will lead to far from where we are going.

[/quote]
Very few Christians here say that. I'm happy that you do. I hear too often that human beings are inherently sinful and evil.

This is not your problem, of course, but I'd say that the idea that human beings are evil by nature is not a fringe view, but a mainstream view, at least in America.[/quote]

Yes that is the majority Christian belief, al la, Augustine in the Pelegian controversy but there was more than just the binary view of Augustine vs. Pelagius. I took John Cassians view that affirmed humanity being made in the image of God yet spoke of sin as a sickness. Sin (doing wrong, missing the mark) is a violation of our being and is not a part of our nature.

[/quote]
Why do many people want death, destruction, or violence?[/quote]

To advance their cause, because they think they are right and everyone else is wrong. Not to be extremely controvesial but why do people fly planes into towers, why did people drive others into gas chambers, why is their genocide in Sudan right now, where I am living? Because people think they are right, and they make someone else the other and when you make someone less than human you can do whatever you want to them. It is the worst case senario of moral pragmatism.

eudaimonia,

Mark

oneshot012 · Oct 8, 2008

RebYosef said:
Shalom Oneshot,

Here is a great resource on ToE. It does a good job of compileing the best arguments into one place (dealing with Rowe, Plantinga, etc). I guess the best place to start is the Deontological/Inductive argument.

I'd be interested in hear theistic arguments against this, outside the Jewish/Christian realm. More specifically, Baha'i and Pagans.

You are just a young man, but you have an excellent head on your shoulders I think it is one of our duties as human beings to be well read in as many areas of knowledge as possible. I've never met a "Pentellectual" before, but anyone who wants to read their scriptures in the language they have been preserved in, shows a very good quality.

This is the question of theodicy and this arguement is much older than this. It was the early philosopher Epicurus, if I remember correctly, that stated:

Assuming there is a good god-

Is god willing but not able? The he is impotent
Is God able but not willing? Then he is malevolent
Is he both able and willing?-Then why evil?
If he is neither then why call him God?

I think this is how he framed it or something similar to that matter.

Are these questions fair? Do they do justice to the problem of evil?
Does God have direct cause in the world? Does he have indirect cause in the world?

Here is my point with this question. It works sort of like Plantinga (I have only encountered Plantinga indirectly on this topic so I can't say I am arguing on the same lines as he is).

Do we have an interventionist God? There are times, when I think we do. I think God does act and work, in and through his covenant people. Make no mistake. It think God is involved in the working of the world.

However, does God ALWAYS intervene no. It God involved in every little detail, I don't think so. He is sovreign but sovreignty does NOT equal control. They are not synonmys. He does allow humanity free will, the ability to chose, to live and work and do.

However, there are other questions that are raised by this. Why is there suffering of the covenant people? This goes into questions of the fall of humanity. Sin and Death enter humanity and creation as well. So not only humanity suffers from the fall but all of creation.

Again no philosopher but some thoguhts. Peace.

oneshot012 · Oct 8, 2008

Druweid said:
That having been said, I have my own concepts where "evil" is concerned, which vary somewhat, but not significantly, from a typical Pagan POV. I do not see "evil" as a force unto itself, but as a concept used to understand the absence of "good," much the same as cold being the absence of heat, or darkness, the absence of light. Also, I do not believe using classifications of "good" or "evil" (at least not as a verb or adjective) in the absence of manifest intent is correct, as I believe intent is implied.

What is interesting is that from my knowledge of reading St. Augustine that he exposed this view back in the 4th maybe at least early 5th century.
He said almost the exact same thing.

BruceDLimber · Oct 8, 2008

Greetings, greetings!

RebYosef said:
I'd be interested in hear theistic arguments against this, outside the Jewish/Christian realm. More specifically, Baha'i and Pagans.

I'll be more than happy to address the subject of good and evil from a Baha'i perspective!

As to the existence of God, we reject the entire "logic" stream that produced the "nonexistence" conclusion posted above!

To us, there's no question that God exists, although I will stipulate that from a standpoint of strict objective reasoning, both the existence and the nonexistence of God are equally unproveable! (This, after all, is why religions are called "faiths!") SUBJECTIVE reasoning can lead to definite conclusion, however, and our subjective reasoning makes God's existence, as well as His loving beneficence, very much givens!

So on to the topic of good and evil.

Baha'is see truth as relative and the only absolute as God Himself (this is stated in our scriptures).

God is Supreme, One, and has no equal or rival! There is thus no "devil" out there trying to get us. And "satan" simply refers to our own lower (animal) nature when we give it control instead of our higher (spiritual) nature.

As to evil, it's the relative absence of good, and has no separate actual existence of its own. In this respect, it's analogous to the fact that dark is the absence of light, not a separate existing "thing." (This latter is proven by the fact that you can bring light into a dark room but not dark into a light room.)

In the Baha'i scriptures, it's expressed like this:

Chapter 74. THE NONEXISTENCE OF EVIL

The true explanation of this subject is very difficult. Know that beings are of two kinds: material and spiritual, those perceptible to the senses and those intellectual.
Things which are sensible are those which are perceived by the five exterior senses; thus those outward existences which the eyes see are called sensible. Intellectual things are those which have no outward existence but are conceptions of the mind. For example, mind itself is an intellectual thing which has no outward existence. All man's characteristics and qualities form an intellectual existence and are not sensible.
Briefly, the intellectual realities, such as all the qualities and admirable perfections of man, are purely good, and exist. Evil is simply their nonexistence. So ignorance is the want of knowledge; error is the want of guidance; forgetfulness is the want of memory; stupidity is the want of good sense. All these things have no real existence.
In the same way, the sensible realities are absolutely good, and evil is due to their nonexistence--that is to say, blindness is the want of sight, deafness is the want of hearing, poverty is the want of wealth, illness is the want of health, death is the want of life, and weakness is the want of strength.
Nevertheless a doubt occurs to the mind--that is, scorpions and serpents are poisonous. Are they good or evil, for they are existing beings? Yes, a scorpion is evil in relation to man; a serpent is evil in relation to man; but in relation to themselves they are not evil, for their poison is their weapon, and by their sting they defend themselves. But as the elements of their poison do not agree with our elements--that is to say, as there is antagonism between these different elements, therefore, this antagonism is evil; but in reality as regards themselves they are good.
The epitome of this discourse is that it is possible that one thing in relation to another may be evil, and at the same time within the limits of its proper being it may not be evil. Then it is proved that there is no evil in existence; all that God created He created good. This evil is nothingness; so death is the absence of life. When man no longer receives life, he dies. Darkness is the absence of light: when there is no light, there is darkness. Light is an existing thing, but darkness is nonexistent. Wealth is an existing thing, but poverty is nonexisting.
Then it is evident that all evils return to nonexistence. Good exists; evil is nonexistent.
-- 'Abdul-Baha, Some Answered Questions, pp. 282-284

Best regards,

Bruce

Eudaimonist · Oct 8, 2008

oneshot012 said:
So thinking in lines of like the Forms for which Plato thought of in terms of Beauty, Truth, Goodness etc?

No, I'm not a Platonist. I'm much more in the Aristotelian tradition.

By "objective", I mean existence that is not dependent on anyone's awareness, desire, opinion, understanding, or anything else mentally subjective. The Sun exists objectively in the sense that it doesn't wink out of existence just because you shut your eyes.

We have biological and psychological needs regardless of whether we are aware of them or not. They exist because we exist as human beings. The good is understood as a relationship between our potential goals and our needs. When your mother (or guardian or whomever) told you to eat your brocolli "because it is good for you", she said this because she understood that you had a need to eat food nutritious for a human being such as yourself. There is no reason to ask why you should eat brocolli other than to understand its relationship with your well-being as a human being.

But is morality the same way?

Yes, I think it is very similar.

How do we create a consistent ethic of life like this if we hold to our experiences as being the moral exemplar?

Why would we do this? I don't believe that I am a moral exemplar, even though I strive in that direction.

I feel that points of references are good for holding moral values however and that they are tested in our experience I don't think that our experience can have the final say. I feel that would lead to a sort of pragmatism that could lead to the gas chambers of the Nazi's.

I don't see why that would be. Please explain. (I'm not advocating pragmatism, btw.)

What unites the virtues? What is the essence that is bringing together this unity?

Rationality.

Yeah, self is one of those words with a broad semantic range. I use self to refer to individual. Not so much self as the ability to reason but self as the individuality of the person.

Oh? I'm surprised that you would see individuality as something bad. I would think of it as something good.

Or are you simply noting that people are imperfectly moral, and self therefore includes all of those imperfections?

There is something to nourishing self and taking care of self but most times we chose self over others. We think of our own good over the well being of others when it comes down to it.

That is often a good thing, IMO. We are not other people's slaves.

But I do think that any moral person will often find that the value of other people takes priority over at least some (usually trivial) values of one's own.

I actually am too in favor of virtue based Ethics. I believe that situational ethics don't make sense. It is the virtues that flow from God to the person created in the image of God and therefore, we live them out through knowing and understanding him better. Unfortunately there are many who call themselves a Christian and don't do this. But that is precisely the point of why we believe we need a savior because we can't do it on our own because we are broken and we do need to be restored.

I see. I personally see us as diamonds in the rough, and fully capable of improving ourselves. Perhaps some people lack the strength or wisdom or desire to improve themselves, but it can be done.

You don't believe that we inherently have a capacity for love, doing good and right and wrong?

A capacity? Certainly! But not always all the knowledge we need to use the capacity well.

We have a capacity to ride a bike, but we have to learn how to do with with skill. We are not born knowing how to ride a bike. The capacity is first nature, and the skill is second nature.

I am not suggesting that is complete but I just don't see how these are truly learned behaviors. Even children who grow up in terrible environments still long for love and affection. I still believe that they long to do good and love.

They may have some healtfelt inclinations of that sort. I won't dispute this. They may also have heartfelt inclinations to fight with their siblings.

Yes that is the majority Christian belief, al la, Augustine in the Pelegian controversy but there was more than just the binary view of Augustine vs. Pelagius. I took John Cassians view that affirmed humanity being made in the image of God yet spoke of sin as a sickness. Sin (doing wrong, missing the mark) is a violation of our being and is not a part of our nature.

Oh, how interesting. Feel free to develop some of those thoughts.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Druweid · Oct 8, 2008

oneshot012 said:
What is interesting is that from my knowledge of reading St. Augustine that he exposed this view back in the 4th maybe at least early 5th century.
He said almost the exact same thing.

From The Enchiridion of St. Augustine, ca. 420 AD, Chapter 3:

"For what is that which we call evil but the absence of good? In the bodies of animals, disease and wounds mean nothing but the absence of health; for when a cure is effected, that does not mean that the evils which were present--namely, the diseases and wounds--go away from the body and dwell elsewhere: they altogether cease to exist; for the wound or disease is not a substance, but a defect in the fleshly substance--the flesh itself being a substance, and therefore something good, of which those evils--that is, privations of the good which we call health--are accidents. Just in the same way, what are called vices in the soul are nothing but privations of natural good. And when they are not transferred elsewhere: when they cease to exist in the healthy soul, they cannot exist anywhere else."

-- St. Augustine

IMHO, I know of no greater Christian than this; not for his religion, but for the love he had for his religion, formed not solely on faith, but with logic and reason as well.

-- Druweid

oneshot012 · Oct 8, 2008

Eudaimonist said:
No, I'm not a Platonist. I'm much more in the Aristotelian tradition.

Forgive me I am just trying to relate it to the best of my understanding. My intro to philisophy class was an intro to Worldviews. So we didn't cover these things. So now, on my own, I am having to cover these things and I am right now in the middle of Plato. He was my frame of reference. I will be at Aristotle soon and be able to speak to that idea/ideas more. Otherwise my encounters with Aristotle have been primarily through other people engaging him. So much second hand.

Eudaimonist said:
By "objective", I mean existence that is not dependent on anyone's awareness, desire, opinion, understanding, or anything else mentally subjective. The Sun exists objectively in the sense that it doesn't wink out of existence just because you shut your eyes.

Where does this objectivity come from? Help me understand.

Eudaimonist said:
We have biological and psychological needs regardless of whether we are aware of them or not. They exist because we exist as human beings. The good is understood as a relationship between our potential goals and our needs. When your mother (or guardian or whomever) told you to eat your brocolli "because it is good for you", she said this because she understood that you had a need to eat food nutritious for a human being such as yourself. There is no reason to ask why you should eat brocolli other than to understand its relationship with your well-being as a human being.

Something like the "golden mean"?

Eudaimonist said:
Why would we do this? I don't believe that I am a moral exemplar, even though I strive in that direction.

Why wouldn't we want a consistent ethic in life I think is the question? Is it wrong way day to steal and the next day to not? Is it right to cheat on my taxes but make sure that I am given correct change? I don't understand why we would want to be inconsistent about how we deal in the matters of life. Inconsistency would breed eventually irrationality.

Wait then who is the moral examplar? Where do we find this? If I understand you analogy you use the medical procedure to help bring us to objectivity. It isn't objectivity in itself but brings us to. Isn't that an examplar unless I am completley misunderstanding the definition. Eventually if there is an objective, that we all know isn't that somehow realated to us?

Eudaimonist said:
I don't see why that would be. Please explain. (I'm not advocating pragmatism, btw.)

Well, what if I interpret the objective different than you? What then? That can lead to a whole slew of ideas. Perhaps I misunderstood your medical procedure analogy please explain again because my think here branches from this.

Eudaimonist said:
Oh? I'm surprised that you would see individuality as something bad. I would think of it as something good.

Or are you simply noting that people are imperfectly moral, and self therefore includes all of those imperfections?

You are correct in your assumption.

Eudaimonist said:
That is often a good thing, IMO. We are not other people's slaves.

But I do think that any moral person will often find that the value of other people takes priority over at least some (usually trivial) values of one's own.

I think this breeds the individualistic thought that removes the notion of the neighbor. Everyone and anything can become the other. That can lead to a misunderstanding of our relationship with those around us. Why do we live in community? Because we have to? Because we want to? Beacause we need to?

I believe because we were created to exist in community because God exisits in community. Therefore, the exaltation of one over another, misses the "Golden Rule" which is althroughout culture, do unto others as you would have them do to you." We put others on the same level as ourselves, not below were we live in our own autonomous world were we are king and what we say goes. We must have a sense of community not to survive but because we are (and I will use this word) designed for such.

Eudaimonist said:
I see. I personally see us as diamonds in the rough, and fully capable of improving ourselves. Perhaps some people lack the strength or wisdom or desire to improve themselves, but it can be done.

Yes, I believe we can improve ourselves. I would never disagree however, I believe there is an ultimate good and that ultimate good is God and I as I encounter him, I then begin to understand goodness, and then that changes my perspection on love, beauty, truth, etc.

Eudaimonist said:
A capacity? Certainly! But not always all the knowledge we need to use the capacity well.

We have a capacity to ride a bike, but we have to learn how to do with with skill. We are not born knowing how to ride a bike. The capacity is first nature, and the skill is second nature.

Well, I would agree and disagree. Why do children die without love? The orphanges in Russia with babies proved that. We have the capacity and I think the ability however, capacity does preceed ability but there is something in us that longs for love and is love.

Eudaimonist said:
They may have some healtfelt inclinations of that sort. I won't dispute this. They may also have heartfelt inclinations to fight with their siblings.

The capacity to do good and evil exists within us all. But that doesn't mean love isn't there.

Eudaimonist said:
Oh, how interesting. Feel free to develop some of those thoughts.

This is an excerpt of a larger Post I did on this found here:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7292949

I break down the whole Pelagius, Augustine and Cassian. It isn't too long. If you don't like reading this is also in video blog form on Youtube. My SN is the same there.

This idea holds to the belief, first and foremost, that man was created in Gods Image and Likeness and was perfect in the beginning. At the original or first sin humanity became flawed. Mans nature was injured by the original sin or as one writer put it at the fall we became like broken mirrors in reflecting the image of God. We do not inherit the guilt or the nature of sin but we lose the perfection that we once had. Sin is foreign to our nature and is more like a sickness tainting the Image of God in us.

Think about it when you get sick it is not a part of your nature it is a violation of your nature. It is something that you war with. Because we are flawed or sick the chose to do evil is very much a possibility. I mean how many times have you flirted with sin, only to return it again and again and after a while it doesnt bother you anymore. This is because we are broken but we are not totally lost.

Essentially, I sin is because I am sick. Humanity in its nature is not evil or bad, but good. We still maintain free will and we have the ability to chose God or to not chose God. God gave us the free will to orient ourselves towards him or towards other thing. Our Free Will allows us to cooperate with him in the salvation process, meaning I can seek God and work with him in the salvation process, this idea is known as synergia. In other words as Man continues to seek God genuinely God will respond in kind with love, mercy and grace as he transforms him and restores him now to the image that is Christ.

NegativeCool · Oct 8, 2008

oneshot012 said:
Essentially, I sin is because I am sick. Humanity in its nature is not evil or bad, but good.

I often see sin and evil used together, I've always believed them to be two different things however. I've had sin explained to me as "falling short of God's expectations" or something to that effect. Would you be able to expand on the distinction between sin and evil?

Eudaimonist · Oct 9, 2008

oneshot012 said:
Where does this objectivity come from? Help me understand.

Existence. There is no more fundamental answer than this. By objective I mean real.

Something like the "golden mean"?

No.

Why wouldn't we want a consistent ethic in life I think is the question?

I'm all in favor of having a consistent ethic in life. There are plenty of virtues and values that I hold today that I held ten or twenty years ago. I think it is good to have long-lasting convictions.

However, I recognize that I am not omniscient and that moral discoveries are possible. I have to be prepared to learn from mistakes and grow in wisdom. It is not good to fossilize one's moral knowledge completely.

Keep in mind here that the basic understanding of the virtues is unlikely to change over time. What will change for the most part is added understandings that refine one's moral skills and allow one to use one's virtues more appropriately in the right situations.

Is it wrong way day to steal and the next day to not?

No, of course not, but we may be mistaken about right and wrong. I don't expect realizations of this sort to be a daily occurance, or even a yearly occurance. I'm not saying that one's principles should change from day to day as if it they were the weather. Especially in the adult phase of life, one has to be prepared to pursue certain values consistently for decades.

Also, I'm not suggesting that everyone reinvent the wheel of ethics entirely for themselves. There's much we can learn from others, and much young people need to be taught to start them off.

So I'm not advocating "inconsistency" in ethics. I'm simply saying that one should be prepared to admit when one is mistaken or ignorant. It's annoying, I know.

Wait then who is the moral examplar? Where do we find this?

No one is. However, we may get glimpses of a moral exemplar in good literature, or in abstract philosophical discussion. We can also emulate personal heroes for their good traits, even if they aren't perfect in every regard.

Well, what if I interpret the objective different than you? What then? That can lead to a whole slew of ideas.

If we disagree, then we disagree. However, we can discuss the facts and see if one (or both) of us made a mistake in reasoning somewhere.

I think this breeds the individualistic thought that removes the notion of the neighbor. Everyone and anything can become the other. That can lead to a misunderstanding of our relationship with those around us.

I suppose it can. But I don't see why it must.

Why do we live in community? Because we have to? Because we want to? Beacause we need to?

Because we need to. As Aristotle would point out, we are social beings.

I believe because we were created to exist in community because God exisits in community. Therefore, the exaltation of one over another, misses the "Golden Rule" which is althroughout culture, do unto others as you would have them do to you." We put others on the same level as ourselves, not below were we live in our own autonomous world were we are king and what we say goes. We must have a sense of community not to survive but because we are (and I will use this word) designed for such.

I have a vastly different understanding of our need for community. I'm not sure how to respond to this.

I agree that we need community, but I think we should respect others as "kings" of their own domain (and be respected this way in turn). It's not a question of putting self above others or others above self, but of respecting personal automony.

This strikes me as the best basis for community. Otherwise, one starts to see a tribalistic ownership of all by all, and a lack of respect for individuals as individuals with lives and priorities of their own, which I think is horrible. It leads to such cultural attitudes as the Jante Law (tall poppy syndrome).

My Swedish wife ran into this sort of attitude from a Swedish friend of hers. This friend simply didn't respect my wife's time, and seemed to think that my wife could be on call in an instant to go out and do whatever. This wasn't at all an attitude of superiority on the part of my wife's friend. It was a tribalistic equality. She would have enjoyed having her time used by my wife in any way she wanted. Autonomy is required for mutual respect instead of mutual ownership.

Any community that is good for individuals is based on respect for the individual.

Yes, I believe we can improve ourselves. I would never disagree however, I believe there is an ultimate good and that ultimate good is God and I as I encounter him, I then begin to understand goodness, and then that changes my perspection on love, beauty, truth, etc.

I'm happy that works for you. Personally, I achieve the same effect in nontheistic ways, such as the study of philosophy, contemplation of fiction, etc.

Well, I would agree and disagree. Why do children die without love? The orphanges in Russia with babies proved that. We have the capacity and I think the ability however, capacity does preceed ability but there is something in us that longs for love and is love.

And, as I said, I won't dispute this.

There is a sense in which I might agree with you, however. I think it is a mistake to judge people as either good or evil (or both) in terms of their capacities, but it may be correct to judge them as good in terms of their potentials. I see the fully actualized or "healthy" human as good. So my view might not actually be all that different from yours, in spirit if not in the precise details.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Philosophy of Religions?

Seemly Unseelie

Newbie

I believe in life before death!

{insert witty phrase}

Seemly Unseelie

Naturalist_Atheist

Guest

Newbie

Newbie

Seemly Unseelie

{insert witty phrase}

Naturalist_Atheist

Guest

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Baha'i

I believe in life before death!

{insert witty phrase}

Regular Member

Newbie

I believe in life before death!

Similar threads