A Salvation Contention

[Strivax]

I wonder if it's true to say that if everything becomes moral, nothing does.

I think that might depend on your chosen path; whether you pursue Love, the Good, the True, the Noble, the Just, the Kind, the Beautiful, or, as in my case, the Right. For me, it was through the realisation that morality is objective and independent of my desire, rather than individually or socially constructed and fluid, by which I found my way to belief, but I'm inclined to think that there are as many paths towards the divine as there are people on Earth. What is for sure, though, is that where we affect others, which is pretty much everywhere, morality enters into the matter. And I can testify that the Right gets you directly to God, if you seek it with an open heart.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Huntun]

Strivax:Faith is an accident of birth. Most people absorb the faith of their surrounding culture...

Faith is not a matter of volition. We can only believe things we think to be true. And if we think a thing is true, we cannot help but believe it.....

So, these considerations lead me to think that the quality of our eventual afterlife must be a matter of our morality, rather than the extent of our good deeds or the truth value of our world-view.

Wouldn't morality have those same problematic aspects as faith/belief though ? Moral ideas are just as influenced by upbringing, culture, and chemical / biological predispositions as faith/belief. One person might be born with, or have developed via upbringing, a greater or lesser ability to feel empathy for example. If one is going to deny volition in regards to what a person believes shouldn't that also involve moral beliefs?

 

[Huntun]

I think the Pure Land Buddhist Ippen really came to the perfect conclusion that rules out all those problems - you don't even need to believe. Just say "Namu Amida Butsu" and the power of the name will save you. Everyone is equal and no one is required to develop some sort of belief that might not even be possible for them. You might not be able to believe in the existence of Amida or that saying the name will save you but it will still work none the less. Maybe Jesus could work that way and salvation would be open to everyone. That's true Other Power salvation by grace alone.

Robert Anton Wilson talks about Pure Land Buddhism but confuses Shinran with Ippen I think because Shinran actually required faith he just said that Amida gave it to you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3drfFgoFJ1I

 

[jayem]

So, these considerations lead me to think that the quality of our eventual afterlife must be a matter of our morality, rather than the extent of our good deeds or the truth value of our world-view. My contention is the simple, childish notion that there must be an afterlife, so that the injustice of the world can be rectified. And the simple, naive idea that good people will be rewarded, and bad people punished. For me, neither faith nor works will do, only moral stature.

Best wishes, Strivax.

I'll state at the outset that I don't believe in any gods or afterlife. But if I did accept the Abrahamic God, there is another pathway to salvation. And that's the Calvinist view--pre-selection. God has already decided who will be saved and who will not. If you believe that God is omnipotent and sovereign, then everything that happens is ultimately the result of his grand plan for the universe. Which would necessarily include how everyone lives his life and his destiny in the afterlife. To me, it's the only logical conclusion if God truly has absolute and ultimate sovereignty.

 

[Strivax]

Wouldn't morality have those same problematic aspects as faith/belief though ? Moral ideas are just as influenced by upbringing, culture, and chemical / biological predispositions as faith/belief. One person might be born with, or have developed via upbringing, a greater or lesser ability to feel empathy for example. If one is going to deny volition in regards to what a person believes shouldn't that also involve moral beliefs?

That's a good question. I have partially addressed it here, though:

...Yes, that does constitute an issue, but not, I think, an insurmountable problem.

There is morality as I see it. This is subjective morality, clearly.
There is morality as my culture sees it. Let's call that collective morality.
There is morality as God sees it. That is, obviously, objective morality.

So, I think all three are different, and may always be so. But one of our tasks in life is to close the gaps between subjective and collective moralities and objective morality...

The point being that it does not really matter what we believe morality to be; we are to be judged according to how morality really is. To carry your analogy further, with respect to truth; it does not really matter how we believe the world is; the world behaves as it really is. We may believe the world to be flat, but that doesn't alter it's circumference one iota.

Best wishes, Strivax

 

[FireDragon76]

Your definition of faith is that it's just assent to propositions... most Protestants would not agree with that definition of faith. Faith for Protestants is trust, and its intimately connected with how we live our lives.

 

[Strivax]

I'll state at the outset that I don't believe in any gods or afterlife. But if I did accept the Abrahamic God, there is another pathway to salvation. And that's the Calvinist view--pre-selection. God has already decided who will be saved and who will not. If you believe that God is omnipotent and sovereign, then everything that happens is ultimately the result of his grand plan for the universe. Which would necessarily include how everyone lives his life and his destiny in the afterlife. To me, it's the only logical conclusion if God truly has absolute and ultimate sovereignty.

Yes. Predestination does not work for me, though. It reduces humanity to puppets, to actors speaking lines that have been given them, without scope for initiative or agency. It makes our decisions trivial, without significance. As for God's grand plan - I think it flexible enough to accommodate human freedoms while still moving inexorably to the triumph of good over evil. For me, the end is not in doubt, only how the end is achieved. And that is down to each of us.

Best wishes, Strivax

 

[Strivax]

Your definition of faith is that it's just assent to propositions... most Protestants would not agree with that definition of faith. Faith for Protestants is trust, and its intimately connected with how we live our lives.

Yes, I think that is a fair point, and it is one I have acknowledged elsewhere:

Yes, I think that is a helpful way to think about faith. It is certainly a more profound view than the superficial way in which I meant faith; which I saw simply to be a matter of a system of beliefs.

In what way, though, would that derail the thrust of my argument?

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes, I would agree with this, as far as it goes. I would suggest though, that 'works' are possible without a Christian conception of God, or being 'born again', and will be rewarded appropriately because the consequent spiritual stature gained is independent of the faith we espouse. In other words, you could be a Buddhist, and do works, and gain moral strength of character thereby, and through that character, be kindly judged.

Best wishes, Strivax

Possibly, but not in this dispensation (the greater spiritual harvest that takes place during Christ's millennial rule answers lots of these questions).

 

[Huntun]

That's a good question. I have partially addressed it here, though:



The point being that it does not really matter what we believe morality to be; we are to be judged according to how morality really is. To carry your analogy further, with respect to truth; it does not really matter how we believe the world is; the world behaves as it really is. We may believe the world to be flat, but that doesn't alter it's circumference one iota.

Best wishes, Strivax

You also consider the existence of God something that is objectively true regardless of belief though right? But it still seemed to be problematic for you that God would base his judgment on a persons belief because of the lack of volitional control one has over belief. Ones morality would have the same worrying elements re volition but in that case the objectivity of morality overrides that concern. Why does the objectivity of morality make it more plausible that he would judge based on that while the objectivity of his existence doesn't?

 

[Strivax]

You also consider the existence of God something that is objectively true regardless of belief though right? But it still seemed to be problematic for you that God would base his judgment on a persons belief because of the lack of volitional control one has over belief. Ones morality would have the same worrying elements re volition but in that case the objectivity of morality overrides that concern. Why does the objectivity of morality make it more plausible that he would judge based on that while the objectivity of his existence doesn't?

I'm not sure I've quite understood your point, but for me, the existence of God is the sine qua non of the discussion. I don't think it possible to prove the objective existence of God; but I do think it possible to put forward an argument for the existence of an objective morality, and I have done so:

Whilst sympathetic to these sentiments, I think it is possible to make an argument for an objective, absolute morality.

Let's assume that I have a moral system of sorts, and you do, as well. Let's also assume these subjective moralities differ, in substance or in detail. Then one of these systems must be better than the other. We might argue which is which, but we would probably agree that there are qualitative differences between them. Perhaps one system is more coherent, consistent or comprehensive than the other. So, if we hold that systems of moralities vary in quality, are we not implying that there must be some, ideal, system of morality that is the best of all?

I think we would be entitled to call such a moral system 'objective' morality.

Consider the existence of God as an axiom, which one may accept or reject, with the consequence that, rejected, nothing I have to say about Him will make any sense whatsoever! Meanwhile, consider the existence of an objective morality a theory to be proven.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Huntun]

but I do think it possible to put forward an argument for the existence of an objective morality, and I have done so:

If you have a knock out argument proving the existence of objective morality then you should let the academic philosophers out there know. None of them seem to have found such a thing. In fact moral error theory, moral non-cognitivism, and moral relativism seem to be the popular directions precisely because "objective morality" is so hard to prove.

 

[Strivax]

If you have a knock out argument proving the existence of objective morality then you should let the academic philosophers out there know. None of them seem to have found such a thing...

Just so. But I have provided exactly such an argument above; the argument from quality. You appear not to have read it, which is a shame, because I would value your opinion of it.

Thanks, Strivax.

 

[Huntun]

Just so. But I have provided exactly such an argument above; the argument from quality. You appear not to have read it, which is a shame, because I would value your opinion of it.

Are you talking about the post where you said " So, if we hold that systems of moralities vary in quality, are we not implying that there must be some, ideal, system of morality that is the best of all"?

I don't think that's a knock out argument that objective morality exists because the statement "moralities vary in quality" hasn't been substantiated and many people would reject it outright. Look up Moral Non-Cognitivism, Moral Error Theory, and Moral Skepticism for example. How would you prove to them that moralities vary in quality?

Non-cognitivism is the meta-ethical view that ethical sentences do not express propositions (i.e. statements) and thus cannot be true or false (they are not truth-apt). A noncognitivist denies the cognitivist claim that "moral judgments are capable of being objectively true, because they describe some feature of the world."[1] If moral statements cannot be true, and if one cannot know something that is not true, noncognitivism implies that moral knowledge is impossible.[1]
​

Non-cognitivism entails that non-cognitive attitudes underlie moral discourse and this discourse therefore consists of non-declarative speech acts, although accepting that its surface features may consistently and efficiently work as if moral discourse were cognitive. The point of interpreting moral claims as non-declarative speech acts is to explain what moral claims mean if they are neither true nor false (as philosophies such as logical positivism entail). Utterances like "Boo to killing!" and "Don't kill" are not candidates for truth or falsity, but have non-cognitive meaning.

Finally, Noncognitivism holds that we can never know that any moral claim is true because moral claims are incapable of being true or false (they are not truth-apt). Instead, moral claims are imperatives (e.g. "Don't steal babies!"), expressions of emotion (e.g. "stealing babies: Boo!"), or expressions of "pro-attitudes" ("I do not believe that babies should be stolen.")​

 

[quatona]

Before I start, I'd better just explain that I'm not trying to convert you into any belief you might find uncongenial, still less trying to persuade you to walk with me on my own particular path towards God. No, being a newbie on this forum, I'm trying to stimulate a little discussion, and see what you all make of the place I'm at right now. So, preamble over, here's a start.

Some people think salvation is a matter of good works. I don't particularly want to argue them down, because the world needs all the good works it can get. But, for me, the problem with this idea is the situation where one individual, no more virtuous than the next, can do a whole lot more good works than his neighbour, since he is richer. I reject the idea that you can buy your way into heaven.

Some people think that salvation is a matter of faith. They think that what you believe gets you to heaven. There are several problems with this idea, and I will list only three.

1) Faith is an accident of birth. Most people absorb the faith of their surrounding culture. A few hardy souls venture beyond this, but the chances of them doing so are vanishingly small. Most Christians, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists are that way because they were born into that society. Should heaven be a similar accident of birth?

2) Faith is not a matter of volition. We can only believe things we think to be true. And if we think a thing is true, we cannot help but believe it. We cannot change our beliefs simply because we want to, so, for example, the rationality of Pascal's wager is useless to us. Even if we think it to our advantage to believe there is a God, that cannot make us so to believe. If you doubt this, try becoming a scientologist for the next five minutes. And then try switching back again, just because you want to. And the point is, how can heavenly reward or hellish damnation justly depend on a thing we cannot help?

3) Faith is not a matter of virtue. Good people may believe all sorts of odd things, and bad people may adhere rigorously to truth. So, are we to believe good people go to hell, and bad people get to heaven, simply on the basis of their mindset?

So, these considerations lead me to think that the quality of our eventual afterlife must be a matter of our morality, rather than the extent of our good deeds or the truth value of our world-view. My contention is the simple, childish notion that there must be an afterlife, so that the injustice of the world can be rectified. And the simple, naive idea that good people will be rewarded, and bad people punished. For me, neither faith nor works will do, only moral stature.

Just for clarifying on what basis we are talking here: To me your post looks like a "this is the way I would prefer it to be" - it doesn´t seem to contain any solid argument for your notion. Would that be an accurate observation, or am I missing something?

If I´d believe in an afterlife, my preference would be a situation in which people have grown out of human concepts such as punishment and reward.

On another note, I don´t quite understand why you feel that our individual "moral stature" is more of a choice that our individual "faith". Come to think of it, I am not even sure I know what you mean by "moral stature".

 

[quatona]

Whilst sympathetic to these sentiments, I think it is possible to make an argument for an objective, absolute morality.

Let's assume that I have a moral system of sorts, and you do, as well.

Ok.

Let's also assume these subjective moralities differ, in substance or in detail.

Ok.

Then one of these systems must be better than the other.

Hang on...
1. How does that even follow (unless you preassume that which you want to prove: an objective/absolute meta-morality)? Two systems can be different yet equally good.
2. What are the meta-moral criteria for a morality being good/better, anyway?

We might argue which is which, but we would probably agree that there are qualitative differences between them. Perhaps one system is more coherent, consistent or comprehensive than the other.

Sure - there are even systems that are downright self-contradictory.
I´m not seeing, though, why different systems can not be equally coherent, consistent or comprehensive in themseves.
Furthermore, while inner consistency/coherence/comprehensiveness are requirements for a system to be candidates for being objective, they are certainly not sufficient criteria for concluding the system is true/absolute/objective.

So, if we hold that systems of moralities vary in quality, are we not implying that there must be some, ideal, system of morality that is the best of all?

Well, wood and metal have different qualities that we will probably agree on - doesn´t mean we can conclude that either wood or metal is "objectively better".

I think we would be entitled to call such a moral system 'objective' morality.

Disagree. At best, we can use criteria such as consistency/coherence/comprehensiveness to dismiss certain system that don´t meet these criteria (IOW because they are illogical), and to attest that other systems are contradiction-free. That, however, doesn´t yet render them objective, absolute or true.

The greatest problem of your approach, however, is this:
Your and my criteria for what makes a "good morality" (i.e. our meta-ethical criteria) are likely to be different - just as our moral criteria are. In having the discussion that you propose for a solution we´d just elevate the subjectivity to the next level.

 

[Strivax]

Thanks, Quatona and Huntun, for your critiques. I am going to need to think about them some. Then I will get back to you!

Cheers, Strivax.