Are God's Moral Prescriptions Arbitrary, Other, or Other?

[cvanwey]

Yes this is the problem with "theology": reasoning about a being/realm that is proposed to be beyond human comprehension always breaks down. Claims about such a realm should be considered poetic appeals to a sort of spiritual intuition.

Does this mean we should reject the LoL?

 

[durangodawood]

Truth is conformance with reality. One does not assess conformance with reality "obliquely/poetically" whatever that might mean.

If reality includes realms we are not constitutionally able to grasp completely (which is a given when talking about God), then poetic explanations or appeals are whats left to work with.

 

[Tinker Grey]

If reality includes realms we are not constitutionally able to grasp completely (which is a given when talking about God), then poetic explanations or appeals are what left to work with.

Why make poetic appeals at all? If I don't know something, I don't make claims and call them true "poetically".

 

[durangodawood]

Does this mean we should reject the LoL?

The LoL?

Well I know laughter is one approach people take to facing paradox. But thats probably not what you mean.

 

[durangodawood]

Why make poetic appeals at all? If I don't know something, I don't make claims and call them true "poetically".

Because people have some spiritual intuition (which may or may not be totally bogus) that there in fact is some reality beyond our rational comprehension that it would benefit us to relate to however we can.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Because people have some spiritual intuition (which may or may not be totally bogus) that there in fact is some reality beyond our rational comprehension that it would benefit us to relate to however we can.

Claiming to know something via intuition (spiritual or otherwise) is to admit that you are guessing. You don't know "intuitively".

ETA: Why would it benefit us to relate to something we don't know is true?

 

[cvanwey]

The LoL?

Well I know laughter is one approach people take to facing paradox. But thats probably not what you mean.

The Laws of Logic.

Why cant the LoL be applied to the concept of God?

Again, the assumption is that God is good. If the assumption is that God is not always good, then we can go down a completely new path.

 

[durangodawood]

Claiming to know something via intuition (spiritual or otherwise) is to admit that you are guessing. You don't know "intuitively".

Maybe. I mean this is a matter of such pure subjectivity that I cant definitively agree with you. I cant fully know what another person knows.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Maybe. I mean this is a matter of such pure subjectivity that I cant definitively agree with you. I cant fully know what another person knows.

Well, I wouldn't expect "definitive" agreement.

You may not know what another person knows, but you know what you know and how you know (kind-a, I suppose). When you intuit an answer to a question that can be known (but you're guessing), does your intuition turn out be right more often than wrong?

I work as a software engineer. When I intuit a diagnosis of what is wrong with the software, I am likely right. But, I'd venture it's only partially right and then only about 70% of the time. AND, I'd assert that I'm better at it than most, IME. However, I'd venture that I'm nearly 100% wrong when it comes to intuition about Quantum Mechanics.

Now, we come to a god whom we define as ineffable. Of what use is intuition then? How would one even guess that our guess has any poetic value let alone an application to reality? As such, I say such speculation has no value.

 

[durangodawood]

The Laws of Logic.

Why cant the LoL be applied to the concept of God?

Again, the assumption is that God is good. If the assumption is that God is not always good, then we can go down a completely new path.

I dont think we know enough about a realm beyond time to apply logical laws that arose from the intuitions of creatures who evolved over billions of years dealing with life temporally.

And time is just one dimension of possible difference.

I would agree with you that the E. dilemma does expose a problem with rational theologizing. But it doesn't at all negate the idea of God and his realm, for the reasons I mentioned. Basically Id expect us to encounter paradox when trying to wrap our mind around God.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I would agree with you that the E. dilemma does expose a problem with rational theologizing. But it doesn't at all negate the idea of God and his realm, for the reasons I mentioned. Basically Id expect us to encounter paradox when trying to wrap our mind around God.

Well, the E. dilemma does have a couple of resolutions: 1) deny God is good (as @cvanwey mentioned), or 2) accept one of the horns of the dilemma: a) God declares something good because he can assess it as good comparing to some standard outside himself, or b) God's commands are good because he commanded them -- they could have been otherwise.

I would say that this is not a paradox at all. I'd say that those defining "god" have exceeded their grasp.

 

[durangodawood]

....Now, we come to a god whom we define as ineffable. Of what use is intuition then? How would one even guess that our guess has any poetic value let alone an application to reality? I say none.

It seems the value and application to reality comes mainly in how people apply their understanding of God to the conduct of the their own lives and to their appreciation of living. Thats how it seems from the outside, not being a believer myself. People like you and I, if I may speak for you for a moment, seem to derive our appreciation elsewhere. But I cant help longing for something a bit more like a bedrock ground of existence to hang things on. At the same time, the desire alone doesnt just make the possibility real for me. That desire may simply be the result of an active imagination

 

[durangodawood]

Well, the E. dilemma does have a couple of resolutions: 1) deny God is good (as @cvanwey mentioned), or 2) accept one of the horns of the dilemma: a) God declares something good because he can assess it as good comparing to some standard outside himself, or b) God's commands are good because he commanded them -- they could have been otherwise.

I would say that this is not a paradox at all. I'd say that those defining "god" have exceeded their grasp.

Reconciling the typical theological claims in light of the E dilemma.... of course that invokes a paradox. Thats a dead center example of paradox.

 

[Tinker Grey]

It seems the value and application to reality comes mainly in how people apply their understanding of God to the conduct of the their own lives and to their appreciation of living. Thats how it seems from the outside, not being a believer myself. People like you and I, if I may speak for you for a moment, seem to derive our appreciation elsewhere. But I cant help longing for something a bit more like a bedrock ground of existence to hang things on. At the same time, the desire alone doesnt just make the possibility real for me.

I can appreciate this statement. Even when I was a believer, I began to doubt the usefulness of ideas like the trinity when all explanations run afoul of heresy. (And a restatement of the doctrine is not an explanation.)

If the Bible cannot (and therefore God) be bothered to layout a formulation of the godhead such that it can be apprehended, then clearly it is not of importance.

If neither Mark nor John nor Paul nor Peter nor even Jesus himself (apparently) can be bothered to mention the virgin birth, then it can be of only marginal importance (since Matthew and Luke assert it) and certainly not of central importance.

There may be an object flerg on planet Blerg, but it cannot be of any importance until such time as it can be apprehended.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Reconciling the typical theological claims in light of the E dilemma.... of course that invokes a paradox. Thats a dead center example of paradox.

Paradoxes and dilemmas are different things. If one asserts that both A and not A are true, one is asserting a paradox. It may that this is what a believer is doing or attempting to do for E.

But, I've yet to accept a paradox as true for anything real. Such a believer is manifestly trying to have it both ways as a way of getting out of the dilemma. Such a solution is no solution at all.

 

[durangodawood]

But, I've yet to accept a paradox as true for anything real.

Same here. But then again Ive restricted my personal bounds of "reality" to stuff and realms humans are constitutionally able to grasp rationally. I'm not sure that restriction is ultimately valid tho. Certainly I cannot be sure its valid. But as an earth evolved type of creature it works well enough for the sort of life Ive been given.

Such a believer is manifestly trying to have it both ways as a way of getting out of the dilemma. Such a solution is no solution at all.

Not for us. But for the believer who starts with the supposition of a realm beyond rational grasp, paradox should be almost expected. A feature not a bug, so to speak.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Same here. But then again Ive restricted my personal bounds of "reality" to stuff and realms humans are constitutionally able to grasp rationally. I'm not sure that restriction is ultimately valid tho. Certainly I cannot be sure its valid. But as an earth evolved type of creature it works well enough for the sort of life Ive been given.



Not for us. But for the believer who starts with the supposition of a realm beyond rational grasp, paradox should be almost expected. A feature not a bug, so to speak.

Sounds, then, as if we are on the same page, more or less.

 

[durangodawood]

Sounds, then, as if we are on the same page, more or less.

I think so. At least in where our own lives are grounded.

But perhaps where we differ is I do not think rational problems such as reconciling treasured bits of theology with the the E dilemma (or problem of evil, or problem of freewill/omniscience, etc, etc) should pose any sort of ultimate roadblock for believers. The expectation that human sense-making need apply to every aspect of the proposed divine is just not valid.

Most believers tho get hung up on trying to defend the divine against these rational attacks on rational terms. Thats a mistake IMO.... for the reason I noted.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think so. At least in where our own lives are grounded.

But perhaps where we differ is I do not think rational problems such as reconciling treasured bits of theology with the the E dilemma (or problem of evil, or problem of freewill/omniscience, etc, etc) should pose any sort of ultimate roadblock for believers. The expectation that human sense-making need apply to every aspect of the proposed divine is just not valid.

Most believers tho get hung up on trying to defend the divine against these rational attacks on rational terms. Thats a mistake IMO.... for the reason I noted.

I agree that believers do use logic/reality defying assertions to resolve "treasured bits of reality". And, you are right: this is where we disagree. If you find yourself denying reality in order to maintain/retain a belief, you should abandon it.

That humans do do these things is not the same as that they should do these things.

So, yes, I think that human sense-making should apply to any proposed aspect or that aspect should be abandoned.

 

[cvanwey]

I dont think we know enough about a realm beyond time to apply logical laws that arose from the intuitions of creatures who evolved over billions of years dealing with life temporally.

And time is just one dimension of possible difference.

I would agree with you that the E. dilemma does expose a problem with rational theologizing. But it doesn't at all negate the idea of God and his realm, for the reasons I mentioned. Basically Id expect us to encounter paradox when trying to wrap our mind around God.

The Euthyphro's focus is merely to demonstrate that the either/or proposition poses an uncomfortable conclusion about God.

I'm already aware believers do not believe, merely based upon logic alone.

Looks like you too acknowledge there does not seem to exist a third option. Neither do I.

Maybe some apologist(s) can give it a crack, or a twirl?