Good and Bad Religion

[Albion]

Yes, I understood that - but I was making the point that your reference to absolute morality wasn't a baseless remark since it had a foundation in a more generally accepted philosophical sense...

Thanks.

 

[quatona]

Yes, it has.

Post #9 is arguing that morality can only be understood in an ultimate objective or absolute sense.

No, the post doesn´t present any argument. It just presents an empty assertion. Now, it may be that the poster, you or Lewis have something in store to support it - but it hasn´t been done here.
Same goes for the "You are wrong" that has been given in return.

This is the basic 'jist' of the moral argument for the existence of god...

Is it any different from or more substantial than, say, the "argument": "Humans have legs, therefore God"?

 

[Albion]

No, the post doesn´t present any argument. It just presents an empty assertion.

It presents an assertion. It did not intend to go into any proofs at that point.

Now, it may be that the poster, you or Lewis have something in store to support it - but it hasn´t been done here.

So what?

Same goes for the "You are wrong" that has been given in return.

And for the argument that Post #9 countered--that one's political policies determine what's morally good or bad.

 

[Ken-1122]

I believe good people will do good, and bad people will do bad inspite of religion. The difference is the religious person will use his religion to justify his behavior weather it be good or bad, the non religious person will take responsibility for his own actions.

Ken

 

[Albion]

I believe good people will do good, and bad people will do bad inspite of religion. The difference is the religious person will use his religion to justify his behavior weather it be good or bad, the non religious person will take responsibility for his own actions.

Ken

That's not necessarily the only question. It is actually the case that 'good' people will--or can-- do 'good' if there is no standard of goodness beyond themselves?

All the doubters, skeptics, agnostics, atheists, etc. that I know have ditched God but somehow measure goodness by how well people around then adhere to...ready for it?...the Judeo-Christian value system that has permeated our society, like it or not.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That's not necessarily the only question. It is actually the case that 'good' people will--or can-- do 'good' if there is no standard of goodness beyond themselves?

All the doubters, skeptics, agnostics, atheists, etc. that I know have ditched God but somehow measure goodness by how well people around then adhere to...ready for it?...the Judeo-Christian value system that has permeated our society, like it or not.

You've just met one who doesn't. While I doubt that I am completely uninfluenced by the Judeo-Christian value system as it exists in modern culture, my personal ethics isn't merely a cut-and-paste of that ethical system. There are significant differences.

In any case, doing good does not require having a standard of goodness "beyond oneself". It only requires having a standard of goodness that is not a pure invention of one's imagination and desires. It doesn't have to have a supra-human source.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

I don´t aim for perfection (and looking at "things" I really don´t know how to arrive at the conclusion that they do). To me, perfection is an entirely abstract concept (pretending the possibility of a static, contextless reality) that takes the life out of life. Plus, it´s boring.

It´s basically the state prior to creation: A perfect entity sitting there in the middle of nothing - with nothing to interact with, with nothing to do except for enjoying his own perfection (btw. every entity in that situation would have to be called "perfect"). Even God got bored of that. So he created drama.

I don't think that just because the good aims at perfection that you have to intentionally aim at perfection -- whatever that means. Unless you're not down with ideals, and doing things like getting better and better at guitar or writing stuff on CF, I don't think you have a problem with perfection, or the Grecian arete.

And maybe I can tease out a point from your second paragraph. Being at a state of perfection is boring, given that it involves no becoming, and the action of life is in the becoming. So God creates human beings, who are all sorts of imperfect, and have many ways of attempting perfection, and therefore many paths of becoming. Drama city.

 

[Albion]

You've just met one who doesn't.

In that case, I should say "Hello, and "How are you doin'?" The rarity of such an event certainly calls for a special response.

While I doubt that I am completely uninfluenced by the Judeo-Christian value system as it exists in modern culture, my personal ethics isn't merely a cut-and-paste of that ethical system. There are significant differences.

So, do you think sending your children running through minefields, forcing your daughters to undergo circumcision, or perhaps disemboweling yourself if you suffer loss of face for any reason is your forte'

In any case, doing good does not require having a standard of goodness "beyond oneself".

So you say--and it's easy to say--but when we look closely, what I said is true.

 

[Ken-1122]

That's not necessarily the only question. It is actually the case that 'good' people will--or can-- do 'good' if there is no standard of goodness beyond themselves?

All the doubters, skeptics, agnostics, atheists, etc. that I know have ditched God but somehow measure goodness by how well people around then adhere to...ready for it?...the Judeo-Christian value system that has permeated our society, like it or not.

I can understand that opinion coming from a person with....ready for it?....Judeo-Christian values; but comming from a doubter, skeptic, agnostic, atheist, etc. who believes there is no standard of goodness beyond ourselves, I see the Judeo-Christian value system constantly changing as society changes.

How many people of today with...ready for it?... the Judeo-Christian value systems will advocate killing homosexuals and disobediant children? How many will advocate genoside akin to what Moses, Saul, or Joshua did during war? I have asked several of my friends with....ready for it?...Judeo-Christian value systems if they would be willing to kill their child if they were convinced that God told them to and they would beat around the bush, wiggle and squirm, and do everything the could to admit they would not (claiming God would never claim such a thing, etc) yet they admire Abraham who was willing to kill his child when he became convinced God told him to and this is seen as a great act of faith.
Let's face it; the Old Testament value systems do not exist today even amongst the most fundementalist Christians. As society changes; so does...ready wait for it?... the Judeo-Christian value system.

Ken

 

[Albion]

I can understand that opinion coming from a person with....ready for it?....Judeo-Christian values

Well, you're wrong. It's coming from a person with substantial knowledge of the history of Western culture. If you are well-educated in Western history yourself, you can hardly avoid knowing that the ideas we today suppose to be non-religious or secular, or merely humane, or even "obvious" are quite unlike the values that people in other cultures assume are "normal" and right...and that they derive, to a considerable extent, from Jewish and Christian thinking about proper or fair behavior.

 

[Ken-1122]

Well, you're wrong. It's coming from a person with substantial knowledge of the history of Western culture. If you are well-educated in Western history yourself, you can hardly avoid knowing that the ideas we today suppose to be non-religious or secular, or merely humane, or even "obvious" are quite unlike the values that people in other cultures assume are "normal" and right...and that they derive, to a considerable extent, from Jewish and Christian thinking about proper or fair behavior.

Since you are "well educated" in Western culture, would you agree that the Judeo-Christian values of today are different than the Judeo-Christian values of yesteryear? That as society's values changed (slavery, racism, etc.) Judeo-Christian values changed as well?

Ken

 

[Albion]

Since you are "well educated" in Western culture, would you agree that the Judeo-Christian values of today are different than the Judeo-Christian values of yesteryear?

To some degree, sure. That doesn't change the basics of what we were discussing, however.

That as society's values changed (slavery, racism, etc.) Judeo-Christian values changed as well?

Judeo-Christian values are the reason for those changes, in case you don't realize that.

 

[Ken-1122]

To some degree, sure. That doesn't change the basics of what we were discussing, however.

It makes my point! As society changes, so does Judeo-Christian values.

Judeo-Christian values are the reason for those changes, in case you don't realize that.

I disagree! Judeo-Christian values existed for thousands of years and had no problem with slavery or racism. Then sometime between 1865 and 1965 when society decided that racism and slavery was wrong; all of a sudden Judes-Christian values decided slavery and racism was wrong as well! Humm... What took them sooo long??? IMO you are an example of a good person doing good and using your Judeo-Christian beliefs to justify your good behavior.

Ken

 

[Albion]

It makes my point! As society changes, so does Judeo-Christian values.

Did you entirely miss the part where I wrote "to some degree?"

I disagree!

And I'm sure you are intent upon disagreeing no matter what. Right?

 

[Ken-1122]

Did you entirely miss the part where I wrote "to some degree?"

I didn't miss it; I was just pointing out that my point was made.

And I'm sure you are intent upon disagreeing no matter what. Right?

I will agree when you present an argument worth agreeing with, and I hope I can expect the same from you.

Ken

 

[quatona]

It presents an assertion. It did not intend to go into any proofs at that point.

That´s what the poster pointed out, and he responded with another assertion without intending any proof at that point.

So what?

The fact that it was a mere assertion was pointed out, and another claimed that it was more than a mere assertion.

 

[prov1810]

This what you´d need to riddle me: If everything was perfect and nobody was bored - why create imperfection and drama, which actually just means creating a problem so that it can be solved, exactly that behaviour which is born from boredom?

An imperfect being who knows how to create ex nihilo, that's impressive imperfection right there.

Maybe the world is not imperfect. Maybe it perfectly is what it is, and we've been looking at sheer perfection the whole time.

Why did He create this? Being perfect, He always does the best thing. He doesn't even have to weigh options beforehand.

 

[quatona]

An imperfect being who knows how to create ex nihilo, that's impressive imperfection right there.

Well, to know how to do one thing may be impressive but it doesn´t render the performing entity perfect. The operative term I addressed was not "impressive imperfection" but "perfection".

Maybe the world is not imperfect. Maybe it perfectly is what it is, and we've been looking at sheer perfection the whole time.

Yes, maybe. In which case all is well and we don´t have to worry about anything at all.
But, for some reason, the (allegedly perfect) Christian God (who allegedly created this perfect - as you say - world) sees problems in the world as it is, or else there wouldn´t be a need for this entire salvation gag to solve those problems.

Why did He create this? Being perfect, He always does the best thing.

Ok, let´s say this world is perfect, for the sake of the argument.
So what is it with God sacrificing Jesus in order to fix that which has (in his opinion) gone wrong with this world?
And why does the bible speak of A&E as "falling" and everyone else as "sinful". Is "being sinful" just another word for "perfection"??
And what is it with the bible continuously telling us about God´s discontent with certain phenomena in the very world that He created? What is it with the idea of everyone falling "short of the mark", etc. etc.?

 

[Albion]

That´s what the poster pointed out, and he responded with another assertion without intending any proof at that point.

I understand that. But neither did I demand "proof" merely because he advanced his theory or complain that none had been given.

 

[prov1810]

But, for some reason, the (allegedly perfect) Christian God (who allegedly created this perfect - as you say - world) sees problems in the world as it is, or else there wouldn´t be a need for this entire salvation gag to solve those problems.


Ok, let´s say this world is perfect, for the sake of the argument.
So what is it with God sacrificing Jesus in order to fix that which has (in his opinion) gone wrong with this world?
And why does the bible speak of A&E as "falling" and everyone else as "sinful". Is "being sinful" just another word for "perfection"??
And what is it with the bible continuously telling us about God´s discontent with certain phenomena in the very world that He created? What is it with the idea of everyone falling "short of the mark", etc. etc.?

In Christian theology we distinguish between God's sovereign will and His moral will. So no moral being has to say that everything is good. But we can't fault God for ordaining morally evil events to exist. We are not in the position to judge such a being, and we don't even know how to evaluate Him. But yes, these events are perfect in the sense that they have every right to exist, because God is right to will them. So everything has meaning.

Even nontheists get to the point where where they stop judging reality. Not to the point of amorality, but they understand that their emotional resistance to events is pointless, and that things simply are what they are. I think that such people are more God-affirming than many religious.