Morality is Non-Rational

[quatona]

Postulating a "good" God makes no progress if your morality is rational by human standards, which is the main point of this discussion thread.

Firstly, it needn´t be rational by human standards. It just needs to be by human standards. And since "good" is a word in human language, and since we are humans having a conversation, it doesn´t get any better than this.
Whose standards would you like to apply? Gods? God is good by his own standards? Then we are back at my statement you took issue with: Anything (including the most atrocious and repulsive things - by our human standards - could turn out to be "good".
Actually, I am not seeing much purpose in using valuations without having or applying a standard. The resulting statements are empty, for all intents and purposes.

Some people require the explanation before they'll believe."Show me, and then I'll believe," they say.

At this point, we aren´t discussing explanations and we aren´t discussing belief.

But Christians operate on faith in a good, holy, and perfect God (His definition of "good," "holy", and "perfect", not ours).

I´m pretty convinced that - if a God exists - he considers himself "good", i.e. he is good by his own standards.

In a sense, I am not applying criteria to judge whether God is these things.

Yes, and that´s a problem on two levels:
1. When you say "God is good" this is a completely meaningless statement. You aren´t communicating anything.
2. (and this is the very point I tried to make with the one-liner from which our conversation started): Arguments like "Without God Hitler could have been good, without God rape and murder could be good,..." are rendered toothless. After all, even with God they could turn out to be good. (In fact, what you seem to be saying: You have faith that God´s standards are sufficiently close to your human standards.)

First, I believe that He is these things, and then by studying the Bible I come to a understand His definition of what "good," "holy" and "perfect" mean. Ultimately, God is the judge of these things, not I. Hope this helps you understand my viewpoint,

I do understand it. I just find it terrible (don´t take it personally - I ´m sure you are a nice guy, and our standards of good aren´t that far apart).
I am merely pointing out how this approach doesn´t remove those problems ascribed to morality concepts that operate without a God - actually it makes things even worse.

 

[Lukamu]

Firstly, it needn´t be rational by human standards. It just needs to be by human standards. And since "good" is a word in human language, and since we are humans having a conversation, it doesn´t get any better than this.
Whose standards would you like to apply? Gods? God is good by his own standards? Then we are back at my statement you took issue with: Anything (including the most atrocious and repulsive things - by our human standards - could turn out to be "good".
Actually, I am not seeing much purpose in using valuations without having or applying a standard. The resulting statements are empty, for all intents and purposes.

At this point, we aren´t discussing explanations and we aren´t discussing belief.

I´m pretty convinced that - if a God exists - he considers himself "good", i.e. he is good by his own standards.

Yes, and that´s a problem on two levels:
1. When you say "God is good" this is a completely meaningless statement. You aren´t communicating anything.
2. (and this is the very point I tried to make with the one-liner from which our conversation started): Arguments like "Without God Hitler could have been good, without God rape and murder could be good,..." are rendered toothless. After all, even with God they could turn out to be good. (In fact, what you seem to be saying: You have faith that God´s standards are sufficiently close to your human standards.)

I do understand it. I just find it terrible (don´t take it personally - I ´m sure you are a nice guy, and our standards of good aren´t that far apart).
I am merely pointing out how this approach doesn´t remove those problems ascribed to morality concepts that operate without a God - actually it makes things even worse.

Indeed, if one believes in a fake god. Perhaps some fake god out there says that rape and murder are good. This fake god may even call himself "good, perfect and holy" to defend the morality of rape and murder. So we agree there.
However, there's a difference between calling something "good, perfect and holy" and being "good, perfect and holy". The Christian God isn't just called these things, He is these things. Therefore, not "anything could turn out to be good". It could be called that, but it wouldn't be that. The Christian God doesn't call things good that are not good. He never has called rape and murder good (unless you have evidence proving otherwise).
One more thing, we have discussed the word "good" a lot because it can be somewhat ambiguous. But what about the words "holy" and "perfect"? These words are unambiguous descriptions of the Christian God.

 

[quatona]

Indeed, if one believes in a fake god. Perhaps some fake god out there says that rape and murder are good. This fake god may even call himself "good, perfect and holy" to defend the morality of rape and murder. So we agree there.

No, we don´t. You missed my actual point: If you abstain from applying human standards and instead rely on the morality of God (before you even know what it says), you have no basis for judging a God who approves of or commands murder and rape "evil, bad or fake". If you feel you can reject a God (and call him false) because he doesn´t match your human standards, you have lost your entire argument.

One more thing, we have discussed the word "good" a lot because it can be somewhat ambiguous. But what about the words "holy" and "perfect"? These words are unambiguous descriptions of the Christian God.

Well, since you can´t even provide standards for "good" (except "that which God is, approves of or commands"), I suspect this won´t be any different with "holy" or "perfect". You define these attributes by pointing to God, and you describe God using these terms. Full circle.

 

[Neochristian]

Morality is practical. That is its authory. Thus we see religions updating moral practices. First, when the practices were being established, so long as you prayed, fasted, and gave to charity, you were being moral. Then it was discovered that there was a practical problem. Those who practiced these things in a certain way, both did not increase in morality and did increase in immorality. The trouble was vanity. So the practices were updated to provide the best results.