The Falsification Debate

[2ndRateMind]

Your "morality response" to my OP has been very helpful for me. Thanks!

Glad to have been of assistance!

... The necessity to determine the one good is not a freedom to choose, but merely a freedom to decide. In other words, we cannot choose what obligations we have -- we can only decide whether or not to fulfill it.

The difference between reality and morality that I was trying to point out was that the former is merely descriptive, whereas the latter is prescriptive. Reality is what IS (leading solely to reflection), and morality is what is OWED (leading past reflection to action). Because morality involves human decision-making in its fulfillment, it ranks not as actuality but as possibility.

But surely, while morality provokes action, there is a descriptive element to it, which would place it partly in the realm of actuality. The easiest way to think of this (though not necessarily most accurate) is of a 'code of laws' in God's mind. As you point out, we cannot choose what obligations we have, what the 'code of laws' contains. But we can contemplate injunctions such as 'It is wrong to murder' independendently of their prescriptive power. So, whereas facts are merely 'is', morality is both 'is' and 'ought'.

I just want to repeat my answer to Flew's question, from the OP, in case you missed it as it was a reply to Yab Yum. I would be interested if you chose to comment.

But I do think, as God's_Pawn does, that a perfectly good, omniscient, omnipotent God who created us to be the objects of His love and wants the best for us must have provided us with the best of all possible worlds...

Perhaps that is the falsifying test, albeit a qualitative one, that we are looking for; if we can find some unanswerable reason or set of reasons why the world could be better than it is, why some evil or set of evils are unnecessary and gratuitous, then we would have good reason to doubt God's love or even His very existence, as Flew asks.

Best, 2RM

 

[ittarter]

But surely, while morality provokes action, there is a descriptive element to it, which would place it partly in the realm of actuality. The easiest way to think of this (though not necessarily most accurate) is of a 'code of laws' in God's mind. As you point out, we cannot choose what obligations we have, what the 'code of laws' contains. But we can contemplate injunctions such as 'It is wrong to murder' independendently of their prescriptive power. So, whereas facts are merely 'is', morality is both 'is' and 'ought'.

Morality surely appeals to reality as its rationale etc. But even a hypothetical "code of laws" remains decidedly abstract. It is God's desire for the world, but whether or not it is realized remains to be seen.

Out of curiosity, why is it so important to you that morality be registered as actuality, and not potentiality only?

But I do think, as God's_Pawn does, that a perfectly good, omniscient, omnipotent God who created us to be the objects of His love and wants the best for us must have provided us with the best of all possible worlds...

Perhaps that is the falsifying test, albeit a qualitative one, that we are looking for; if we can find some unanswerable reason or set of reasons why the world could be better than it is, why some evil or set of evils are unnecessary and gratuitous, then we would have good reason to doubt God's love or even His very existence, as Flew asks.

Ironically, that is exactly what people (including myself) do -- we examine our experiences of evil and appeal to them when we sourly profess God's absence or non-existence.

However, I have a hard time thinking of reasons like these as "unanswerable." In fact, this stems from the same problem that the entirety of Flew's thesis faces, namely, that the question of God's existence (or similar questions) may be treated scientifically, when in fact they lose meaning when we treat them in terms of factuality and objectivity.

I sincerely hope that man never "proves" scientifically that God exists or does not exist; rather, I hope we wrestle with the meaning of this question, and many others, for the full length of our existence.

 

[JWNEWMAN]

Philosopher Anthony Flew once said,

“What would have to occur or to have occurred to constitute for you a disproof of the love of, or of the existence of, God?”

It is so easy to speak so generally, or to hold views that are designed to allow fast but superficial assimilation of any bit of knowledge out there. However, I suspect that such claims are of little relevance to what life throws at people on an everyday basis. In other words, if God (for example) is defined in such a way as to be unchallengeable, does such an idea constitute "useful knowledge"?

So, how would you respond to Flew?

I'd ask him to repeat the question.

 

[ittarter]

I'd ask him to repeat the question.

If the intent of the question is unclear, I'd recommend you review this post and this one. If they don't help clarify matters, let me know.

 

[ittarter]

To the OP; I read 'Night' by Elie Wiesel at an age when I was very impressionable and confused.

Mid-teens?

I no longer entertain these doubts as I don't like the relentless logic that is set in motion once I contemplate the old conundrum of theodicy, especially with the ugliness of the 20th century weighing me down.

You don't like it because it's uncomfortable? Or because it doesn't seem trustworthy? Or something else?

I will never stop believing in God but I no longer think that our human idea of morality applies to Him.

Then isn't it meaningless to say that God is good, if God's goodness is incomprehensible and at times utterly contrary to our sense of goodness?

Therefore I accept that the darkness at the edge of town is real and that as far as the moon and the stars are concerned I can go to hell.

Very poetic. I'm not quite sure what you mean, and I wish I was.

Lest you think me a party-pooper or excessively morose, I am fortunate to be surrounded by a few very loving people and one very loving girlfriend who provide all the warmth and love I need.

Your twilight candor is welcome on this thread, friend. I hope I didn't overwhelm you with questions. Looking forward to further input before I am able to formulate an adequate response.

 

[Zeena]

So Satan's freedom is worth the suffering of a billion children?

Yes, as is man's. You understand there are men with billions, nay, trillions of dollars sitting in bank accounts, yes? Men who would not lift a finger to help in witnessing someone die of thirst? You seem to put blame to the devil for all sorts of malidies that are the cause of our own unrighteousness..

Even as Satan [and men] have freedom to sin and suffer condemnation, so also the Creator, Christ's suffering for our freedom is the power to save. He has freewill too, in Who's image we are made .

Romans 5:19
For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Christ came into the world for the reason of freely dying for the world. Salvation is of Jesus.

Romans 9:16
So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

Romans 8:35-36
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

Romans 8:32
He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

 

[ittarter]

Sorry, Ittarter, for this tardy reply, but I was cruelly drawn away from my beloved keyboard by the ridiculous and wholly unjust demand from society that I should work for a living.

Sucks, doesn't it?

About a decade later. I bloomed late, as they say, which is a kind way of telling the likes of me that we are slow on the uptake.

Maybe before that you were too busy conquering the world.

The problem of theodicy is uncomfortable for me because I can not reconcile my moral response to witnessing so much pain and cruelty with an omnipotent and benevolent father.

I suppose that's why we cling so strongly to our belief in one.

Therefore, I have two choices; I either abandon my faith or I accept the notion that my moral feelings are different from God's.
The former I can not do so the latter is my only option.

This will probably sound intellectually flawed to you.

Naturally, but we're not Vulcans, are we? Your choice is no different than the ones I make every day. We choose to believe because the alternative is frightening.

Yes, it is.
There are those who think that our fall has brought death and suffering to all the other life-forms on Earth.
I can not accept this view as it strikes me as utterly ridiculous and fantastically immoral.

And without a moral compass we would be utterly, completely lost, because morality tells us what we should do. Without it, our actions are arbitrary, insignificant and contemptible.

To the point: I watched a beautiful documentary about life in the oceans, some years ago.
One segment dealt with a mother whale and her calf, swimming northward off the California coast.
A pack of killer whales came and tried to separate the calf from its mother.
This effort took hours.
In the end the Orcas succeeded and the mother swam on as her child, which she so doggedly defended, was ripped to shreds by the predators who were just as moral as you and I sitting down for supper.

Tell me, Ittarter, and I mean this with all my heart, what am I to make of this ?

Maybe that's why we have to work for a living -- so that questions like these don't plague us endlessly. We are given an eight hour respite, then go home and once again lick our old wounds.

I think you're right. Furthermore, our questions about God's existence (e.g. the falsification debate) are typically superficial because we don't have the strength of will to follow that path to its logical completion. It's more like a mental game that we play to entertain and horrify ourselves, to an extent that we can control. Like watching a movie starring myself.

I believe your response is fair. Illogical, to be sure, but even so...

 

[2ndRateMind]

Morality surely appeals to reality as its rationale etc. But even a hypothetical "code of laws" remains decidedly abstract. It is God's desire for the world, but whether or not it is realized remains to be seen.

Out of curiosity, why is it so important to you that morality be registered as actuality, and not potentiality only?

I just like the idea that morality is objective, and real, even if it is invisible and intangible.

Ironically, that is exactly what people (including myself) do -- we examine our experiences of evil and appeal to them when we sourly profess God's absence or non-existence.

Ah, but I am not talking about instances of evil, but classes of evil. So the individual case of the whale calf is merely an instance of predation. The question is then, not why was this whale calf torn apart, but why is predation necessary? And I think one can build apologies for a world in which predation is a part.

However, I have a hard time thinking of reasons like these as "unanswerable." In fact, this stems from the same problem that the entirety of Flew's thesis faces, namely, that the question of God's existence (or similar questions) may be treated scientifically, when in fact they lose meaning when we treat them in terms of factuality and objectivity.

No. To investigate the divine, we must leave the quantitative methods beloved of science and trust to our qualitative discrimination. Things are subjective, from the word go.

I sincerely hope that man never "proves" scientifically that God exists or does not exist; rather, I hope we wrestle with the meaning of this question, and many others, for the full length of our existence.

I think you are entirely safe in this hope; God camouflages himself to preserve our 'freedom'. A world where God was proven, despite His goodness, would be a terrible tyranny of perfection; humanity simply could not take it.

Best, 2RM.

 

[ittarter]

I just like the idea that morality is objective, and real, even if it is invisible and intangible.

I think we misrepresent morality if we portray it as a metaphysical reality. Of course, I think that about a lot of things that are generally understood as metaphysical realities -- hence my epithet. While I grant that we should experience morality as an objective reality to which we must submit, we must also recognize our own part in influencing and slowly transforming that morality over long periods of time. Have you read Peter Berger's Sacred Canopy?

Ah, but I am not talking about instances of evil, but classes of evil. So the individual case of the whale calf is merely an instance of predation. The question is then, not why was this whale calf torn apart, but why is predation necessary? And I think one can build apologies for a world in which predation is a part... No. To investigate the divine, we must leave the quantitative methods beloved of science and trust to our qualitative discrimination. Things are subjective, from the word go.

I think we disagree on the difference between scientific and non-scientific or "humanistic" study. Quantitative and qualitative has nothing to do with it. I believe, rather, the difference is whether or not a problem can be solved and left behind. Science solves problems, and once they are solved they stay that way unless the assumptions undergirding the experiment or calculation are overthrown by new discoveries. "Philosophy" involves questions of which we ourselves are a part, such as theodicy. Gabriel Marcel comments,

Distinguish between the Mysterious and the Problematic. A problem is something met which bars my passage. It is before me in its entirety. A mystery, on the other hand, is something in which I find myself caught up... it can therefore only be thought of as a sphere where the distinction between what is in me and what is before me loses its meaning and its initial validity.

I would classify theodicy in the category of mystery because it has been asked ever since humankind became religiously aware, and no solution is ever final in the sense that a scientific solution is final. The next generation might answer the question very differently, or worse! ask a different question altogether. I agree that our society NEEDS to create theodicies, yes, but whether this may refute the SCIENTIFIC complaint of falsification? I say, "nay."

 

[2ndRateMind]

Interesting. I see objective morality as something we aspire to. Social mores change and develop, and, hopefully, develop towards the objective reality. But God’s Will for us, objective morality in terms of the ideals of the True, the Right, the Good and the Just - these things remain for us to discover, as society is dragged, kicking it’s heels, by the malcontent to it’s next stage of progress.

EF Scumacher talks of ‘convergent’ and ‘divergent’ problems. Convergent problems are the kind of issues that can be solved. How best to insulate a house, maybe. They have single, optimum, solutions. Divergent problems are those that need to be, in some way, transcended. How best to educate a child, maybe. With discipline? With freedom? Or the happy compromise that arises out of the love of that child? Whatever, convergent problems are primarily scientific, in your sense of the term. Divergent problems are not. They involve of capacity to make qualitative discriminations, and transcend the obvious parameters.

As for theodicies - like you, I cannot see how they may be scientific. They involve, by their very nature, degrees of happiness and pain, and the trade off between them. It is a qualitative comparison, not a quantitive one. And, until science learns how to compare the two, in a quantitative sort of way, I do not see how it can have much to say on the matter. Surprisingly, however, people can find much to say. And do.

Best wishes, 2RM.