Yet another philosophical question

[TScott]

That's actually a common misconception. If you do a word study on the hebrew word for 'evil' as it's used in Isaiah 45:7, you'll see it has the possible meaning of 'catastrophe' or 'war'. This makes much more sense according to the logical flow of the verse: it begins by contrasting light with its opposite, dark, and then moves on to contrast peace with its opposite, which would be violence or war. The assumption that God is both good and evil is sometimes called 'theological dualsim' and is inconsistent with many teachings throughout the Bible.

Whatever it's called doesn't change the intent that is apparent in the verse, which is really what is relevant to the philosophical question at hand. God having people (or angels) do his bidding which is in conflict with the behavior of his commandments creates a moral conundrum.

 

[Sojourner<><]

Whatever it's called doesn't change the intent that is apparent in the verse, which is really what is relevant to the philosophical question at hand. God having people (or angels) do his bidding which is in conflict with the behavior of his commandments creates a moral conundrum.

Well I would agree with you there... except that I don't think that God commands anybody in scripture to do anything that's inconsistent with his moral standards.

He does allow evil to happen though, for good purposes. You can see this in the life of Joseph when he said something along the lines of "you meant it for evil but God meant it for good" to his brothers. That doesn't mean that evil is ever God's will though. If that were true, then every time someone insulted you or cursed at you, then it might as well be God doing that thing. That's just totally not him though. I think it's much more plausible that He just doesn't always stop evil because it has something to do with judgement or he wants us to learn from it.

 

[DJPavel]

I think a prolonged discussion on whether nonrational philosophy has value is likely to prove fruitless: the kind of value it has, is exactly the kind of intrinsic value that a rationalist will tend to dismiss the existence of.

I agree. I would add that it looks like some people simply enjoy philosophy for its artistic, historic, and “coffee shop” intellectual pastime. Some, for its analytical power used to examine all sorts of human inquiry. I enjoy it mostly for the latter reason, but in now way do I consider the former as some kind of sacrilege. It’s just a personal preference. Sometimes though it can be difficult to have two “philosophers” coming from two different traditions to agree on anything

Your mention of literature is interesting, as I tend to regard creativity as an aspect of the divine. How do you understand art? Is it somehow only descriptive, or does it have value in itself?

Well, I'm probably biased against literature, which would also explain my preference for analytic philosophy, because English is my second language. By the time I learned it, my practical lifestyle wouldn't allow me to study the extended vocabulary to enjoy the artistic side of the English language in literature and philosophy. So, every time I would start reading a classic, I would run into many unknown words and just give up in frustration. Aristotle, as an example, is not that difficult to understand conceptually, but reading him was a nightmare for me. So, I figured I can eliminate the communication problems and get straight to the bottom by reading interpretations of major works. This is not to say I don't enjoy reading good writing when I see one. In fact, I enjoy reading some folks even here in these forums. Quite often they make me think "Man, I wish I could speak as eloquently". Those are a true treat to read.

I definitely think art has a lot of intrinsic value. But I can’t make a blanket statement to account for its roots. It all depends on what level of abstraction you’re examining it. Fundamentally, I do believe biology explains very well our appreciation for beauty and specific patterns in speech, art, music, etc. In that sense, it’s only descriptive. But if you forget about reductionism and examine art on the level of emotions (can’t think of a word for that level), it certainly brings out the “best” out of you. On that level, it certainly has value in itself.

If I want to understand you, I would have to cultivate a relationship with you... Why is it strange to you to suggest that God would be similar?

Right, but I’m not trying to understand God, I’m trying to understand “good”, His alleged property.

Besides, isn’t that like saying “If you want to read the book, you need to open it”? Well, yes, but surely you understand that’s not my question. I’m sorry for making a rather crude analogy, but every time I see this sort of begging the question, I can’t help recalling a Beavis & Butthead episode from my college years where Beavis is asking Butthead, “why are those dudes naked?”; and Butthead replies “because they don’t have any clothes on”.

The point is there must be a reason why I want to inquire about the nature of good, as opposed to, say, the color of God’s hair (if He’s Zeus like God). That reason therefore presumes that I already know what “good” is. Why would I care about inquiring about it then? Hence the motivation for the question in the OP: is God good because there are good things or is He good because He defines “good”. Answering this question as “to understand good, I need to understand God” might help me to expand my knowledge of “good”, but it certainly doesn’t define it and therefore doesn’t answer the question of why God is good in the first place. I’m either completely out of my mind here or else I’m just not sure why this is difficult to see.

I don't think there is a simple definition of good and evil. If there is, I do not know it, and do not pretend to.

And this is where I think the problem lies. Once the definition is established, in a non-circular manner of course, we can examine how it relates to God.

Nor do I think there is a necessary impetus to do good. If there were, everyone would. Given that no one has a clear idea of what good behavior is, I don't even see how there could be a universal imperative, for it would take the form of: I must do (unknown thing) to achieve (unknown goal) because of (the moral imperative, whatever it is). Even if we find something to place in the last variable, it's a bit irrelevant to us unless we have a clear rubric of what is right and wrong, and such a thing is beyond us.

Couldn’t say any better. I totally agree. The whole jump from IS to OUGHT is very interesting and pretty much everybody has an opinion on how you do it. I’m actually debating this very point of impetus with somebody in the “evolution and creation” debate section of this forum.

Well, it is for me. There is a story told of Jesus that on one occasion he reminded the disciples that they were in no way bound to him: if they wished to leave him and follow another teacher, they could do so. Peter replied "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of the undying life." His answer is mine. But I don't imagine this to be binding to anyone else. I think that, in the context in which you understand God, you too would make this decision. But God, as a word and a concept relating to a word, has been poorly represented to you, so that you would not connect the term with the understanding.

What about others? Would you pass a moral judgment onto somebody who would say “I don’t find this admirable and true”. Or even if I do, I don’t consider that to be a sufficient reason to follow God? Would you judge the person as not “good” (in that deep mysterious sense of the word, not as in “not good” by definition because God is good )

Trust is irrelevant in the case of gut feelings: we simply follow them. What happens after that moment is a different matter I suppose.

Not sure I can agree. We must be talking about different “gut feelings” then. Let’s suppose there’s a train coming up on one track that will kill 5 people. You have a choice to pull a switch that diverts the train onto another track where it’ll kill one person. Would you do it? (this is actually the first half of a famous thought experiment) What would be you gut feeling and how do you go about deciding what to do?

I can't imagine a biological explanation for utiltitarianism

There have been a lot of papers and books written on this. Do you trust scientific papers that give such an explanation?

As for why I dislike dualistic, imperialistic cosmologies, I think it should be fairly clear that such a view of the universe is useless at best and rationally inconsistent at worst. Most arguments against the existence of God are really against the dualistic and anthropomorphic conception of God that has taken its hold on popular belief. Pat Robertson's God is easy to disprove, because he insists on the existence of "supernatural" events, whatever that may mean. Paul Tillich's God, less so.

I think any God is impossible to disprove period, simply by definitions of “metaphysics” and “proof”. The only difference between Pat Robertson's God and any modern version is merely the level of sophistication. It's interesting to observe how the concept of God changes throughout the history. God is always right behind the horizon of how far we can see. He's been pushed from the clouds all the way down to the first moment of the birth of the Universe or some kind of energy field that permeates space and time. I'm not sure I understand why any rational person dismisses this obvious pattern. Anything that we couldn't explain was God, but as soon as we gained knowledge of it, it became science. What people were attributing to the problem of heavenly bodies centuries ago is exactly what people today attribute to the problem of consciousness. Give it a 100 years or so when we have an android with a "soul" and understand the nature of subjective first person experience, the kids of our kids of our kids will be looking at our generation like we're looking at those who believed in flat earth. To suppose that WE are the pinnacle of the human inquiry, an exception in the historic pattern and that we are the ones who have finally broken free of darkness and naiveness is quite arrogant and presumptuous. It's this kind of mentality that led to the arrest of Galileo Galilei and the death of Giordano Bruno, who are now considered to be some of the best specimen of the human kind.
DJP

 

[DailyBlessings]

Right, but I&#8217;m not trying to understand God, I&#8217;m trying to understand &#8220;good&#8221;, His alleged property.

Besides, isn&#8217;t that like saying &#8220;If you want to read the book, you need to open it&#8221;? Well, yes, but surely you understand that&#8217;s not my question. I&#8217;m sorry for making a rather crude analogy, but every time I see this sort of begging the question, I can&#8217;t help recalling a Beavis & Butthead episode from my college years where Beavis is asking Butthead, &#8220;why are those dudes naked?&#8221;; and Butthead replies &#8220;because they don&#8217;t have any clothes on&#8221;.

The point is there must be a reason why I want to inquire about the nature of good, as opposed to, say, the color of God&#8217;s hair (if He&#8217;s Zeus like God). That reason therefore presumes that I already know what &#8220;good&#8221; is. Why would I care about inquiring about it then? Hence the motivation for the question in the OP: is God good because there are good things or is He good because He defines &#8220;good&#8221;. Answering this question as &#8220;to understand good, I need to understand God&#8221; might help me to expand my knowledge of &#8220;good&#8221;, but it certainly doesn&#8217;t define it and therefore doesn&#8217;t answer the question of why God is good in the first place. I&#8217;m either completely out of my mind here or else I&#8217;m just not sure why this is difficult to see.

Inquiring about the character and the will of God is a very different kind of question than what color hair he has. I'm not sure whether the analogy is good to begin with, but if I were to ask what color your hair is, all I would have to do is look at you. If on the other hand I were trying to ask "Why did you decide to disown your second child?" I could befriend you and talk to you and talk to the child and exmaine your whole past history in retrosepct without ever coming to a complete understanding of the event. But I would understand it much better than when I started, and I would profit from what I learned about human nature and social relationships along the way.

And this is where I think the problem lies. Once the definition is established, in a non-circular manner of course, we can examine how it relates to God.

And I simply don't think such a definition exists. Good and evil are relational terms that spring from a certain social context, and although they describe something real and intrinsic, there really is no possibility of defining them in some solid way. They transcend the practical boundaries of human description.

What about others? Would you pass a moral judgment onto somebody who would say &#8220;I don&#8217;t find this admirable and true&#8221;. Or even if I do, I don&#8217;t consider that to be a sufficient reason to follow God? Would you judge the person as not &#8220;good&#8221; (in that deep mysterious sense of the word, not as in &#8220;not good&#8221; by definition because God is good )

I tend not to pass moral judgment on others, no. There are cases where a behavior must be disallowed because of its threat to the safety or wellbeing of others, but I think it is better not to mix moral judgment into the situation.

Not sure I can agree. We must be talking about different &#8220;gut feelings&#8221; then. Let&#8217;s suppose there&#8217;s a train coming up on one track that will kill 5 people. You have a choice to pull a switch that diverts the train onto another track where it&#8217;ll kill one person. Would you do it? (this is actually the first half of a famous thought experiment) What would be you gut feeling and how do you go about deciding what to do?

See, that's a situation where gut feelings don't apply, by my understanding of the term. Whatever you do it will be a decision you have made based on some sort of premise. I doubt that in real life I would ever be clever enough to analyze what the whole situation was before it was too late and the train made the decision for me, but theoretically I think I would let it take the five. Quantity doesn't tend to enter my head in questions of intrinsic worth, and killing the one to save the five would be to devalue him and place the others in an unenviable position (would you be content to watch someone die horribly for your benefit, unasked and unvoluntarily?)

There have been a lot of papers and books written on this. Do you trust scientific papers that give such an explanation?

As to "scientific papers" I'm certain I have not read them all and so cannot comment, but I have never read anything to convince me that the link between biology and popular ethics is scientific rather than cultural. My degree is in anthropology, and if there is one thing that my studies have taught me it is that there is no ethical principle which is universally observed. Anyone trying to forge a link between deterministic biology and utilitarianism would need to explain to me why not everyone is a utilitarian.

I think any God is impossible to disprove period, simply by definitions of &#8220;metaphysics&#8221; and &#8220;proof&#8221;. The only difference between Pat Robertson's God and any modern version is merely the level of sophistication. It's interesting to observe how the concept of God changes throughout the history. God is always right behind the horizon of how far we can see. He's been pushed from the clouds all the way down to the first moment of the birth of the Universe or some kind of energy field that permeates space and time. I'm not sure I understand why any rational person dismisses this obvious pattern. Anything that we couldn't explain was God, but as soon as we gained knowledge of it, it became science. What people were attributing to the problem of heavenly bodies centuries ago is exactly what people today attribute to the problem of consciousness. Give it a 100 years or so when we have an android with a "soul" and understand the nature of subjective first person experience, the kids of our kids of our kids will be looking at our generation like we're looking at those who believed in flat earth. To suppose that WE are the pinnacle of the human inquiry, an exception in the historic pattern and that we are the ones who have finally broken free of darkness and naiveness is quite arrogant and presumptuous. It's this kind of mentality that led to the arrest of Galileo Galilei and the death of Giordano Bruno, who are now considered to be some of the best specimen of the human kind.
DJP

It's a perception that some people see in history, and I do not. I don't ascribe to any particular progressivist version of human existence. People in our own culture are ascribing more meaning to the popular understanding of science, but it doesn't really follow that everything before science is "unexplained" and everything after it is "explained". Honestly, I see science's explanatory power as rather limited in a lot of ways. The end achievement of science if it were ever accomplished would be to have a list of every physical reaction that has occurred since the point at which predictive induction could be used. That would answer a lot of "how" questions but leave many "what" and "why" questions unanswered.

As a side note, I find it interesting that both scientists and mystics claim Giordano Bruno as a martyr for their own cause.

 

[DJPavel]

… but if I were to ask what color your hair is, all I would have to do is look at you.

Exactly! But note, you already have a preconceived notion of the “color of your hair”. You surely wouldn’t be looking at me to find out what the “color of the hair” means, you would look at me to find out what color it is. In our case, you get to know God to find out if He’s good or not, but you don’t establish a relationship with Him to find out what good means! (ostensible way of defining aside)

If on the other hand I were trying to ask "Why did you decide to disown your second child?" I could befriend you and talk to you and talk to the child and exmaine your whole past history in retrosepct without ever coming to a complete understanding of the event. But I would understand it much better than when I started, and I would profit from what I learned about human nature and social relationships along the way.

Again, you already have a preconceived notion of what “disowning a second child” is. As I said earlier, you could expand on connoting characteristics of this notion by establishing a deeper relationship with the subject, but the denoting properties of “disowning a child” are established a priori before the inquiry even starts. So, I still maintain that you can’t know what good means by establishing a relationship with God, unless you want to define it ostensibly, which would simply mean “these are the type of things God wants you to do, or these are the types of things God does”

And I simply don't think such a definition exists. Good and evil are relational terms that spring from a certain social context, and although they describe something real and intrinsic, there really is no possibility of defining them in some solid way. They transcend the practical boundaries of human description.

This is really the heart of the matter, which would resolve all our disagreements. Without using labels like rationalism, noumenon, metaphysical, I’ll simply attempt doing philosophy, rather than talking about it.

See, what you’re talking about doesn’t make sense to me. Sounds like you’re simply making stuff up. The definition doesn’t exist, but you talk about it. “Something intrinsic”? What do you mean? When you say “they transcend the practical boundaries…” where exactly does this transcendence happen and by what mechanism? What makes you think all this stuff is not the product of metaphor, imagination , and our ability to put these metaphors in a huge number of combinations in language and thought?

Tell me about at least one concept that is not a product of the familiar to us notions that we learn about when we grow up. All I see in these kinds of talks is the type of Pegasus. While laymen construct “transcendental” and “intrinsic” notions by attaching familiar concepts like wings to familiar concepts like horses, more sophisticated thinkers employ the power of the language and metaphor to come up with all these complex categories. But the truth is, all these categories are artificially created, they’re simply portrayed as something fundamental (Thanks Plato!). I can do the same trick too: take the classification of Life (kingdom, phylum, etc.) and then assign some ontological status to those classes. Then I’ll ponder: “Hmm, well, there has to exist the ideal of a genus”. And THAT’s making stuff up. These categories are artificial and completely arbitrary generalizations, something our brain is very good at. That’s how we learn. So, I’m not convinced by the argument for the existence of the notion of “good” that gets a free ticket from being defined. That simply sounds like a cop-out.

See, that's a situation where gut feelings don't apply, by my understanding of the term. Whatever you do it will be a decision you have made based on some sort of premise. I doubt that in real life I would ever be clever enough to analyze what the whole situation was before it was too late and the train made the decision for me, but theoretically I think I would let it take the five. Quantity doesn't tend to enter my head in questions of intrinsic worth, and killing the one to save the five would be to devalue him and place the others in an unenviable position (would you be content to watch someone die horribly for your benefit, unasked and unvoluntarily?)

This is branching off into a different discussion, probably would be better under the Utalitarianism” thread that I’m promising to start some time. It does sound you admit you have what I call a “gut feeling”, or immediate emotional response, as you say you “wouldn’t have time to analyze the whole situation before it would be too late”. I was simply inquiring into what you thought that immediate response is based on.

As to "scientific papers" I'm certain I have not read them all and so cannot comment, but I have never read anything to convince me that the link between biology and popular ethics is scientific rather than cultural. My degree is in anthropology, and if there is one thing that my studies have taught me it is that there is no ethical principle which is universally observed. Anyone trying to forge a link between deterministic biology and utilitarianism would need to explain to me why not everyone is a utilitarian.

I understand, but I would have to ask what would constitute “anything convincing” to you. If you’re like one of the atheists who will remain unconvinced until they have a personal experience with God, then sorry, I can’t arrange for that; but that’s not how science works either. But just out of curiosity, what do you find more convincing than the scientific papers that you’ve read? What is the source of the alternative belief?

It's a perception that some people see in history, and I do not. I don't ascribe to any particular progressivist version of human existence. People in our own culture are ascribing more meaning to the popular understanding of science, but it doesn't really follow that everything before science is "unexplained" and everything after it is "explained". Honestly, I see science's explanatory power as rather limited in a lot of ways. The end achievement of science if it were ever accomplished would be to have a list of every physical reaction that has occurred since the point at which predictive induction could be used. That would answer a lot of "how" questions but leave many "what" and "why" questions unanswered.

Care to comment on what’s wrong with that perception? Your comment gives me an impression you don’t understand what the goals of science is and how it operates, but I don’t want to be presumptuous and start lecturing you. I want to ask you though what better way you suggest we use to make inquiries.


As a side note, it’s Saturday, and I’d better go get some life now I enjoy talking to you though!


DJP