Jonathan made a good point on the perfection thread and has sent me on a philosophical ramble. He pointed out that “creation” was not perfect. It made me realise (the blindingly obvious) that anything that does not conform to the qualities of god cannot be considered perfect. Genesis tells us that man did not originally know right from wrong or live forever (two qualities that god supposedly possesses). Man was therefore not created perfect! It makes the biblical narrative all the more bizarre when we consider that god created man in an imperfect state then punishes all mankind for the consequences of this. Is this fair?
This is a bit of a loaded question, if you say yes, then you are basing that solely on faith that god knows better than you – not a rational position. If you say no, you are subscribing to the view that there is some sort of standard by which to judge actions by.
However does this mean that there is an absolute moral standard that we are using here? Well, of course it doesn’t, it just means that there is a standard –and obviously one not accepted by everyone. If it is absolute, we have no means of knowing it is. A more serious problem for the theist however is that if an absolute does exist, then it must be something that is defined in a manner not dependant on god. This is because to be perfect you cannot deviate and act in an imperfect manner – something is restraining you.
Can God himself define the nature of perfection? Only if he limits his ability to act in certain ways. This would then define choice as something that is not a requirement of perfection. As any fundie will tell you, man’s original sin was a question of free will – a choice (although how you can be accountable for doing what you don’t know is wrong escapes me). If God then created man with free will, he has then given him yet another quality of “imperfection”. The free will argument then becomes internally inconsistent with the idea that choice corrupted mankind. The ability to choose would have meant that mankind was already less than perfect.
As an aside, if you have free will thrust on you, is it really free will? You can’t choose free will either, because that means that you have to have it already to make a choice. Can free will then logically exist? Does it exist at all or do other factors influence our choices?
A god who restricts his power would also not be omnipotent (presumably another feature lacking in perfection). The idea that god cannot be omnipotent is not new though. For example, can god make a weight too heavy for him to lift? If yes, then he lacks the ability to lift it, if no, then he lacks the ability to create such a weigh. I also doubt that he would be able to make square circles or make 2+2=27 while keeping the values the same.
I hate and love philosophy in equal measures. You can use it to justify or deny any concept. Personally I think it is more of a problem for the religious, as they are the ones who have the burden of proof.
This is a bit of a loaded question, if you say yes, then you are basing that solely on faith that god knows better than you – not a rational position. If you say no, you are subscribing to the view that there is some sort of standard by which to judge actions by.
However does this mean that there is an absolute moral standard that we are using here? Well, of course it doesn’t, it just means that there is a standard –and obviously one not accepted by everyone. If it is absolute, we have no means of knowing it is. A more serious problem for the theist however is that if an absolute does exist, then it must be something that is defined in a manner not dependant on god. This is because to be perfect you cannot deviate and act in an imperfect manner – something is restraining you.
Can God himself define the nature of perfection? Only if he limits his ability to act in certain ways. This would then define choice as something that is not a requirement of perfection. As any fundie will tell you, man’s original sin was a question of free will – a choice (although how you can be accountable for doing what you don’t know is wrong escapes me). If God then created man with free will, he has then given him yet another quality of “imperfection”. The free will argument then becomes internally inconsistent with the idea that choice corrupted mankind. The ability to choose would have meant that mankind was already less than perfect.
As an aside, if you have free will thrust on you, is it really free will? You can’t choose free will either, because that means that you have to have it already to make a choice. Can free will then logically exist? Does it exist at all or do other factors influence our choices?
A god who restricts his power would also not be omnipotent (presumably another feature lacking in perfection). The idea that god cannot be omnipotent is not new though. For example, can god make a weight too heavy for him to lift? If yes, then he lacks the ability to lift it, if no, then he lacks the ability to create such a weigh. I also doubt that he would be able to make square circles or make 2+2=27 while keeping the values the same.
I hate and love philosophy in equal measures. You can use it to justify or deny any concept. Personally I think it is more of a problem for the religious, as they are the ones who have the burden of proof.
3 comments:
I'd like to start by apologising for sending you on a ramble!
You're right, man was not created perfect, and the talking snake didn't help matters!
The idea that God has chosen to restrict himself is becoming more common, perhaps as a counter to the problem of evil among other issues. But if bad things happen because God has restricted himself, which would not have happened had he remained perfect, then he still bears responsibility. And obviously a perfect being would be able to predict the negative consequences of restricting himself, so by doing so would again be performing an imperfect action.
Philosophy's fun, isn't it?
Philosophy's fun, isn't it?
Yes, but not when you you think about it - Discuss!
:-)
Yes, but not when you you think about it - Discuss!
:-)
Philosophy is what you do when you just want to think about something, test nothing, confirm nothing.
Science is what you do when you actually want to do something constructive.
There, that should piss off all the philosophers - give them something to think about :)
Lee
Post a Comment