Mark left an excellent comment on the previous thread. He said:
“for morality to be absolute, it must not be able to have been different; in other words, god’s nature from which the absolute morality flows, must necessarily be the way it is. But, if god is necessarily the way he is, then there must be laws that make this the case, and these laws must therefore precede or be higher than god. Thus god becomes essentially a middleman and is not necessary. If, on the other hand, god's nature is not necessarily the way it is, then morality is relative to his non-necessary nature, and thus not absolute.”
This is essentially the Euthyphro dilemma. The problem is that either god is not necessary for morality, or nothing is good until god commands it. Therefore, morality is relative to the tastes of god and there is no reason then why evil acts could not be considered moral if god so choosed.
To try and get around the dilemma, theists often claim that it is not a dilemma and that morality is fixed by the very nature of god. This is however nonsense. If god’s nature is fixed, he is still a god of moral relatives. He just so happens to have a particular set of moral values. He could still be evil. There is no absolute law.
Another problem is that if he can not change his mind, then he is either beholding to a law greater than himself, or he is not omnipotent. The omnipotence of god is of course logically absurd. He could not make a square circle for example. This also means that god is not necessary for the laws of logic either, as he himself must abide by a higher law.
Other things god could not do include making a being greater than himself (already defined as the greatest possible being – what ever greatness means) or make a weight so heavy that he would not be able to lift it.
Theology is just one big inconsistency after another. How can something so problematical have any value? Moral law is one of the “evidences” Christians cite for god, but it is not a tenable position – even if we assume god exists to start with. Christianity needs absolute moral laws or the concept of sin is meaningless. If the concept of sin is meaningless, then the idea of god killing himself to appease himself as punishment for our sins is just absurd – but then, there are lots of reasons to think that is absurd.
“for morality to be absolute, it must not be able to have been different; in other words, god’s nature from which the absolute morality flows, must necessarily be the way it is. But, if god is necessarily the way he is, then there must be laws that make this the case, and these laws must therefore precede or be higher than god. Thus god becomes essentially a middleman and is not necessary. If, on the other hand, god's nature is not necessarily the way it is, then morality is relative to his non-necessary nature, and thus not absolute.”
This is essentially the Euthyphro dilemma. The problem is that either god is not necessary for morality, or nothing is good until god commands it. Therefore, morality is relative to the tastes of god and there is no reason then why evil acts could not be considered moral if god so choosed.
To try and get around the dilemma, theists often claim that it is not a dilemma and that morality is fixed by the very nature of god. This is however nonsense. If god’s nature is fixed, he is still a god of moral relatives. He just so happens to have a particular set of moral values. He could still be evil. There is no absolute law.
Another problem is that if he can not change his mind, then he is either beholding to a law greater than himself, or he is not omnipotent. The omnipotence of god is of course logically absurd. He could not make a square circle for example. This also means that god is not necessary for the laws of logic either, as he himself must abide by a higher law.
Other things god could not do include making a being greater than himself (already defined as the greatest possible being – what ever greatness means) or make a weight so heavy that he would not be able to lift it.
Theology is just one big inconsistency after another. How can something so problematical have any value? Moral law is one of the “evidences” Christians cite for god, but it is not a tenable position – even if we assume god exists to start with. Christianity needs absolute moral laws or the concept of sin is meaningless. If the concept of sin is meaningless, then the idea of god killing himself to appease himself as punishment for our sins is just absurd – but then, there are lots of reasons to think that is absurd.
26 comments:
Excellent
I asked Big Bad Bob to come over and take a read.
I can imagine the response :-) However, welcme Bob, feel free to comment if you are passing by.
I'm surprised no-one threw the fact that god is notnecessary for the laws of logic at that guy Sye who was on Stephen Laws blog a while back - think it was because they were trying to get it through to him that his position was ann unargued for pre-suppositionalist one. He even admitted that he was a presuppositionalist, but still thought that allowed him to pull a proof out of his ass.
I know it's got nothing to do with this post, but how can Celtic be so rubbish?
I know it's got nothing to do with this post, but how can Celtic be so rubbish?
Cos god hates potatoes and loves bacon - obviously! That or he is a blue nose.
Billy,
I second Lee's declaration of "Excellent". Excellent. There I go!
Therefore, morality is relative to the tastes of god and there is no reason then why evil acts could not be considered moral if god so choosed.
Didn't one of the christian posters on the FCOS forum, in the days when it still existed, essentially admit exactly this to either Quetz or Paul Creber, when attempting to justify god's actions in (particularly) the Old Testament, and then tie himself in knots trying to justify how we still needed "god's" morality, and that, despite the records of his actions, God was merciful and loving, etc?
For me, (as Mick Channon used to say when sparring with B. Clough on On The Ball) this sort of thing just reminds why, even if god did exist, I'd want nothing to do with him....
Mark_W
Yep Euthyphro is the biggy. It is amazing that it is not just naive thinkers, or those who have never heard of it, that fall victim to this. Here is Simon Blackburn(moral philosopher) on Elizabeth Anscombe (theist and philosopher)...
“I suppose it is a permanent feature of the human condition that persons who entangle their notion of morality with some notion of divine authority cannot imagine that there might be people who have the morality, but who have no need of the supernatural prop. This may be a natural enough frailty, but philosophers should be better able to overcome it, both because there is nothing serious to be said for it and because it was refuted by Plato.”
If you want a morally repugnant read – check out William Lane Craig biting the bullet over Euthyphro.
For him, the slaughter of the Canaanites was justified and the Israelites were morally obligated to act in this fashion in accordance with god’s desire...
“On divine command theory, then, God has the right to command an act, which, in the absence of a divine command, would have been sin, but which is now morally obligatory in virtue of that command.”
It gets worse...
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767
"Therefore, morality is relative to the tastes of god and there is no reason then why evil acts could not be considered moral if god so choosed.
Didn't one of the christian posters on the FCOS forum, in the days when it still existed, essentially admit exactly this to either Quetz or Paul Creber, when attempting to justify god's actions in (particularly) the Old Testament, and then tie himself in knots trying to justify how we still needed "god's" morality, and that, despite the records of his actions, God was merciful and loving, etc?"
Yes, it was Richard, I think.
Good post, Billy.
I hope nobody minds if I claim the right to do a blog post tomorrow about the link Corylus provided? I've never read such tripe.
Well, since you asked nicely… please go ahead.
I couldn’t read the whole dribble from WLG anyway.
Lee
I meant WLC (William Lane Craig) - oh well...
Feel free Jonathan.
This Lane Craig guy sounds a real diddy. I'm not surprised it was Richard.
If god can pick and choose his moral values, then the whole crucifixion business is total nonsense - there is no law that has been broken, therefore, there is no punishment that needs to be paid. If god then still demands punishment, he then becomes nothing more than a fascist bully boy who lives by the principle of might is right. So, that also scuppers the moral law "arguement"
I love the quote Hazel. The only people who esteem these idiots are faith heads. Their only defense when criticised is to either call foul or say that you are not loking at it spiritually enough, but they never seem able to justify their way of looking at it. Often, they dont seem to see the need to justify it. I was recomended a religious philosophy book to read by a friend - he highly recomended it (turns out he hadn't really read it himself). A five year old could refute it. The author I seem to remember was a professor t a reputable stablishment. It's strange how as a society, that we still give undue credibility to non subjects like theology at our universities. I think it must be a tradition thing as many of our ancient universities were set up on the authority of a pope.
this sort of thing just reminds why, even if god did exist, I'd want nothing to do with him....
Yep, I would be shafted either way - go to hell for not believing in him, of spend eternity in the presence of a god you have no respect for
Speakig of FCOS and so on, I remember David Robertson going on about absolute morality and such things. He seems to have gon a bit quiet these days. So, time for a google. Came up with this one:
http://fpcj.blogspot.com/2008/11/news-from-david-robertson.html
Notice the name of his next book: "Magnificent Obcession"
Wonder if hi spublishers will correct his spelling...
Mind you, give him his due, he says he had an interview with Kerrang! radio..... there may be hope. I reckon he is a metalhead-in-denial.....
:-))
SG
Further to that last posting, wonder if MY publishers will correct MY spelling..... doh...
William Lane Craig is a first class 'Belgium,' to coin Lee's co-opted cuss word.
There's worse... at least the man is trying to see reason I suppose.
WLC is very useful to see where the Christians have it wrong - he is very good at making this clear.
Lee
Clear to me - just not to himself of course
I even remember steve root correcting DR's spelling - what a chump. Should make him write out "christianity is a delusion" 100 times.
I wonder if his new "book" has out of context quotes (and not just from the bible) and drawings he has done in crayon?
Still struggling to think pf a famous belgian
I think Metal therapy would help
Well, I read the list... I've heard of only Georges Lemaitre
Hands up who has heard of Georges Lemaitre?
You should have, the theist has been known to throw the name around.
Ha, Lee, that made me laugh. Their headliners were a singing nun and the guy who thought up the ill concieved body mass index
No way, Audrey Hepburn was Belgian - she was totally babe-tastic!
scottishgeologist-
"Notice the name of his next book: "Magnificent Obcession""
Oh, oh! I claim the right to review it!
Better get a list of synonyms for "abysmal".
I think I'll just put a copy down the lavvy, that's my review. I think I'll do it at waterstones to make a comment about censorship - there's an Idea, if he does a signing thee, we should complain about his views on homosexuality and dead babies
Oh, oh! I claim the right to review it!
If you want to read the book, you are welcome to it.
Hey, why not try a bit of prophesy – write a review NOW, without reading the book.
Then read the book, write another review and see how they compare?
there's an Idea, if he does a signing thee, we should complain about his views on homosexuality and dead babies
Has he placed these views in ‘print’ (where he cannot delete or change them)
If so, compile a list as ‘evidence’ for any such appearance.
I’m all for freedom of speech, but ‘hate speech’ crosses the line and it should be highlighted.
Lee
Yes, we probably could write the book for him
Lee there are some links to his comments here
http://basketofpuppies-
billy.blogspot.com/2008/08/would-
you-buy-used-car-from-david.html
Post a Comment