Science Can Answer Moral Questions...

[seer]

That's what trolls like Tassy do, seer.

Merry Christmas.

sm

Merry Christimas SM!!! And no Tass is not a troll, and I have grown rather fond of him over these many months... ; )

[shadowmaster]

Merry Christimas SM!!! And no Tass is not a troll, and I have grown rather fond of him over these many months... ; )

hmm, but I have trollphobia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

[JimL]

There is the rub Jim, even if we believed that God allowing evil is immoral - so what? God doesn't - like I said, what will we do - bring him up on charges? Or why would our finite opinion be more correct that His?

Seer, you are contradicting yourself when you posit an absolute standard of morality which you claim to be an attribute of God himself and then turn around and dismiss the fact that God himself is immoral for causing and or allowing the immoral events within his creation to happen. What about the physical tragedies such as earthquakes, volcanos, hurricanes, diseases etc. etc. that kill indiscriminately which only the creator, if there be such a thing, could be the efficient cause of.

[seer]

Seer, you are contradicting yourself when you posit an absolute standard of morality which you claim to be an attribute of God himself and then turn around and dismiss the fact that God himself is immoral for causing and or allowing the immoral events within his creation to happen. What about the physical tragedies such as earthquakes, volcanos, hurricanes, diseases etc. etc. that kill indiscriminately which only the creator, if there be such a thing, could be the efficient cause of.

Not so James, I generally do not use the term "absolute" but rather objective (i.e. objective to humankind), though some of His laws may be absolute. And God can not be held morally responsible for taking human life any more than I could be held morally responsible for stealing my own car. Like I said, "the Lord gives and the Lord takes away."

BTW Jim, Merry Christmas.

[JimL]

Not so James, I generally do not use the term "absolute" but rather objective (i.e. objective to humankind), though some of His laws may be absolute. And God can not be held morally responsible for taking human life any more than I could be held morally responsible for stealing my own car. Like I said, "the Lord gives and the Lord takes away."

Well let me ask you this then, if you were to put yourself in Gods shoes so to speak, and created out of nothing a form of life that had all the human qualities that you yourself as a human being have, would you still consider it to be a morally good act to infect those beings with a disease that would cause long and unbearable suffering and eventual death, or to cause an earthquake that kills thousands and buries many more alive etc. etc., for the sole reason that you have a future goal that you want to fulfill? Because you created them, because you own them, would you deal with them from a moral perspective as if they were no more than a lifeless feelingless automobile? I don't think that you really believe that and to make that argument is to make God less moral than yourself are as a human being.
BTW Jim, Merry Christmas.[/QUOTE]
Thanks Seer, Merry Christmas to you also.

[Tassman]

Well Tass, in the end we will all worship something. Even if its ourselves...

I don't think so. What is the basis of this assertion? Or are you confusing 'worship" with 'love', which is an evolved instinct.

[Tassman]

Well let me ask you this then, if you were to put yourself in Gods shoes so to speak, and created out of nothing a form of life that had all the human qualities that you yourself as a human being have, would you still consider it to be a morally good act to infect those beings with a disease that would cause long and unbearable suffering and eventual death, or to cause an earthquake that kills thousands and buries many more alive etc. etc., for the sole reason that you have a future goal that you want to fulfill? Because you created them, because you own them, would you deal with them from a moral perspective as if they were no more than a lifeless feelingless automobile? I don't think that you really believe that and to make that argument is to make God less moral than yourself are as a human being.

To reinforce this point, which is at the heart of what seer is arguing, the "end justifies the means" is not generally regarded as good ethics - let alone by the supposed apotheosis of love and justice. The phrase refers to the deliberate use of wrong methods and law-breaking by the powerful to get their way, i.e. the "whatever it takes" mentality. Yes, an omni-creator god can do it - he's the 'all-powerful' after all - but as JimL says, it seems a bit odd that human morality is more ethical than that of god. Or are you just going to fall back on the "god is beyond human understanding" bit? But if this is the case, how are we mortals supposed to understand 'right and wrong'?

[seer]

Well let me ask you this then, if you were to put yourself in Gods shoes so to speak, and created out of nothing a form of life that had all the human qualities that you yourself as a human being have, would you still consider it to be a morally good act to infect those beings with a disease that would cause long and unbearable suffering and eventual death, or to cause an earthquake that kills thousands and buries many more alive etc. etc., for the sole reason that you have a future goal that you want to fulfill? Because you created them, because you own them, would you deal with them from a moral perspective as if they were no more than a lifeless feelingless automobile? I don't think that you really believe that and to make that argument is to make God less moral than yourself are as a human being.
BTW Jim, Merry Christmas.Thanks Seer, Merry Christmas to you also.

Jim, I don't think that God deals with humans that way. First God is just, He does judge sinners. We are wicked Jim and deserve judgement. And in any given natural disaster I believe we have three classes of people - the wicked who face God's wrath at death, the wicked redeemed (redeemed by the blood of Christ) who face God's mercy at death and the innocent (young children, the mentally ill who have little moral sense) who I believe also receive God's mercy at death. I also believe there may be a fourth group - those who never heard the Gospel, perhaps there is a second chance for them. The point is Jim, this life is not all there is - all these people go on living even after death - at least for a season.

See Jim, I do believe that God's character is immutable, absolute if you will - He is always what He is - loving and just, and will deal with each human being individually.

[JimL]

Jim, I don't think that God deals with humans that way.

I think Seer, that if you believe in God, if you believe him to be the efficient cause of all things, then you have no choice but to admit that he deals with humans in a fashion that we as humans would all agree is immoral. Now if you want to argue that God is not beholding to our conception of morality, thats fine, but then you need to admit as well that according to us, according to our understanding of right and wrong God being the direct cause, from your point of view, of natural disasters and disease is himself immoral.

First God is just, He does judge sinners. We are wicked Jim and deserve judgement.

If we are wicked, and the creation of a God, then that God, being that he is eternally omniscient, is the knowing cause of our wickedness in the same sense that he is the knowing cause of natural disasters.

And in any given natural disaster I believe we have three classes of people - the wicked who face God's wrath at death, the wicked redeemed (redeemed by the blood of Christ) who face God's mercy at death and the innocent (young children, the mentally ill who have little moral sense) who I believe also receive God's mercy at death. I also believe there may be a fourth group - those who never heard the Gospel, perhaps there is a second chance for them.

There is only one class of people, or as you termed it previously, we are all wicked, but regardless, in your view God is the cause of all, and, as Tass pointed out, in our conception of morality, the ends do not justify the means, and the means by which your God is justifying his end goal is immoral from our human perspective which is the only perspective we have.

The point is Jim, this life is not all there is - all these people go on living even after death - at least for a season.

Again the ends do not justify the means, else you would need put Hitler in the same moral category as your God.

See Jim, I do believe that God's character is immutable, absolute if you will - He is always what He is - loving and just, and will deal with each human being individually.

Well, if God were immutable he couldn't create, but thats a whole nother argument. But, again whether he deals with each human being, lovingly and justly in the end, doesn't dismiss the immoral plan by which he got them there.

[seer]

I think Seer, that if you believe in God, if you believe him to be the efficient cause of all things, then you have no choice but to admit that he deals with humans in a fashion that we as humans would all agree is immoral. Now if you want to argue that God is not beholding to our conception of morality, thats fine, but then you need to admit as well that according to us, according to our understanding of right and wrong God being the direct cause, from your point of view, of natural disasters and disease is himself immoral.

No quite Jim. First, I do believe God is the first cause of all things, including our free will, and perhaps the direct cause of natural disasters. At least He created the natural order and knew how it would unfold. But here is the rub - Christ was called God's perfect man - in other words how a man perfectly related to God would function and act like. And Christ, in His perfect faith, had the power over disease and the elements. Abilities I believe that were lost in the fall as we separated from the Source of that power. In other words if we had never fallen disease and natural disasters would not have the deadly impact on the human community that they do now. I do not believe that it is immoral for God to allow us to experience the fruits of our rebellion - perhaps you do.

If we are wicked, and the creation of a God, then that God, being that he is eternally omniscient, is the knowing cause of our wickedness in the same sense that he is the knowing cause of natural disasters.

Well yes, God knew we would wrongly use our freedom. And? I suppose He could have created us robots, but I don't think love or obedience would have much value in that model. Do you?

There is only one class of people, or as you termed it previously, we are all wicked, but regardless, in your view God is the cause of all, and, as Tass pointed out, in our conception of morality, the ends do not justify the means, and the means by which your God is justifying his end goal is immoral from our human perspective which is the only perspective we have.

But that is just false. Men use the "ends justify the means" model every day. You put your child under the surgeon's knife to save his/her life. We destroy German and Japanese cities to bring them to their knees. And I have to ask Jim - which "human perspective" - yours? Mine? The followers of Stalin? Pol Pot? Mao? It must be repeated James that without an objective source for ethics we logically fall into moral relativism.

Again the ends do not justify the means, else you would need put Hitler in the same moral category as your God.

Why? What was Hitler's end goal? God's end is to bring as many sons and daughters into eternal bliss as is possible given our moral freedom. Are these really the same?

Well, if God were immutable he couldn't create, but thats a whole nother argument. But, again whether he deals with each human being, lovingly and justly in the end, doesn't dismiss the immoral plan by which he got them there.

First, I said his character (i.e. moral character) was immutable. Second, I do not believe that God's plan is at all immoral given our natures - so who is correct? And why?

[JimL]

No quite Jim. First, I do believe God is the first cause of all things, including our free will, and perhaps the direct cause of natural disasters. At least He created the natural order and knew how it would unfold. But here is the rub - Christ was called God's perfect man - in other words how a man perfectly related to God would function and act like. And Christ, in His perfect faith, had the power over disease and the elements. Abilities I believe that were lost in the fall as we separated from the Source of that power. In other words if we had never fallen disease and natural disasters would not have the deadly impact on the human community that they do now. I do not believe that it is immoral for God to allow us to experience the fruits of our rebellion - perhaps you do.

First off I would say that the reason Jesus was said to have power over disease and the elements was because he himself was God not because he was a perfect man, and being so could never be separable from that which he himself is, and even if he was a perfect man no other man could have ever been perfect for even had they been endowed with free will, being perfect they could never err in their choice of action. So if as you believe we rebelled, it was not from a state of perfection that we did so, nor did it separate us from a source that we, being creatio ex nihilo, were never a part of.

Well yes, God knew we would wrongly use our freedom. And? I suppose He could have created us robots, but I don't think love or obedience would have much value in that model. Do you?

Well, if God knew that we would stray, then he also knew that we were not perfect when he created us. And if we were perfect, and in such a condition, fell from grace anyway, then what would be different in heaven? We would again be perfect with our free will intact, same as the proverbial Adam and Eve. Will you answer that now we know better. Well, who's fault is it then that we didn't know better?

But that is just false. Men use the "ends justify the means" model every day. You put your child under the surgeon's knife to save his/her life. We destroy German and Japanese cities to bring them to their knees. And I have to ask Jim - which "human perspective" - yours? Mine? The followers of Stalin? Pol Pot? Mao? It must be repeated James that without an objective source for ethics we logically fall into moral relativism.

The means need no justification if they are morally justifiable to begin with. To argue that God made us in order to save us from himself and his judgement and retribution is ridiculous. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc. etc. like your God had a goal which was domination and tyranny and the means by which they got there was of little concern, so I don't see any difference in their moral perspectives. I would also say that we are all moral relativists whether or not there is an objective moral standard and so if we find something evil in ourselves we have only that same standard to apply to God.

Why? What was Hitler's end goal? God's end is to bring as many sons and daughters into eternal bliss as is possible given our moral freedom. Are these really the same?

Yes, as above I see no difference between the means and the ends in either case.

First, I said his character (i.e. moral character) was immutable. Second, I do not believe that God's plan is at all immoral given our natures - so who is correct? And why?

Are you saying that Gods morality is dependent upon our natures? I thought it was the other way around?

[seer]

First off I would say that the reason Jesus was said to have power over disease and the elements was because he himself was God not because he was a perfect man, and being so could never be separable from that which he himself is, and even if he was a perfect man no other man could have ever been perfect for even had they been endowed with free will, being perfect they could never err in their choice of action. So if as you believe we rebelled, it was not from a state of perfection that we did so, nor did it separate us from a source that we, being creatio ex nihilo, were never a part of.

That does not follow Jim. First, I do not know in what way Adam was "perfect" or not. Or what that entails. We do know that he was innocent. But my points stand, there is no reason to believe mankind had to fall and be visited with consequences.

Well, if God knew that we would stray, then he also knew that we were not perfect when he created us. And if we were perfect, and in such a condition, fell from grace anyway, then what would be different in heaven? We would again be perfect with our free will intact, same as the proverbial Adam and Eve. Will you answer that now we know better. Well, who's fault is it then that we didn't know better?

You are correct, we would know better. We will have centuries of sin and selfishness to compare with our new life. No rational person will want to go back. And you again are correct - Adam did not have this information. But how could he - none if it happened yet. I suppose God could have explained it to him (it seems that he did in part according to the texts) but would that be enough? Doubtful - they say that there is no better teacher than experience.

The means need no justification if they are morally justifiable to begin with. To argue that God made us in order to save us from himself and his judgement and retribution is ridiculous. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot etc. etc. like your God had a goal which was domination and tyranny and the means by which they got there was of little concern, so I don't see any difference in their moral perspectives. I would also say that we are all moral relativists whether or not there is an objective moral standard and so if we find something evil in ourselves we have only that same standard to apply to God.

First James you are arguing like a freshman. You know real life is more more complicated. Was the means itself - firebombing Dresden - justifiable without the ends - victory over Nazism? Yes or no? And yes, in a way God is saving us from Himself - since He is immutably just, and we deserve punishment. But more importantly He is saving us from ourselves. And you see God's rule as a tyranny - I see it as loving and gracious - go figure.

Yes, as above I see no difference between the means and the ends in either case.

Again: Was the means itself - firebombing Dresden - justifiable without the ends - victory over Nazism? Yes or no?

Are you saying that Gods morality is dependent upon our natures? I thought it was the other way around?

How would you come to that conclusion? It is true however that many of God's attributes may have remained experimentally hidden without the fall - His wrath, sense of justice, His mercy, the depths of His love. Perhaps it's all worth it just to know God better... It would be for me...

[JimL]

That does not follow Jim. First, I do not know in what way Adam was "perfect" or not. Or what that entails. We do know that he was innocent. But my points stand, there is no reason to believe mankind had to fall and be visited with consequences.

It is said Seer, that human beings, as a result of A+E disobedience, inherited their sin natures from A+E. If they were able to sin in the first place then how did their natures change and in what way were they any different than us their progeny before they sinned? There are only 2 alternatives, they were either perfect, and therefore different from us or they were no different than we are in that they were able to sin. Which was it? What changed in them that was passed onto us?

You are correct, we would know better. We will have centuries of sin and selfishness to compare with our new life. No rational person will want to go back. And you again are correct - Adam did not have this information. But how could he - none if it happened yet. I suppose God could have explained it to him (it seems that he did in part according to the texts) but would that be enough? Doubtful - they say that there is no better teacher than experience.

Again if they didn't know any better then they can hardly be found at fault. And if they did know better then what is the change that we inherited from them?

First James you are arguing like a freshman. You know real life is more more complicated. Was the means itself - firebombing Dresden - justifiable without the ends - victory over Nazism? Yes or no? And yes, in a way God is saving us from Himself - since He is immutably just, and we deserve punishment. But more importantly He is saving us from ourselves. And you see God's rule as a tyranny - I see it as loving and gracious - go figure.

Your God created the conditions upon which man has to make moral decisions which makes it impossible in mans case for morality to be absolute in nature. The decisions such as firebombing Dresden have to be weighed as to what we believe to be the most moral of the options available to us. You need therefore to stop equating the morality as exhibited by your God who is cause of both the plan and those things that we, from our point of view, would judge to be immoral actions by God within that plan.

Again: Was the means itself - firebombing Dresden - justifiable without the ends - victory over Nazism? Yes or no?

From a relativistic point of view, perhaps. On the other hand your God was not faced with such a choice, he knew in his omniscience from the get go that the earthquake in Haiti would indiscriminately kill thousands.

How would you come to that conclusion? It is true however that many of God's attributes may have remained experimentally hidden without the fall - His wrath, sense of justice, His mercy, the depths of His love. Perhaps it's all worth it just to know God better... It would be for me...

Again I ask, what fall; A+E fell from what condition to what condition? In what way were their original natures different from ours?

[seer]

It is said Seer, that human beings, as a result of A+E disobedience, inherited their sin natures from A+E. If they were able to sin in the first place then how did their natures change and in what way were they any different than us their progeny before they sinned? There are only 2 alternatives, they were either perfect, and therefore different from us or they were no different than we are in that they were able to sin. Which was it? What changed in them that was passed onto us?

Adam, though innocent, had the exact same nature as us. A human nature, except that nature is now exposed to sin, where Adam in the beginning was not. But my belief was that Adam could have developed that nature to perfection (by perfection I mean fully resisting sin) if he had remained rightly related to God. A simple maturing process, for Adam and then the rest of mankind. And also that in the fall we lost a vital spiritual connection with God, that is why we have the command to be "born again" or to be regenerated - to restore that connection.

Again if they didn't know any better then they can hardly be found at fault. And if they did know better then what is the change that we inherited from them?

A four year old knows when Dad says no he means no. Adam simply had to trust God, that is what faith is at its core - trust. He chose not to. And there is no reason asking why - to really know one would have to ask him.

Your God created the conditions upon which man has to make moral decisions which makes it impossible in mans case for morality to be absolute in nature. The decisions such as firebombing Dresden have to be weighed as to what we believe to be the most moral of the options available to us. You need therefore to stop equating the morality as exhibited by your God who is cause of both the plan and those things that we, from our point of view, would judge to be immoral actions by God within that plan.

First Jim I was answering your point that the “means” are justified in themselves without consideration of the “ends.” I said that was not the case and used examples - do you now agree? And we were speaking of man’s morality in that case.

From a relativistic point of view, perhaps. On the other hand your God was not faced with such a choice, he knew in his omniscience from the get go that the earthquake in Haiti would indiscriminately kill thousands.

But what is your point? Of course God knew, but if we were rightly related to Him, like I have been saying, we would have mitigated that disaster. Or prevented it all together. Again, you may believe it is immoral for God to let us experience the fruits of our rebellion, I do not. Besides such situations give us the great opportunity to exercise compassion.

Again I ask, what fall; A+E fell from what condition to what condition? In what way were their original natures different from ours?

See above

[Catatle]

People like Harris have an exalted view of science where they act as though it was a infallible tool with privileged access to the truth. But the scientific method is a human creation. Where it is directed toward is the result of human interest.

How can a human creation get at what is objective? And if we don't think that morals are objective, why can't we just say that 'Science can answer moral questions' and 'Morality is whatever we want it to be' mean the exact same thing?