Page 2 of 46 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 458

Thread: A shared challenge regarding the foundation of ethics

  1. #11
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,200
    Amen (Given)
    510
    Amen (Received)
    320
    Quote Originally Posted by Jin-roh View Post
    As an aside, Feuerbach saw this kind of reasoning, called it anthropomorphism, and argued that the idea of 'god' was only an 'idea of our best selves' and nothing beyond that.

    Just throwing that out there.
    Thanks for throwing. It reminds me of Xenophanes of Colophon (c. 570 – c. 475) who stated that if a horse was to paint a picture of God it would paint a picture of a horse. So those ideas are even older than Christianity. However, it should be noted, Xenophanes actually did believe there was a God. But his being God consisted in being completely different from human beings.
    Last edited by Charles; 06-13-2017 at 08:51 PM.

  2. Amen Tassman amen'd this post.
  3. #12
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,274
    Amen (Given)
    805
    Amen (Received)
    3515
    Quote Originally Posted by Charles View Post
    That may be what you claim about your God, and other would claim something different about theirs. The point is still exactly the same: you have put yourself in a situation in which you don't reflect but just go for what you are told. Ultimately what extremists are doing.

    3) You wrote: "But why not just stop at God's moral nature?" You are yet to establish why we are to regard it as a moral nature. You have given no reason at all, just claims. Believers in other Gods could make similar claims about their God's moral nature.
    Again Charles, why stop at this imaginary "objective standard" of yours? Where do you go to demonstrate that that standard is the correct one? One could envision the idea of a moral God (mine or any other) being the embodiment of moral truth via His moral character. It is much more difficult, if not impossible, to imagine this disembodied moral standard of yours especially in light of the facts that moral ideals are mind driven and interpersonal. No minds - no ethics.
    "We can understand hell in its aspect of privation. All your life an unattainable ecstasy has hovered just beyond the grasp of your consciousness. The day is coming when you will wake to find, beyond all hope, that you have attained it, or else, that it was within your reach and you have lost it forever.” C.S. Lewis

  4. #13
    tWebber Jin-roh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Glendale, CA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    185
    Amen (Given)
    33
    Amen (Received)
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Jin are you a Christian?
    Yes.

    I'm also acutely aware of things like the via negativa tradition.

    I get these ideas from Scripture, they are not inventions of my own.
    And Seer misses the point.

  5. #14
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,200
    Amen (Given)
    510
    Amen (Received)
    320
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Again Charles, why stop at this imaginary "objective standard" of yours? Where do you go to demonstrate that that standard is the correct one? One could envision the idea of a moral God (mine or any other) being the embodiment of moral truth via His moral character. It is much more difficult, if not impossible, to imagine this disembodied moral standard of yours especially in light of the facts that moral ideals are mind driven and interpersonal. No minds - no ethics.
    First of all you are still not providing any line of reasoning, but only a bunch of claims. In a philosophical aproach this is not enough. It is not even close. You are not answering any questions at all. It just pure claims and dogmatism.

    Secondly I have already pointed out that the part about objective standards will be touched upon in another thread because that makes sense in the aproach that I have. You are not going to decide in this thread.

  6. #15
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,274
    Amen (Given)
    805
    Amen (Received)
    3515
    Quote Originally Posted by Jin-roh View Post
    Yes.

    I'm also acutely aware of things like the via negativa tradition.
    Yes, that we can only define God in the negative, what He is not (if I remember correctly). But Christ was God incarnate and can be defined by positive attributes. "He who has seen me has seen the Father" never mind the fact that God even in the Old Testament self-defines with positive attributes.


    And Seer misses the point.
    It wouldn't be the first time...
    "We can understand hell in its aspect of privation. All your life an unattainable ecstasy has hovered just beyond the grasp of your consciousness. The day is coming when you will wake to find, beyond all hope, that you have attained it, or else, that it was within your reach and you have lost it forever.” C.S. Lewis

  7. #16
    tWebber Jin-roh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Glendale, CA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    185
    Amen (Given)
    33
    Amen (Received)
    88
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Yes, that we can only define God in the negative, what He is not (if I remember correctly). But Christ was God incarnate and can be defined by positive attributes. "He who has seen me has seen the Father" never mind the fact that God even in the Old Testament self-defines with positive attributes.
    I'm glad you learned to google, Seer.

  8. #17
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,274
    Amen (Given)
    805
    Amen (Received)
    3515
    Quote Originally Posted by Charles View Post
    First of all you are still not providing any line of reasoning, but only a bunch of claims. In a philosophical aproach this is not enough. It is not even close. You are not answering any questions at all. It just pure claims and dogmatism.
    Charles in case you missed it, you are doing the exact same thing - posing an objective standard literally ex cathedra. You are impaled on one horn of the Münchhausen trilemma and accusing me of being impaled on another horn.

    Secondly I have already pointed out that the part about objective standards will be touched upon in another thread because that makes sense in the aproach that I have. You are not going to decide in this thread.
    I will be waiting, but I'm pretty sure you will not escape the trilemma - the only question left will be - which horn do you find most comfortable...
    "We can understand hell in its aspect of privation. All your life an unattainable ecstasy has hovered just beyond the grasp of your consciousness. The day is coming when you will wake to find, beyond all hope, that you have attained it, or else, that it was within your reach and you have lost it forever.” C.S. Lewis

  9. #18
    tWebber seer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    New England
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    17,274
    Amen (Given)
    805
    Amen (Received)
    3515
    Quote Originally Posted by Jin-roh View Post
    I'm glad you learned to google, Seer.
    Jin, I googled nothing - try getting off your high horse. BTW - was I wrong about the positive attributes of God/Christ?
    "We can understand hell in its aspect of privation. All your life an unattainable ecstasy has hovered just beyond the grasp of your consciousness. The day is coming when you will wake to find, beyond all hope, that you have attained it, or else, that it was within your reach and you have lost it forever.” C.S. Lewis

  10. #19
    tWebber
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,200
    Amen (Given)
    510
    Amen (Received)
    320
    Quote Originally Posted by seer View Post
    Charles in case you missed it, you are doing the exact same thing - posing an objective standard literally ex cathedra. You are impaled on one horn of the Münchhausen trilemma and accusing me of being impaled on another horn.



    I will be waiting, but I'm pretty sure you will not escape the trilemma - the only question left will be - which horn do you find most comfortable...
    All I have done so far is to claim that we all need to find or identify objective values no matter if we are religious or not. I have pointed to quite many reasons as to why that is the fact. You claim that we can somehow bypass this challenge. But apart from hearing you say you don't believe we will be able to find objective values, I am yet to see how your God is the solution to the problem of the founding of ethics. Even if I wont find any objective vaules, it would not prove you right, you'd be in the same boat. If you do not think so, then please give us arguments instead of claims.

  11. #20
    tWebber Jin-roh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Glendale, CA
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    185
    Amen (Given)
    33
    Amen (Received)
    88
    Okay so reading Leibneiz, his argument is not just about God's will, but also the potential arbitrariness of God's will. Meaning, why praise God for doing what is 'good' because he could have done anything else and it would be 'good.'

    I finally dug up Descartes Meditations. In meditation three he goes over God. After wondering how he can think about God at all, and arguing that God can't be simple extension of his own hoped for perfection, or from his parents, or from his senses... and finally concluding that God exists. He writes:

    And the whole strength of the argument which I have here made use of to prove the existence of God consists in this, that I recognize that it is not possible that my nature should be what it is, and indeed that I should have in myself the idea of a God, if God did not veritably exist—a God, I say, whose idea is in me, i.e. who possesses all those supreme perfections of which our mind may indeed have some idea but without understanding them all, who is liable to no errors or defect [and who has none of all those marks which denote imperfection]. From this it is manifest that He cannot be a deceiver, since the light of nature teaches us that fraud and deception necessarily proceed from some defect.
    God cannot deceive, according to Descartes. It seems then, that God could not call deception 'good.'

    So while Descartes might've believed that goodness depended on God's will, I don't think he meant the kind of arbitrariness that was implied. There are things that God, in principle, cannot will or declare 'good'.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •