Dear seer
I apologizee for a rather late answer, but due to illness I have not been able to write it before now. Found it more important to comment than spend time on the graphics, so it is plain text. But, as they say, it is the content that matters.
I have started out by commenting on the last part in which you write in support for your own view. I will comment on the other part as well.
You wrote: “See Charles, if I have this correct, what we are discussing here is what offer a firm foundation for ethics. You know what God and all that includes entails, what we need to discover is there any theory that can even come close.”
That is not completely wrong nor is it completely right. Leibniz, whom I quoted and used to underline my point, is not concerned with that question in the quotes used. He is not pointing to what “objective values” are. Rather he is stressing, that if, as a Christian, you just point to God as the sole base of moral values without any reasoning or justification as to why those are the right values and why God constitutes them, then you are blindly following, and it may feel right (like it probably does for some extremists) but basically, you have not even started to build a foundation. It compares to just go for one ethical theory and taking all its arguments as being godly and finding the others man-made or subjective for that reason.
You wrote: “If goodness is God's nature then lining up with that nature or following His commands is what is good. Look at it this way, God as a Creator has an ethical teleology for the human person. He created us for a purpose and to live in a specific fashion.”
Again here is a lot of claims in which the first is built upon an “if”. So how do we know if goodness is God’s nature? Especially, how do we know if we have no idea of goodness without God? The “ethical teleology for the human person” seems to me to be the same type of argument, that extremists use for killing, it is, simply put, God’s purpose. And, unless you already believe that God’s purpose is good, and that the fashion he wants us to live in is good, then any talk of purpose of fashion wont get you anywhere.
You wrote: “No such moral purpose exists if materialism is true, our ethical inclinations are at bottom the by product of the forces of nature - that have no moral intent or purpose - in other words it was by chance that we developed this way, it could have been quite different.”
I think there are two important point to be made regarding that. 1) You are yet to prove the “moral purpose” right and fair. 2) I am not personally a materialist. Not that I claim you say so, but it is important to note that one does not need to become a materialist for not believing in God.
You wrote: “After all why does Kant's moral theory resonate with you more than the other ones which are equally logical and consistent?”
Very fair question to ask, and you asked it regarding my own points supporting my own view as well. I may have given a too narrow minded presentation regarding that. What I was pointing to regarding the logical approach was at least to be taken in a broader sense. You are right that two theories contradicting each other could be logically consistent on their own. What - at least in my opinion - could however not be the case would be that they all contained the right and true premises. So, you will have to look at the content, the premises, so to say, which is, in a broader context looking at the logic. Because if you can prove the premises wrong, the conclusion is most likely also wrong. Or it may be true but for other reasons than those presented in the presentation.
You wrote: “But if such a God did exist your sense of morality could no more rise above His than a stream could rise above its source. And it also means that we do live in a just and moral universe, not an indifferent and amoral universe.”
First of all, sorry to bore you, but basically we are back at fundamentalist logic. Anyone making any claim about fairness is wrong, since - no further reason given - our God is right. So, the idea that eternal torture of a baby is unfair is - in your regard - just one that one would have to blame oneself for having, since God is ultimately right whatever he does. So, I will actually have to praise God for doing so. And if he did the opposite, i would have to praise him for that. If he tortures women for being women, I will have to praise it. If he does not do so, I will have to praise it. So, it turns out, since you cannot justify the purpose God is claimed to have, it could be whatever. You seem to be stuck in the Leibnizian trap which is praising God for whatever. Which can hardly be praise, since it is a praise of whatever.
I apologizee for a rather late answer, but due to illness I have not been able to write it before now. Found it more important to comment than spend time on the graphics, so it is plain text. But, as they say, it is the content that matters.
I have started out by commenting on the last part in which you write in support for your own view. I will comment on the other part as well.
You wrote: “See Charles, if I have this correct, what we are discussing here is what offer a firm foundation for ethics. You know what God and all that includes entails, what we need to discover is there any theory that can even come close.”
That is not completely wrong nor is it completely right. Leibniz, whom I quoted and used to underline my point, is not concerned with that question in the quotes used. He is not pointing to what “objective values” are. Rather he is stressing, that if, as a Christian, you just point to God as the sole base of moral values without any reasoning or justification as to why those are the right values and why God constitutes them, then you are blindly following, and it may feel right (like it probably does for some extremists) but basically, you have not even started to build a foundation. It compares to just go for one ethical theory and taking all its arguments as being godly and finding the others man-made or subjective for that reason.
You wrote: “If goodness is God's nature then lining up with that nature or following His commands is what is good. Look at it this way, God as a Creator has an ethical teleology for the human person. He created us for a purpose and to live in a specific fashion.”
Again here is a lot of claims in which the first is built upon an “if”. So how do we know if goodness is God’s nature? Especially, how do we know if we have no idea of goodness without God? The “ethical teleology for the human person” seems to me to be the same type of argument, that extremists use for killing, it is, simply put, God’s purpose. And, unless you already believe that God’s purpose is good, and that the fashion he wants us to live in is good, then any talk of purpose of fashion wont get you anywhere.
You wrote: “No such moral purpose exists if materialism is true, our ethical inclinations are at bottom the by product of the forces of nature - that have no moral intent or purpose - in other words it was by chance that we developed this way, it could have been quite different.”
I think there are two important point to be made regarding that. 1) You are yet to prove the “moral purpose” right and fair. 2) I am not personally a materialist. Not that I claim you say so, but it is important to note that one does not need to become a materialist for not believing in God.
You wrote: “After all why does Kant's moral theory resonate with you more than the other ones which are equally logical and consistent?”
Very fair question to ask, and you asked it regarding my own points supporting my own view as well. I may have given a too narrow minded presentation regarding that. What I was pointing to regarding the logical approach was at least to be taken in a broader sense. You are right that two theories contradicting each other could be logically consistent on their own. What - at least in my opinion - could however not be the case would be that they all contained the right and true premises. So, you will have to look at the content, the premises, so to say, which is, in a broader context looking at the logic. Because if you can prove the premises wrong, the conclusion is most likely also wrong. Or it may be true but for other reasons than those presented in the presentation.
You wrote: “But if such a God did exist your sense of morality could no more rise above His than a stream could rise above its source. And it also means that we do live in a just and moral universe, not an indifferent and amoral universe.”
First of all, sorry to bore you, but basically we are back at fundamentalist logic. Anyone making any claim about fairness is wrong, since - no further reason given - our God is right. So, the idea that eternal torture of a baby is unfair is - in your regard - just one that one would have to blame oneself for having, since God is ultimately right whatever he does. So, I will actually have to praise God for doing so. And if he did the opposite, i would have to praise him for that. If he tortures women for being women, I will have to praise it. If he does not do so, I will have to praise it. So, it turns out, since you cannot justify the purpose God is claimed to have, it could be whatever. You seem to be stuck in the Leibnizian trap which is praising God for whatever. Which can hardly be praise, since it is a praise of whatever.
Comment