God and Suffering

[1968]

Those statements are clear, but appear to contradict your next statement:

Can you solidify your opinion in one short sentence?

There is no contradiction: I believe that there exists an objective standard for what is right and wrong, but that does not necessitate that everyone follows an objective standard.

I'm still having trouble understanding this statement.

Not sure how to clarify it any more succinctly than I did in my last post.

God.

No need to go down this road any farther because we both know where it ends.

Taken literally, this statement allows me to do anything I want aside from killing myself. If not meant literally, then how?

Taken literally, it does NOT allow you to do anything you want aside from killing yourself. To live is to commit to self-perpetuated existence; reason is required for that. Dispense with reason and you will find that you cannot live by simply doing whatever you want.

Amen. Now, what is the source of this standard?

Not sure how to clarify it any more succinctly than I did in my last post.

I have to be honest, you don't seem too sure of what you are saying.

Don’t confuse your lack of understanding for uncertainty on my part.

Don't get me wrong, 1968. I'm not arguing with you. I'm assuming you are more educated than I am. I also assume that you have at least a 50/50 chance of being right in your opinion. The problem is, you don't seem to know what you believe. Or at least, you can't state is plainly enough for me to understand.

Well, I guess two off-topic comments in a row mean that this discussion has quickly come to an end.

I want you to convince me that I am wrong. But until then, I still must believe this:

1. The moral laws of this earth were created by God.
2. Without God, there can be no moral law, only moral opinion.

Believe what you will. I anticipated in post #49 that this is where this sort of discussion would end up.

[LandLord]

1968,
I appreciate your debating with me. Would you be so kind as to indulge me with one more round? In return, I'll offer you the kind of challenge I'm sure you can appreciate.

Can you dispute these two statements in 100 simple words or less?

1. The human laws of morality exist, as the law of gravity, but were not created by man.
2. Without a (moral) law maker, there can be no (moral) law.

[1968]

Can you dispute these two statements in 100 simple words or less?

1. The human laws of morality exist, as the law of gravity, but were not created by man.
2. Without a (moral) law maker, there can be no (moral) law.

1. Gravity exists as a physical entity but morality exists as an abstraction. Without human minds, the formation of abstractions cannot occur.
2. “Moral law” is a loaded term in that it already presumes that what is moral is established by the authority – or arbitrary whims – of a lawmaker. Anthropomorphically speaking, reality is the only “authority” for determining an objective standard by which to measure right and wrong.

[LandLord]

1. Gravity exists as a physical entity but morality exists as an abstraction. Without human minds, the formation of abstractions cannot occur.
2. “Moral law” is a loaded term in that it already presumes that what is moral is established by the authority – or arbitrary whims – of a lawmaker. Anthropomorphically speaking, reality is the only “authority” for determining an objective standard by which to measure right and wrong.

Good answers. Can you back up your assertion that "morality exists as an abstraction?" Without that, your argument falls short.

[shanbaum]

1968,
I appreciate your debating with me. Would you be so kind as to indulge me with one more round? In return, I'll offer you the kind of challenge I'm sure you can appreciate.

Can you dispute these two statements in 100 simple words or less?

1. The human laws of morality exist, as the law of gravity, but were not created by man.
2. Without a (moral) law maker, there can be no (moral) law.

It would be equally interesting (and challenging) for you to support these two statements in some way (other than by simply declaring them to be true).

[1968]

Can you back up your assertion that "morality exists as an abstraction?" Without that, your argument falls short.

Until you invest in a good dictionary, I guess my argument will have to fall short with you.

[LandLord]

Until you invest in a good dictionary, I guess my argument will have to fall short with you.

I do have a good dictionary. Can you clarify your meaning? Did I spell something wrong?

[LandLord]

It would be equally interesting (and challenging) for you to support these two statements in some way (other than by simply declaring them to be true).

I agree it is a challenge and I thank you for it. I will do my best. But first, let me make my position very clear.

Morality can only be one of two things. Absolute or relative.

OPTION 1: If it is absolute, then our actions are either morally right, or morally wrong, as measured by a universal standard independent of human thought.
Further, an action can not be both right and wrong. For example, regardless of state laws, the act of abortion is either morally right or wrong, period -- even if every human being on earth disagrees. This is not unlike the laws of Earth's gravity which are absolute, regardless of human opinion.

OPTION 2: If it is relative, then murder, rape, torture, terrorism or any other act can not be considered absolutely morally wrong. In moral relativism, right and wrong are determined by human thoughts, laws, polls, regulations, opinions and cultures. If morality is relative, then abortion is only right or wrong depending on where you live and/or what faith you subscribe to. Any choice can be no more wrong than choosing vanilla ice cream over chocolate. It's a matter of taste. Some people like murder, some don't.

If you don't agree that those are the only two options, then there is no point in my supporting one side. If you are willing to accept that it has to be one way or the other, then I will submit my argumental support.

[1968]

I do have a good dictionary. Can you clarify your meaning? Did I spell something wrong?

No, you seem not to understanding the meaning of "abstraction".

[KStraker]

I’ve seen a dog lay broken in a gutter next to a busy road whimpering in agony as death approached and saw suffering.

Did you ever think, "Hey maybe I can stop and help?"

[shanbaum]

Morality can only be one of two things. Absolute or relative.

Wow. I wish I lived in so simple a universe.

You are attempting to construct a tautology; if you define “absolute morality” as “morality determined by an absolute authority,” well then, you’re going to need an absolute authority (namely, you would say, God) in order for such a scheme to work.

But what I asked you to do was to support your assertion that such a morality actually exists, rather than requiring others to prove that it doesn’t. I certainly can’t prove that it does not exist; however, I have heard no persuasive argument (and from you, no argument at all) that it does exist.

Whether such a morality exists or not, there is considerable evidence that a) many people believe that there is, and b) they cannot agree on exactly what it comprises – simply compare the legal conventions of say, England, and Yemen. I choose England instead of the U.S. because the U.S. is closer to Yemen in some ways (e.g., capital punishment) than England is. It’s probably the case that the Yemenis think that they are acting in accordance with an absolute morality (the one dictated by shari’a). It’s less clear that “the British” (as a group) believe that they act in accord with an absolute morality, but it’s probably safe to say that they generally would reject the assertion that they violate one institutionally. Their moral codes are very different – like night and day. Who’s right?

If humans can’t discern the putative absolute morality correctly, the difference between morality being relative (or as you put it, a matter of “opinion” as to what constitutes a moral course of action) and morality being absolute (where it’s a matter of opinion as to what the absolutely moral course of action is) is subtle indeed. Instead of “I say this” and “I say that” the argument becomes “God says this” and “God says that.”

The sheer presumptuousness of the latter notwithstanding, of course, there may be a profound difference; that is, there may be a God who imposes an absolute moral code, which he has intimated to you (and not to me), and I will therefore suffer eternal damnation, while you and Chip frolic with the angels.

Or maybe not. But even if there were an absolute moral code, I suspect that the universe would still present dilemmas – where one perforce breaks one stricture or another. For example, one might face choosing to save an unborn child, or the life of its mother. Even in an absolute universe, one might face choices that are neither all black, nor all white – calling for judgment (of a lesser order).

Or does that sort of thing not really happen in your binary universe?

[LandLord]

Wow. I wish I lived in so simple a universe.

You are attempting to construct a tautology; if you define “absolute morality” as “morality determined by an absolute authority,” well then, you’re going to need an absolute authority (namely, you would say, God) in order for such a scheme to work.

But what I asked you to do was to support your assertion that such a morality actually exists, rather than requiring others to prove that it doesn’t. I certainly can’t prove that it does not exist; however, I have heard no persuasive argument (and from you, no argument at all) that it does exist.

Whether such a morality exists or not, there is considerable evidence that a) many people believe that there is, and b) they cannot agree on exactly what it comprises – simply compare the legal conventions of say, England, and Yemen. I choose England instead of the U.S. because the U.S. is closer to Yemen in some ways (e.g., capital punishment) than England is. It’s probably the case that the Yemenis think that they are acting in accordance with an absolute morality (the one dictated by shari’a). It’s less clear that “the British” (as a group) believe that they act in accord with an absolute morality, but it’s probably safe to say that they generally would reject the assertion that they violate one institutionally. Their moral codes are very different – like night and day. Who’s right?

If humans can’t discern the putative absolute morality correctly, the difference between morality being relative (or as you put it, a matter of “opinion” as to what constitutes a moral course of action) and morality being absolute (where it’s a matter of opinion as to what the absolutely moral course of action is) is subtle indeed. Instead of “I say this” and “I say that” the argument becomes “God says this” and “God says that.”

The sheer presumptuousness of the latter notwithstanding, of course, there may be a profound difference; that is, there may be a God who imposes an absolute moral code, which he has intimated to you (and not to me), and I will therefore suffer eternal damnation, while you and Chip frolic with the angels.

Or maybe not. But even if there were an absolute moral code, I suspect that the universe would still present dilemmas – where one perforce breaks one stricture or another. For example, one might face choosing to save an unborn child, or the life of its mother. Even in an absolute universe, one might face choices that are neither all black, nor all white – calling for judgment (of a lesser order).

Or does that sort of thing not really happen in your binary universe?

Actually I'm not the one constructing the tautology. Morality was a perfectly good word until the moral relativists came along. You are obviously one of them. Or would you prefer I call you a "non-absolute moralist?"

I'm not saying that I know absolute morality, I'm just saying there must be one. Something is either right or wrong. If you call that a binary universe, then yes, my world is simpler than yours. In my world, you are either pregnant or not. Dead or alive. Male or female. Right or wrong. It's usually the moral relativists that want a third option that better suits their lifestyle choices.

[LandLord]

if you define “absolute morality” as “morality determined by an absolute authority,” well then, you’re going to need an absolute authority (namely, you would say, God) in order for such a scheme to work.

Would you say the law of gravity is defined by an absolute authority? If so, then whom or what? If not, then why doesn't man change the law of gravity?

I have heard no persuasive argument (and from you, no argument at all) that it does exist.

Would it matter to you if it did exist? If you define morality as non-absolute, then you're highly unlikely to listen to ANY argument that supports absolute morality.

Whether such a morality exists or not, there is considerable evidence that a) many people believe that there is,

Has no logical significance.

and b) they cannot agree on exactly what it comprises

also irrelevant.

– simply compare the legal conventions of say, England, and Yemen. I choose England instead of the U.S. because the U.S. is closer to Yemen in some ways (e.g., capital punishment) than England is. It’s probably the case that the Yemenis think that they are acting in accordance with an absolute morality (the one dictated by shari’a). It’s less clear that “the British” (as a group) believe that they act in accord with an absolute morality, but it’s probably safe to say that they generally would reject the assertion that they violate one institutionally. Their moral codes are very different – like night and day. Who’s right?

Does it really matter if there is no such thing as absolute right and wrong? If you are a moral relativist, everyone can be right.

If humans can’t discern the putative absolute morality correctly, the difference between morality being relative (or as you put it, a matter of “opinion” as to what constitutes a moral course of action) and morality being absolute (where it’s a matter of opinion as to what the absolutely moral course of action is) is subtle indeed.

That's a confusing sentence. I simplified it for my own sake

"If humans can't tell what absolute morality is, then the difference between relative and absolute morality is subtle."

I think your logic is flawed just in that one sentence and I'm not sure what you really mean. Can you rephrase it?

there may be a God who imposes an absolute moral code, which he has intimated to you (and not to me), and I will therefore suffer eternal damnation, while you and Chip frolic with the angels.

Please don't confuse KNOWING absolute morality with the EXISTENCE of absolute morality.

Or maybe not. But even if there were an absolute moral code, I suspect that the universe would still present dilemmas – where one perforce breaks one stricture or another. For example, one might face choosing to save an unborn child, or the life of its mother. Even in an absolute universe, one might face choices that are neither all black, nor all white – calling for judgment (of a lesser order).

I agree. There would still be delimmas. But a simpler example will better illustrate the issue.

A moral relativist is walking down the street and feels bored so he decides to strangle the first old lady he sees. He finds one, and strangles her. He is amused by this. He knows that many people believe his act is morally wrong, so he runs away and hides.

Is his act morally wrong? Why?
Because all laws are right?
Because the majority is always right?
Because the USA says so?

How do you know it is wrong?

[chip anderson]

It may not be we that suffer because of what God does or allows.

More likely it is God that suffers over what we think and do.

Chip (perhaps the greatest sinner amoung us, and the only one convinced he is going to Hell)

[cocoisland58]

It may not be we that suffer because of what God does or allows.

More likely it is God that suffers over what we think and do.

Chip (perhaps the greatest sinner amoung us, and the only one convinced he is going to Hell)

If God exists it is He that suffers the most, as parents suffer when their children disappoint them so. But why are you convinced Chip, that you are going to Hell?

[chip anderson]

Coco:
I know my sins, God knows my sins. Actually that be more than enough knowin my sins. And if there are only 14,000 or so going to the next life, I am sure there have been many times that who have been a whole lot better than I.
"I don't know if there's a Heaven but I pray there ain't no Hell."

Chip

[1968]

Actually I'm not the one constructing the tautology. Morality was a perfectly good word until the moral relativists came along. You are obviously one of them. Or would you prefer I call you a "non-absolute moralist?"

I'm not saying that I know absolute morality, I'm just saying there must be one. Something is either right or wrong. If you call that a binary universe, then yes, my world is simpler than yours. In my world, you are either pregnant or not. Dead or alive. Male or female. Right or wrong. It's usually the moral relativists that want a third option that better suits their lifestyle choices.

First of all, if “absolute morality” is defined as “morality determined by an absolute authority”, then that is certainly a type of tautology. Secondly, if “morality” was a perfectly good word, by what standard are you suggesting that “morality” is now a bad word? The concept of “morality” predates Christianity and people have been having discussions like ours for thousands of years. In the context of this thread, “morality” (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") refers to proper conduct in the face of choices. You need to take a hard look in the mirror before laying the suggestion that others have deviated from that meaning. Thirdly, it’s not obvious to me that shanbaum is a moral relativist. Although I believe that an objective moral standard exists, I also share the view that it’s not always easy to tell right from wrong in every possible context.

At times you seem to acknowledge that objectivity is difficult (or even impossible), then you have the arrogance to charge others with simply being arbitrary in their decision making (i.e. you call them moral relativists) when they do not come to the same conclusions that you do.

[1968]

I know my sins, God knows my sins. Actually that be more than enough knowin my sins. And if there are only 14,000 or so going to the next life, I am sure there have been many times that who have been a whole lot better than I.
"I don't know if there's a Heaven but I pray there ain't no Hell."

I'll bite... where does the 14,000 figure come from?

[cocoisland58]

I'll bite... where does the 14,000 figure come from?

I believe that would be a reference to the JW, who by the way, may want to ensure that their spot in that number not be taken by staying off my porch.

[shanbaum]

Landlord,

What impresses me most is that you rephrased one of my (admittedly complex) sentences, and then complained that you don't understand what you wrote.

It seems to me that the crux of your "argument" is that in order for people to know the difference between right and wrong, there must be some external (that is, non-human) standard by which to measure the rightness and wrongness of human actions.

My long-winded prior post was an attempt to demonstrate that if we do not know that standard (that is, to use your words, if we merely know that it exists, but do not know what it requires), we are not in a significantly different position than if we don't know that it exists. Instead of fashioning opinions about morality (as, I guess you would say, relativists), we fashion opinions about the absolute morality dictated by God, which, you and I appear to agree, we do not know. Either way, we make it up as we go along. The only difference is that you say, "God says this is the Right thing to do" while I say "I think this is the right thing to do."

You want there to be a moral law analogous to physical laws. But consider that gravity is not a law, but a scientific theory (and not a particularly old one), devised by human minds, in an effort to explain observed physical phenomena. Absent humans (and therefore, absent math), the notion of a gravitational constant is meaningless. There's hardly a guarantee that we even have it right - but I'm getting into a subject area about which I know too little to even write meaningfully. Suffice it to say that the Tralfamadorians might be really amused by our explanation of why things fall.

I tried to give you an example of a factual situation in which absolutes conflict. The very notion of one "absolute" conflicting with another makes my head hurt; it makes me suspect the absoluteness of both. It doesn't seem right that the Right thing to do can vary from one factual situation to another. We've all heard lots of these - you know, four guys in a boat with enough supplies for three; the one I provided earlier, etc. If the answer is, sometimes you kill the mother, and sometimes you kill the child, what kind of "absolute" is that? Can there be a different absolute for each factual situation? Does that mean that new absolutes arise as new factual situations do?

The simple example you gave is not particularly instructive. Yes, it seems wrong to strangle the old lady. But I'm reminded (though not very clearly) of a passage in the Koran where an angel accompanying a man kills someone, and the man is shocked, and thinks maybe the angel is an evil person. The angel commits a few more acts that seem wrong, but in the end, it turns out that each of the acts was justified by facts of which the man was not aware, but which of course were known to Allah and the jinn. Of what practical significance are such absolutes, that by definition, aren't known to man? Whether they exist or not, man is left guessing. Of course, in the story from the Koran, the angel eventually reveals himself to the man, so the man knows the truth. The problem with your story is, there's no angel; maybe the old lady had it coming, and it was God's will.

Of course, that conclusion is insane. Logical, if absolutes exist (what if she Really Did have it coming; that is, what if it Really Was God's Will?), but insane.

It could be that your claim is really psychological in nature - that is, you think that we simply couldn't have any meaningful, internal sense of right and wrong in the absence of some extra-human source. In that case, you're just saying that it couldn't be built-in otherwise. I suppose that's really a different aspect of the issue. I don't see any reason to believe that humans could not have developed a sense of right and wrong analogous to our sense of cold and hot. It's clearly a more complex sense, so much so that I'm tempted to say it's a different kind of sense. I do not, however, agree with the notion that it is "irreducibly complex". Is a conscience more complicated than an eye (or for that matter, the brain of a mouse)?

[LandLord]

You need to take a hard look in the mirror before laying the suggestion that others have deviated from that meaning.

Please pay attention. Never once have I suggested that I demonstrate proper conduct while others do not. The debate I am currently in consists of one main question. "Is there an absolute morality or not?" Any other debate is premature and meaningless until this question is at least explored.

At times you seem to acknowledge that objectivity is difficult (or even impossible)

difficult and impossible are two very different things.

, then you have the arrogance to charge others with simply being arbitrary in their decision making (i.e. you call them moral relativists) when they do not come to the same conclusions that you do.

I am not arrogant. My desire to forge the truth by debating with you and Shanbaum is much stronger than my desire to be right. All I want is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that points to the truth. What irritates me is people who cannot get off the fence.

[shanbaum]

All I want is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that points to the truth.

Sounds kinda relative to me... or is 85% good enough for "absolute"?

It may be expecting too much, to hope to find absolute truth on an Internet forum.

[Night Train]

It seems to me that the crux of your "argument" is that in order for people to know the difference between right and wrong, there must be some external (that is, non-human) standard by which to measure the rightness and wrongness of human actions.

My long-winded prior post was an attempt to demonstrate that if we do not know that standard (that is, to use your words, if we merely know that it exists, but do not know what it requires), we are not in a significantly different position than if we don't know that it exists. Instead of fashioning opinions about morality (as, I guess you would say, relativists), we fashion opinions about the absolute morality dictated by God, which, you and I appear to agree, we do not know. Either way, we make it up as we go along. The only difference is that you say, "God says this is the Right thing to do" while I say "I think this is the right thing to do."

Wow...I love the way you think. I often listen to people and find myself concluding that each person has created a box in which they make the universe "work" for them. Anything that is suggested that doesnt fit in that box, is "wrong" to them. Its all kind of a coping mechanism. And the thing is, we all do this to some extent or another. And we all tend to judge each others "box size". My guess is that mine is smaller than yours but bigger than Landlords. I am curious though, What absolutes do you believe in? Here are some of mine...
Absolute Depravity of Man (Hmmmm....does This automatically call anything else I believe to be true into question because I too am depraved?)
I believe that the Bible is Inspired but not infallible.
I believe in heaven and in hell
I believe the only way into heaven is by faith what Jesus accomplished on the Cross and in His resurrection
I believe that Beer and Pizza are the most perfect foods.
I believe the Colts will beat the Patriots and then go on to win the Superbowl.
I believe that I am the luckiest person alive because of I have a wonderful wife and two great kids.

[shanbaum]

I am curious though, What absolutes do you believe in? Here are some of mine...

I'm absolutely convinced that human beings are capable of believing absolutely anything.

[Christosfer]

Coco:
I know my sins, God knows my sins. Actually that be more than enough knowin my sins. And if there are only 14,000 or so going to the next life, I am sure there have been many times that who have been a whole lot better than I.
"I don't know if there's a Heaven but I pray there ain't no Hell."

Chip

If our deeds could earn us a relationship with God, then Jesus died for no cause. We must accept His forgiveness and realize that it is by grace that we are saved through faith, and not by works lest anyone should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)
Where did you get this idea there are only so many going and if you don't make the curve you're out? Religion will not get you there my friend.

As for hell, I think it would be unjust of God to force those into His presence who have spent their whole existence trying to flee from Him. Whatever hell is, those who end up there will choose it. That is what I think.