The debate on same sex marriage that I participated in recently exposed me to more than just differing views for and against a legal imprimatur on marriage for homosexual people. It raised questions for me about Australia’s societal values, where they’re headed, and just who exactly is driving them.
For reasons that seem obvious to me, religion is out-of-favour; I say that as a person who has little interest in ‘religion’ per se, but great interest in God. People identifying as Christians have had a long and comfy ride, ever willing to point out the faults (as they see them) in others, ever hesitant to spend too much time before a mirror – ‘spiritual, social vampires’, if you will. But do we throw the baby out with the proverbial bath water? In the shipwreck of Christian life in secular Australia, is it now a case of moral anchors aweigh?
Whatever criticism could be fairly levelled at Christians throughout the relatively few years of federated Australia, the bedrock of this faith has, arguably, provided Australia with a magnificent start and a clear view of the future. Notwithstanding the diverse flavours touted by its proponents, its message has been singular in the sense of morality. An invisible God, who lays out a pattern for living a life considerate of Him, others and self, with His magnetic goodness to maintain your interest and compliance - sounds Utopian. Of course, the practical application of this sometimes lacks polish, human fallability clouding what might otherwise shimmer with pristine clarity.
Historically, Australia has been anchored in a morality defined outside itself; that is, that presented in the Bible, and as such it had a way of monitoring change and waywardness. Even the most basic of principles afforded under the 10 commandments, for example, provided a clear and simple foundation for judging appropriate behaviour and creating law. Today’s Australia, however, has not so much lost touch with this benchmark, as willingly and forcefully rejected it. It is now adrift in a sea of ‘me-ism’, where the war to reconcile one persons ‘rights’ with everyone else’s wages incessantly. The constant cries of dissatisfaction, arising from intersecting interests, hum in the background like an angry wind through the rigging. The moral standard, once visible from afar, is now sunken like a submerged water marker. What we have in its place is not a standard but a moving average, the poles of which are set at the most debase and most noble notions society can muster, with the nobility pole ebbing ever closer to its debase counterpart.
Australia, don’t allow yourself to drift; drop anchor in a safe harbour.
52 comments
Roy
October 12, 2011 at 2:14 am (UTC 8)
Thanks for the link! Firstly, I must admit I skipped to the conclusion. Thankfully, the answer is given clearly: “Is something good because God commands it so? No.” I find this a powerful statement, coming from a pastor…! (Granted, he follows up the statement above with a few paragraphs about “the eternal concurring witnesses of the Trinity”, etc., etc., which I do not understand whatsoever.)
I maintain that morality exists independently from God, as it should. Perhaps you at least agree, now, that this is possible?
We’re not “adrift”, we’re sailing. As we should be. Feel the wind in your hair, man!
Monsignor
October 12, 2011 at 7:34 am (UTC 8)
Roy,
Well I guess we’ll leave it there, as you did not read his argument, and you do not fully understand his conclusion. I do not agree that morality exists independent of God.
I will “sail”, I will just charter a different course.
J
Roy
October 13, 2011 at 8:41 pm (UTC 8)
As I said, his answer to the Euthyphro is clear: “Is something good because God commands it so? No.”
If you have read and understand the rest of the Pastor’s article, I’d be happy to hear you paraphrase it in terms I might understand.
Cheers,
Roy
Monsignor
October 17, 2011 at 10:37 pm (UTC 8)
Roy,
Apologies for my delayed response, I’ve had a very, busy week.
I doubt I could explain it better than the pastor who wrote the response, but I’ll try to address the salient point.
If you want to understand his conclusion, please consider “Is something good because God commands it so? – No” in light of what the pastor has said about the three persons of the Godhead, and how each bears witness (testifies to the character) of the other. Also, the assumption he has made, I believe, is that Euthyphro’s statement, referring to many collective yet individual gods and their approval of piety, does not carry to the trinitarian nature of the Christian God – three persons as one.
He mentions the inherent unreliability of one person testifying of themselves, something Christ Himself said, of Himself (John 5:31-32 and John 8:14). The pastor’s point is that the Godhead three bear witness of each other, it is not one claiming it alone.
To relate the view of the pastor back to our discussion, morality would be defined by God in the sum of agreement of the three persons of the Godhead, not any one alone.
I thope that helps.
I thought his conclusion would be a red reg to a bull to you, as the pastor claims to have solved the dilemma. Do you think he has?
J
Roy
October 18, 2011 at 11:59 pm (UTC 8)
Thanks for the paraphrasing!
I do not think he has solved the dilemma. Let’s state it again: “Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?”
I think this can be rephrased by replacing “God” with “the three persons of the Godhead”, and the dilemma stands as before.
Monsignor
October 19, 2011 at 7:04 am (UTC 8)
Roy,
You definitely have my attention on this topic. I find it fascinating actually.
How many persons would you say it takes to realise a moral standard? I am assuming from the Euthyphro perspective it is certainly not ‘one’.
In your view, how is morality formed?
–Edit–
So as not to lose focus, does morality require more than one person to define it? If yes, why? If no, how reliable and transferrable is the morality of one, and what is its source? We can not say that God can not arbitrarily define what is moral, whilst at the same time afford ourselves that privilege.
J
Roy
October 19, 2011 at 9:22 pm (UTC 8)
“Does morality require more than one person to define it? If yes, why? If no, how reliable and transferrable is the morality of one, and what is its source? We can not say that God can not arbitrarily define what is moral, whilst at the same time afford ourselves that privilege.”
Of course different people have different morals. Different people have different experiences and reach different conclusions/opinions about what is good/right and what is bad/wrong. How “reliable and transferrable” is this process? I think it’s diverse and error prone, as is all of human experience. In my opinion, the usefulness of any particular moral or system of morality depends on how it was formed, and in my opinion some ways of forming opinions are certainly more reliable and transferable than others. You should already know that I believe an examination of the consequences of actions is the most reliable and transferable way to form a system of morality.
Perhaps your next point is going to be to argue against this, and say that, instead, the Bible followed exactly and blindly is the best way to form a system of morality. Obviously, I disagree with this.
“In your view, how is morality formed?”
Let me copy-paste from one of my previous replies: To answer your question of “Where does morality come from, if not from God”, I believe it is self-evident that it ‘comes from’ our parents, our friends, our pastor, priest, guru, lama, etc, our community, learning from discussions with others, and (let’s not forget:) thinking for ourselves!
—-
As a side note, I think you may have misunderstood the Euthyphro dilemma as saying that morality could not possibly come from God because God is only one person. The Euthyphro dilemma does not say that this is impossible. Rather, there are several problems with this premise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthrypo_dilemma#Problems_2
Monsignor
October 22, 2011 at 6:01 am (UTC 8)
Roy
This means you agree that it requires more than one person to define morality?
I agree that different moral standards exist between us all, but that is not in contention here.
Yes, I should know by now, but it has taken me a while to catch on to this philosophical form of thinking and discussion. The penny is dropping.
Whilst I can see merit in your approach, It sounds to me like it requires a second moral judgement to be made (regarding the consequence), in order to derive the answer to a first. Given that an outcome can not always be known we have the element of uncertainty combined with a moral judgement as the basis for a decision regarding a current moral question. It is a method for determining what action to take, but is as at least as subjective as when we decide in advance something is unacceptable, and do not proceed to the consequential analysis. In my view, neither offer a suitable explanation of the source of morality, only divination of a somewhat arbitrary, albeit considered, outcome.
I wasn’t going to offer that, buuuut, since you opened the door for a sermon – I honestly don’t think I’ve ever considered a life of exact following of the Bible; my approach is simpler and easier than that. I believe Jesus died for us all and that his death, and subsequent resurrection, is the full payment for all human error. Aside from any planning God did around this, and His reasons for that, I believe this penalty was required because of God’s commitment to His own standard, even at great cost to Himself. God the Son, being spirit, became flesh (Jesus) and suffered the just penalty of all flesh in order that God’s own requirement for righteousness would be met. God’s own law required that justice be done. Rather than taking it out on us, He took it out on Himself – this is what motivates me to serve Him.
I remembered your previous response after I posted that. Sorry to waste your time.
So, you are saying that morality comes from every person, and together we all decide on a palatable compromise – preferably defined by, in your own case at least, the analysis of consequences?
As I mentioned earlier, consequence analysis itself draws on a moral judgement to answer a moral judgement, so the question would seem to remain unanswered as to the source of morality. The method you espouse requires the presence of others and if we wind back the clock, it does not explain the provenance of morality in early man.
Very politely put
Yes, I agree I probably misunderstood it, so I read the full text of the conversation between Socrates and Euthyphro in order to get a better perspective. Socrates disagreed with Euthyphro’s assertion that the Greek gods were all in agreement about what was piety and what impiety, and as such they could not define piety. It was a fundamental assumption in each of the two horns of the dilemma, evidenced by the frequent references by Socrates to the disharmony between the gods. Socrates also frequently referred to “God” (probably a reference to Zeus). Whether referring to Zeus or referring to all Greek gods collectively, the theme of his position was the same; there must be harmony and agreement between all the gods on what is pious, and one alone can not define it.
I did read that last time you posted it. Can I recommend that you revisit it and have a read through the explanation of the problems presented, specifically to the Christian, for the first horn? It lists such things as “sovereignty”, “free will”, “omnipotence” and “morality without God”. None of these problems take into account the triune nature of the Christian God. One God, three persons, all in agreement, and able to each testify of the morality of the other.
Our friend the pastor has argued that what is moral is recognised by God as moral, and that that recognition has flowed from the consideration of each person of the Godhead’s account of the other. The “quality control”, if you like, is built in to God in the unity of His three persons. That unity is not a given, it remains as each continues to affirm the morality of the other.
J
Roy
November 2, 2011 at 12:19 am (UTC 8)
“This means you agree that it requires more than one person to define morality?”
No. If one person has an opinion about what is moral (/”good”/”right”), then this opinion constitutes a system of morality.
“Whilst I can see merit in your approach,…”
My approach defines a way to make personal decisions about what actions are moral(/good/right). It can be summarised as: Examine the consequences of something, and if the consequences are desirable, then that something is moral. For me, “desirable” consequences are those that increase the well-being and fulfillment of sentient beings.
Your approach is: Read the Bible. Whatever it says is moral is moral(/good/right). —–> Please correct me if I’m wrong! I would very much appreciate it if you could summarise your “approach” in this form, to get the discussion back on track.
———–
“So, you are saying that morality comes from every person, and together we all decide on a palatable compromise – preferably defined by, in your own case at least, the analysis of consequences?”
Yes!
“…the question would seem to remain unanswered as to the source of morality. The method you espouse requires the presence of others and if we wind back the clock, it does not explain the provenance of morality in early man.”
Huh? What question remains unanswered?
“…triune nature of the Christian God…”
Sorry, I don’t understand this stuff. And unfortunately, I really don’t want to get into details about the difference between God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit etc. etc.
Monsignor
November 8, 2011 at 6:54 am (UTC 8)
Roy,
For interests sake:
o·pin·ion/??piny?n/
A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
The beliefs or views of a large number or majority of people about a particular thing.
Source: Google (define:opinion)
What we are taking about is the source of morality.
Where does the desire to determine “right from wrong” come from? Why do humans generally have a conscience?
The whole point of the Euthyphro Dilemma, that you raised and encouraged me to investigate, is to say that God must recognise what is moral (ergo it’s source is allegedly external to Him), or that He arbitrarily decides what is moral and as such has no way of knowing if He is, Himself, moral. Replace God with “a person” in that dilemma and you have the same problem. You are not describing what morality is, but how it can be observed.
Yes your approach does, and I use it too Roy, but it requires a moral store to refer to in order to work.
This is my point; “if the consequences are desirable” is, in itself, a moral question. This is why what you’ve described is a method for using morality, not morality itself. You have described a circular solution.
Where does your desire to “increase the well-being and fulfillment of sentient beings” come from? I honestly believe that bears some thinking about. Perhaps you will say “from others”, but even then, what made you decide a particular thing was “good”, and adopt it? In a society of people where one looks after the other, what is their motivation? Why shouldn’t they all do what is best for themselves?
Let me ask you, do you believe humans are inherently good?
Yes, of course. I apologise if you think I’ve got off track.
I believe there is an imprint of morality on humans, and its source is God. Accompanied by a free will, we have the basic potential to recognise morality, whilst at the same time having the power to ignore it.
I reference the bible for information about relating with God; to help to get an understanding of His nature. It is that relationship that then corroborates what I read. May I ask you, if you examine the life of Christ, is there something you find offensive in how he behaved? Something you consider immoral? I’m assuming you have considered His life, as you seem to have invalidated Him.
If I have not made it clear this time around perhaps we should just leave it?
I don’t blame you, I honestly can’t be bothered will all the theology either. I just followed through with your suggestion to investigate Euthyphro’s Dilemma, and that is where it led me. The answer proposed by the pastor, in my view, makes a good, but difficult to understand, case against the dilemma.
In my view, God intended Himself to be found by the simple, and hidden from the wise. Therein lies another dilemma I suppose, because I suspect the wise (knowledgeable) pass simplicity on their way to greatness. So they have the capacity to know God, but sometimes don’t feel the need as they depend on their own intellect.
J
Roy
November 8, 2011 at 3:51 pm (UTC 8)
“Where does the desire to determine “right from wrong” come from?”
It comes from the need for humans to make decisions, which in turn requires us to judge the appropriateness of each possible action. We use morality (among other things) for this purpose.
“Replace God with “a person” in [the Euthyphro] dilemma and you have the same problem.”
Excellent suggestion. With your replacement we have: “Is what is morally good commanded by a person because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by a person?” To which I answer simply: Neither. Rather, what is morally good is defined as such by a person when they believe it to be so.
“This is my point; “if the consequences are desirable” is, in itself, a moral question. This is why what you’ve described is a method for using morality, not morality itself. You have described a circular solution.”
I understand your point. Thanks for helping me refine my solution
I’ve tried to separate my approach into a series of 3 smaller premises: first, the premise that we should act in a way that has desirable consequences (which is purely logical); second, that we define desirable consequences as something that is helpful to our goal(s) (again purely logical); and third, that we choose a suitable goal. I agree that the third problem is not solved by the above framework. You already know the goal I have chosen. Let me explain my choice in the next answer:
“Where does your desire to “increase the well-being and fulfillment of sentient beings” come from? I honestly believe that bears some thinking about.”
First, to answer your question, it comes from a variety of experience and reading. Without going into needless detail, it can be summarised by recognition of the logic of the golden rule: to behave toward others as one would have others behave toward oneself. I think this is a good foundation as it is grounded in solid logic. What goal do you have? Is it similar to mine?
“Let me ask you, do you believe humans are inherently good?”
Unfortunately, it depends what you mean by “inherently”, and what you mean by “good”.
“May I ask you, if you examine the life of Christ, is there something you find offensive in how he behaved?…you seem to have invalidated Him”
Hey wait a second, I never dissed Jesus. I suspect he probably did live, and that some guys wrote an awesome story about him. I’m pretty sure they took some artistic license, but who could blame them? I think he was an amazing person, absolutely inspiring, and must have set a revolutionary example of how to live compassionately and tolerantly in what must have been a terribly violent time in history. I admire him greatly and wish I could have met him.
Actually, I’m glad you brought up Jesus. I must admit that I have pursued this discussion mostly in light of your opposition to same-sex marriage & adoption, which you attribute to your Christian beliefs in spite of the fact that Christ never said anything against them. I’d strongly encourage you to read this article from Kristina Keneally, a fellow Christian, Master of Theology and former Premier of New South Wales: http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=28390. I’d be interested to know what you think.
Cheers,
Roy
Monsignor
November 21, 2011 at 9:21 pm (UTC 8)
Roy,
I can see you are thinking, but if I work through it I’m not sure you’re saying anything different to before.
I think this represents reasonable use of morality, but not morality.
Essentially, you are struggling to answer the same question that Euthyphro struggled to answer – “What is piety?” – although from a secular perspective in your case. It is a difficult thing to nail down, made more difficult if you don’t have God as a fallback
Does this not ring of contradiction?
“Is what is morally good commanded by a person because it is morally good…” equals recognition that something is moral; “…what is morally good is defined as such by a person when they believe it to be so.” equals belief, which follows recognition. In believing something is morally good, you must first have recognised it as such. So, your answer cannot be “neither”.
What causes a person to believe something is good, and adopt it? Which comes first; that which is to be believed (the thing), or the belief in it? Put another way, can a person be satisfied of the state of a particular thing before establishing, in their mind, it’s existence?
I agree that we should. However, “should” implies that there is a compulsion at work behind the decision. What is that compulsion?
I get (and like) what you’re saying, but I don’t believe it is logical. This is how I understand logic to work in the context of our topic; if I deem ‘X’ as moral and you don’t then we have a proposition and a negation. Logically, only one can be true, or both can be false, but both cannot be true. The fact is, as you would know, some people default to taking care of self first, or only self.
Again, I hear you, but I think we are still short of pinning down morality. It may be helpful for me in my goal to pass an exam, to cheat; but “should” I? That would be helpful to the exam goal, but counterproductive to my goal of increasing my knowledge, and by the standard I adhere to, immoral .
A decent concession by you.
I’ve already discussed my thoughts on the “logic” of this thinking, so I’ll leave that this time.
I like your goal and I am grateful that there are people around that think that way.
I think my goal is similar. I would only add that we treat others that way (well) in spite of how they treat us. Easy to say, difficult to do; but we are talking ‘goals’ here.
Yes, I suppose it does. Put simply, do you think we are born with good intentions toward others, or do we learn about this then make a decision about what is acceptable?
I meant because of the disdain you seem to hold for the Bible.
What do you think about His claim to be God?
Yes that is a valid point to the extent that an absence of discussion probably signals something of the importance, or lack thereof, of a topic. However there are many polarising subjects that Jesus did not mention. He provided a framework, addressed some topical issues of the day, and the rest was derived from His teaching by the apostles. His main focus – repentance and love.
An interesting read. Her experience as a Catholic is swamped with tradition and politics that I have never been subject to. Her conclusion that SSM is acceptable probably stems from her belief that God created people as homosexual. I guess if you believe that there would be no other suitable determination. I’m not convinced people are born that way, but it matters not. What matters, I believe, is how I treat them.
It is always going to amount to the actions I take. I may not like something someone does, but if I can demonstrate love to them in spite of it, that is hitting the target.
J
Roy
November 22, 2011 at 3:26 pm (UTC 8)
Monsignor
November 22, 2011 at 4:00 pm (UTC 8)
Yep, blockquote is the tag you want (cite is not required). It’s painful on a mobile :/
Roy
November 22, 2011 at 4:22 pm (UTC 8)
Thanks for the detailed response. Unfortunately I’m running out of ways to express my point of view to you
In my opinion, each person’s morality is a learned and continually changing set of guidelines and principles that is carried in the decision-making warehouse of one’s mind. Other tools may include planning, memory of specific events, fear, homophobia, love, lust, habit, etc., etc. You seem to think that morality is special, but I disagree. I feel like the question of “where does morality come from” is like asking where does “habit” come from, or where does “risk assessment” come from, or where does the concept of a “favourite beer” come from. These things just develop through experience, and we use them to make decisions. We find we simply can’t live without being able to make decisions (“Hmm, should I get the Westmalle or La Chouffe?”). How you choose to make decisions is up to you, but it’s influenced by your experiences (“Well I really enjoyed the Westmalle last time…”). Morality is an amorphous, neurological tool that is spontaneously created and adapted through experience. It doesn’t “come from” somewhere any more than “piano playing” comes from somewhere. I suspect your morality comes from what you heard from your parents, heard at church, your friends, the books you read, etc.
You say, “What is piety?” – I say, “What makes a beer tasty?” And as I answered before: A tasty beer is defined as such by a person when they believe it to be so! I see no contradiction!
I suspect this is an evolved trait. Organisms that are compelled to bring themselves “harm” probably don’t live very long.
I think a bit of both. We have a rich set of DNA which, through evolution, probably predisposes humans to some degree of compassion. For example, most mammals don’t eat their children. Anyway, your question is a question of nature vs nurture, and the most likely answer in my mind is a bit of both.
I hold no disdain. I just don’t think it was written by authors who were supernaturally possessed. I just think it’s an old book. I haven’t read it all (it’s pretty long…), but I reckon the highlights (especially the bits with Jesus) are pretty good indeed!
A lot of people claim to be God – see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Coming_of_Jesus#Claimants_of_Christ.27s_Second_Coming, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_messiah_claimants#Christian_messiah_claimants. Put simply, I’m not convinced that any of the claimants are super-human.
What a great way to end your post! Couldn’t agree more
Monsignor
December 1, 2011 at 5:09 pm (UTC 8)
Roy,
Sorry for the delays of late; I have been quite busy.
That’s ok, I’m running out of ways to express the question!
It doesn’t really matter, I think we’ve both covered as much ground as we reasonably can on this topic. You have expressed yourself well, and I believe that I understand your position.
It is difficult to grasp things of a spiritual nature, particularly when they involve such grandiose claims as those made by Christ about who He is, and who we are to Him. I consider myself to be a skeptic, for the most part, and do not understand how I have come to have faith in so improbable a proposition as an invisible God, who created us able to reject Him (and we have), planned a way to bring us to Him and did the work for us. Ridiculous! Yet, here I am.
I refer to morality that has an unchanging standard and is right for all time and situations, without regard to our distorted use of it – important to me? Yes. It is certain that we will find variation in how we manage ourselves against such a standard, much the same as we each obey the law in our respective communities to varying degrees of compliance. The important thing is that it – this truth – exists; that what is actually good and true is a fundamental fact, against which everything else is judged. It is not just a baseline, but a basis for goodness and justice and from those, human relationship with one another and God.
I understand why you would make those comparisons. I think you are saying that morality is a decision, a selection to be made, the process of which has no qualitative difference from any other category of required decision making. As a bit of an aside, I’m not sure “habit” is necessarily a good comparator for morality, as I see it as following morality. We believe “x” to be moral, then habits form around how we use/interact with/express “x”.
I agree there are decisions to be made, and learned from, when deciding on “the right” thing to do, but morality – or, more accurately, truth – is not a decision in itself; it just is. What I think you are describing is the extent to which, as a society, we decide something is good then adopt it. Later, when we find a “newer, better truth”, we ditch the old one and start with the new, or we refashion the old to fit better with our new enlightenment.
I am saying the goodness of “x” is already defined and we did not define it in our recognition of it. What is good, what is true, does not change. The only thing that changes is our ability to see it, and our desire to find it.
Yes, what you have been describing up to this point definitely fits the definition above. But as I’ve said, what is actually true and good is unchanging. If morality is defined as the system we use to recognise that, then our system of morality is flawed. Truth, is something else.
I think truth comes from somewhere. Morality, from what we’ve been discussing, is shaping up better as the means of implementing truth.
Yes, my decisions are certainly influenced by all of these. Hopefully, the decisions I make are consistent with how I interpret what is true. To me this is integrity, a key method of assessing how our actions align with our stated beliefs, whatever they are.
You are comparing an attribute of one thing (beer) to the substance of another (piety). I think a more appropriate, albeit meaningless, comparison here would be “What makes ‘x’ good?”, and “What makes a beer tasty?”.
Conversely if I asked you what is beer, you could surely tell me!
We can deem “x” to be good (where “x” is some act we perform), but that doesn’t make it so. Likewise, one person can deem a beer “tasty”, and another not. In the case of the beer, subjectivity dictates there is no correct answer other than the one arrived at by the consumer. With the former, there is only one truth, but degrees to which this is recognised. In essence it is shrouded in subjectivity, but is innately objective.
I suggested that it was contradictory to say a person neither commands something to be good, or recognises something to be good, per your earlier post. Putting it in the context of your beer example it would be “Is what is tasty beer commanded by a person because it is tasty beer, or is it tasty beer because it is commanded by a person?”, to which your answer would be, “Neither”.
Yet you say – “A tasty beer is defined as such by a person when they believe it to be so!”. This seems to me to be a contradictory view because this statement is qualitatively equal to “it [is] tasty beer because it is commanded by a person”. Assuming the person is telling the truth, their statement that the beer is tasty requires their belief that it is so. I hope that makes sense.
I see. I really just wanted you to think about that question. I’m not going to dismantle your answer.
Interesting that you believe emotions come from DNA. I don’t know much about biology but I understand that there are familial similarities in DNA, but that family members can demonstrate wildly varying degrees of compassion. Just saying.
My misunderstanding.
An honest assessment. Beats having someone tell me how they’ve “read the bible”, in a way that excuses their ignorance in regard to it.
Recognising it as something more than a nice story requires faith.
Agreed. However, not a lot of people had the same impact on the world as Jesus, claiming what He claimed. He’s difficult to ignore and even more so to meaningfully compare with others who claim to be God.
J
Roy
December 2, 2011 at 3:43 pm (UTC 8)
With all due respect, if you WANT to understand, you could just Google “why do people believe in god”
Ok, I hear you. And (as surely you know by now) I see no reason to believe that such a standard, such a “truth” exists. I disagree with your statement that morality “just is”. I understand that this can be a disquieting proposition for a Christian and, to be honest, I therefore have scarce hope that you will fully consider it as a possibility.
Without meaning to be condescending, “truth” has a long history. You could start here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/truth/. I simply am not equipped to delve into a philosophical discussion on truth without further study. The fact remains, though, that I see no evidence that morality “just is”, or that there is an absolute moral “truth”. I suppose you don’t need evidence because you just have faith that you’re right?
Needless to say (again), I disagree. I see no evidence that “there is only one truth”.
I am arguing that the tastiness of a beer is subjective, as is morality. That’s our key disagreement, and I see no easy way of overcoming that.
Cheers,
Roy
Monsignor
December 12, 2011 at 4:20 pm (UTC 8)
Hi Roy,
I wasn’t going to reply to this because I couldn’t decide if you were joking or not. So instead I’ll reply to both possibilities:
You were joking
You were not joking
I don’t think everything can be answered from Google, not even if it were the sum of all human knowledge. Some matters you search the heart for, not the Internet.
No problem. What is important to me in our discussion is not that you agree, but that you understand my position. When you understand my position you are better placed to consider it more thoroughly, whether or not you choose to do so.
It is not so much that I think morality (or anything) “just is” in the sense of an inexplicable accident, as I believe we live in a purposefully created world, it is that truth either is, or is not. There is a genuine logic to it. When two opposing views are presented only one, or neither, can be true. Sometimes this is easily seen in things like mathematics, at other times less so, like choosing right action in a moral dilemma. I don’t mean every situation is “black and white” either, there’s plenty of grey, but the shades of grey, in my mind, are an indication of how well we see and understand the truth. I don’t think I have a patent on seeing it either; just to be clear.
A difference between us in this discussion is that I have lived on your side of the debate, but you, based on your views expressed here, have not lived on mine. Rather than scarce hope, I have continued expectation that you will one day come to understand what it is I support, however ridiculous that proposition may seem to you today.
It’s taken me a while to reply so I haven’t read through that link yet. I will have a read and post my thoughts.
That’s very honest of you. I too am ill-equipped for academic debate, and time poor. The views I express here are my own based on my experiences. I do not research them, which is why I think it important to allow them to be critiqued.
It isn’t at all about me being right. It is entirely about faith, as you identified. If I presented you with evidence of God’s existence do you think you would change your view? What evidence would you require?
I understand.
Maybe our definitions have changed a little – well, mine maybe. It seems that truth/goodness is/are the primary elements here, and that morality is our implementation of those. Integrity would be our consistency in interpreting what is good and true and acting in accordance with that. So, on that basis I guess morality can be construed as subjective, dependent upon one’s interpretation and implementation of truth, goodness and justice. There is always a reason that a person considers a particular thing to be moral, and either those reasons themselves are truthful, good and just, or they are not.
J
Roy
January 3, 2012 at 2:07 am (UTC 8)
I wasn’t joking – I think it’s a fascinating question, and there’s some excellent essays available online on the topic. I can understand why a believer might not be interested in analyzing the reasons for their belief, though. I meant no offense.
Ok, I understand.
So are you saying that there is an absolute, eternally ‘true’/'correct’ resolution to every conceivable ‘moral dilemma’? And that it is God who knows this absolute truth, and that us humans are left to try to ‘see and understand the truth’?
Just so you know, I was raised a Christian. I think I understand the joy of religious experience, and understand what it is to have faith in God.
Yes, I would change my view in accordance with the evidence. I can’t answer your second question without you sufficiently defining “God”.
I’m glad that we’ve arrived at this point.
Ok, yes, at a stretch I can agree with that too! Which brings us back to the question of what is the reason that you consider same sex marriage to be immoral?
In my opinion, the reason of ‘God doesn’t like it’ is in fact NOT a “truthful, good and just” reason.
Roy
January 10, 2012 at 9:16 pm (UTC 8)
As an aside, I just saw this video on the topic that I can’t resist sharing. It is very cheeky, so take it with a grain of salt, and I hope you’re not offended:
« Previous 1 2 3 Next »