@ Jeremy

You wrote: "Perhaps I am simply missing the simplicity of it, but it seems to me that our standards change when we use the word "good". A good person is held to a different standard than a good president, a good president held to a different standard than a good general. What constitutes a good "God"? You'll get different answers. As I said before, the traditional notion of "all-good", in this sense, references God's own nature. So, it is God's standard of "good" that we are referring to, not our own."


You wrote: "If God does something which to us (not necessarily having all of the information) appears evil, and yet we call Him "good", it would not be saying morality is subjective but that but an acknowledgement there isn't sufficient information to render judgement."

That there is not sufficient information to render judgment, how can you then render judgment... by calling him "good?" Do you see? You just admitted there is insufficient information to make that judgment, and then proceed to make that judgment.

We have no bases on which to call god good except our own.
---

To my challenge

Q: When is the rape of a 4 year old child right? -- I paraphrased your philosophy, "it depends on who is doing the raping."

Your actual reply was: "No, my answer is that morality is conditional."

I agree, certain moral issues are conditional. And upon examination of your scenario, I agree with part of your conclusion that, "It does mean that you have to apply some "thought and reason" to situations."

But then you go and try to add religious "values" to thought and reason, claiming they are not mutually exclusive!!??? Did we not just clarify that religious values cannot determine right from wrong? All it takes is for one goof-ball to declare that evil is what god wants and therefor its good. When you added "religious values," "thought and reason" just became irrelevant. For example:

Was 911 "good" based on God's will as perceived by religious zealots going about God's good work? And aren't they now in heaven with 72 black-eye virgins in the land of milk and honey? Clearly "thought and reason" disappeared.

You said, "THe difference is that the theist {these terrorists for example?} has an [alleged] objective justification for their morality, whereas the non-theist does not."

Yeah, their 'objective moral justification' was to kill the infidel en masse for Allah [may his karma be upon him]. Jeremy, you continue to exemplify my point. Those who would take religious values over "thought and reason" can justify evil any time they want.

This is not a knee-jerk reaction to your philosophy, sir; you keep demonstrating it over and over. Forget the death of 25 girls over a preference to rape, cut to the chase and say "evil is good if commanded by religion."

--

But at least you still have a heart, and that's a saving grace. Because, clearly you question the merit of killing 25 girls instead of the rape of one, in your scenario. You lock it down saying: "Let's say that ALL other options have been exhausted and this is the ONLY hope to save the girls' lives at this point."

Jeremy, lean close and listen carefully...

What if you could easily set them ALL free without harm? Would you take this option?

Now compare: What if the person making the demand, "rape the little girl or I kill them all," is the character referred to as God?

@Aces_Lucky

There is some overlap between my response to you and to Bo. if my responses seem curt, it's because I probably addressed this in my reply to Bo, although i have tried to indicate as such.
I do, and as I said to Bo, one does not call God "all-good" because one understands exactly what that means. One does that because of the ontological argument (although they may not know it).
Now, to be honest, there are obviously some Christians who, in common parlance, call God "good" based on their own (subjective) analysis of His deeds. Many would call God "good" because they believe He is loving, or forgiving, etc. So Christians have certainly contributed to the confusion here, no doubt. However, this methodology is not the same as it is in the philosophical sense, just as the meaning of a "good" God (often simply meaning you like what He does) is not necessarily the same as being "all-good".
Religious values, by themselves, do not determine right from wrong. Values are the foundation for moral decision-making. The decision-making involves thought and reason. You cannot get values from thought and reason. This is the is-ought complication that Hume highlighted so well.
Substitute "God" with "me" or "society" or "Stalin" and you have the same problem with atheism.
How so? I would say their thought and reason simply had a different starting point than yours. Their values were different. You still haven't been able to demonstrate how thought and reason necessarily produces a different/better result. There have been plenty of atrocities committed in the last 100+ years by those operating out of a secular framework that make it easy to question such a thing.
Just because someone reaches a different conclusion than you, does not mean that they have abandoned reason, or that they have chosen religious values "over" reason. Anyone can rationalize moral decisions themselves, and anyone like-minded, sure. But how is this any different than your brand of "thought and reason"? You have not demonstrated that this is so, nor attempted to, so i must conclude that you simply assume that it is.
If it isn't a knee-jerk reaction then it should be easy to demonstrate otherwise. You and Bo both continue to demonstrate that you cannot provide a better alternative (and Bo admitted as much); you simply don't like this one.
If the religion obtains its directives from an all-good God who cannot (or does not) contradict His own nature, then what is "good" is defined by God's nature. If that God's nature doesn't change, then neither does morality, and evil will only appear to be good because of a fault of our perception.

Obviously, that's a lot of IF's. But regardless of the IF's, the bottom line is always our moral perception, which is by no means faultless. So, can what is considered "evil" by society be considered "good" by religion? Obviously, that is the case. Can what is considered "evil" by by religion be considered "good" by society? Obviously, yes. No news here.

The question is, how can "thought and reason" alone demonstrate otherwise? Are you offering an objectively better solution?
Maybe there's hope for me yet.
Then i would still want to avoid the deaths of 25 little girls.

Bo, One of the key theological statements in Genesis is that man was made from dirt (as you point out) and that he was endowed with the breath of life (Gen. 2:7) and that he was created in the image of God (1:27). This tradition of the inherent value of human life is further reinforced in Genesis 4 when Cain is punished and cursed for taking the life of his brother. Another reinforcement to the theme is given in Genesis 9, verse 5 in which God tells Noah and his family, "For your own lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning: from every animal I will require it and from human beings, each one for the blood of another, I will require a reckoning for human life" (NRSV). Clearly, a high value is being placed on human life. Dinesh argues (and I think many Christian theologians would agree) that this is a unique trait of Judeo- Christian belief that was later hijacked by secular humanists, as though they could cavalierly cast off the religious shell of Christian belief, adopt one of its core teachings and tenets and then act as though it was some sort of non-theistic contribution to human society and culture. You mean that the matter and energy in my brain is specially organized to grasp the image of God? Who do you think made that all possible? Blessings, Adam

@Bo

Christians and Jews would claim as much. this is hardly newsworthy, and - sorry - hardly deserving to be considered a "point". You're arguments have been far more aggressive than that.

@Adam



The only problem i have with this is that, to me, it's difficult to demonstrate that the sanctity of human life was uniquely a Judeo-Christian trait. Did other religions, no doubt some of whom pre-dated Judaism, not do the same?

So, while I agree that the sancity of human life is not a value that can be reached at by reason or logic, I don't know if it's fair to say the secular humanism has hijacked it from Judeo-Christian values as much as basic theism.

Jeremy, Yes, perhaps it would be more accurate to state that within the womb of Judeo-Christian theology, the sanctity of life took on a more prominent ethical position than it did in other environments. I don't quite see the same level of emphasis or commitment to human life in the polytheistic cultures. The statement about hijacking Judeo-Christian values would come into play more precisely when certain non-theistic philosophers act as though this value on human life arose "in a vacuum" as it were and forget the history and origin of the doctrine. But I would agree that we can call this basic theism or monotheism, if the term "Judeo-Christian" might bring about a misconception. Blessings, Adam

@Adam
I think (I'm not certain) it would be fair to say that the Imago Dei, "image of God", with regard to mankind is probably unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition, and results in a "more prominent ethical position" in relation to the sanctity of human life.

I agree, but what else can I say? If I say raping kids is bad, you will simply reply "by whose standards?" If I say, killing firstborn is evil, you will say "not if done by God". If I say that drowning virtually every living creature on the planet is genocidal mania, you will reply, "not if it's perfect justice". As long as we insert an imaginary being that can be anything -- including infinitely impossible things like "perfect greatness", and undefinable things like "divine perfection", anything goes.

You told Ace that I pretty much admitted that I don't have a better alternative to insisting that perfect morality comes from this perfect God that commands young virgin girls to be perfectly raped. Well I just thought of something -- believing that morality comes from a rock.

Is that aggressive enough for you?

haha, thanks for the laugh Bo, isn't that ultimately what evolution peeps must believe?

Again Karl, you are confusing evolution with atheism. Biological evolution and morality from God are not mutually exclusive. Ask Jeremy.

Even if you were to ask , "...isn't that ultimately what atheist peeps must believe?", the answer would still be no. Atheism is simply the non belief in a god. Atheists might say morality comes from a rock, or space aliens, or spirits, another dimension, a result of nature -- anything but a god.

Now if you were to ask me, "...isn't that ultimately what YOU, my favorite non-believing peep, must believe?", I would say no, I don't know where morality comes from exactly, and I don't pretend to. I will say that if I had to guess, I would ultimately it comes from eternal energy, which led to physical matter, which led to complex organic life, which led to intelligence, which led to morality. No rocks involved.

Jeremy,

Here is what I believe to be the state of your moral philosophy regarding a God: since a God should be judged by his own standards, nothing a God can do can be considered evil, wrong, immoral, unjust, or imperfect, by a human.

Are you in agreement with this?

@Aces_Lucky
No, this is not MY moral philosophy. What I have defended here does not necessarily reflect my personal beliefs. Again, as I told Bo, I can give my opinion, but I don't pretend for it to be rigorously developed at the moment.

What I have defended are some traditional concepts of morality as being at least on par (objectively) with any secular alternative. Despite all the objections, no atheist/skeptic/agnostic has provided any justification that they have an objectively superior alternative.

Along these lines, I will disagree with your statement above. You CAN consider what God does to be evil - in fact, many have obviously done so. that is what free will is all about; at the end of the day, with (most varieties of) theism or atheism we are still morally autonomous beings. But if you do, you do so subjectively, and the objections will lack rational punch. But they do not lack for emotional punch, and that obviously is nothing to sneeze at.

Further, if literally anything God does is "good" - period - than the following conditions must be met (at a minimum): God is omnibenevolent (meaning "all-good") and unchanging. Given that, nothing this God does could objectively be considered "bad".

If one believes morality is subjective, then no, we cannot provide an objectively superior alternative -- because morality cannot be objectively determined.

@Bo

What I should have said is "objectively better", although I think that is clear from the rest of the post. I am sure you wouldn't claim that morality from a rock is "objectively better"...?

in any case, while it is fine to admit that you do not know, at the end of the day your hypothetical explanation wasn't that far removed from being "from a rock" - which is what I believe Karl was trying to point out.

Again, it is important to distunguish just whose morality we are talking about here. The existence of any God, specific or not, doesn't necessarily mean that we get to whatever we want.

Actually, we can - assuming free will. But it doesn't mean it's justified.

@Bo

Is that an objective statement?

My statement was actually pointing out the irony of your question, like me telling you I don't think unicorns exist, then having you ask me to show you a stronger unicorn. The unicorn here being your concept of objective morality and the stronger unicorn being a "better" concept of objective morality.

As for the "because morality cannot be objectively determined." part of the statement -- yes, that is a claim, but as you well know me Jeremy, that is a claim based only on what I think I know

@Bo
I was just trying to be funny above, but let's look at your analogy.
OK, I don't get it.

You claim that you don't believe in the objective existence unicorns, but you're telling me that you think my subjective idea of unicorns is not what society thinks it should be. The not-so-hidden implication here being that my idea of unicorns, subjective or not, is inferior.

I'm not asking you to show me an objectively stronger unicorn if you don't think one exists. What I'm saying is that if we're comparing subjective ideas, then there is no "better" (except in your own mind). Referring to society as whole doesn't help, either. Just because society may have liked Titanic more than Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind does not make it a "better" movie.

@Jeremy,

Welcome to the real world A world where bad, good, and "better" are determined by individual minds and argued by them as well. Now if you want to defend the "superior" morality as demonstrated by a God who makes bears maul children, I am ready to argue.

@Bo
When have i claimed otherwise?
But that's the whole point - no defense is necessary. I'm not the one claiming superiority - you were (implicitly). but then you retreat behind subjectivity when asked to defend your claim.

Perhaps ironically, i don't think you and i are too far apart on this issue. I think both you and I would agree that the only way to have a conversation about "better" and "worse" is to have common ground. But God is not involved in your equation.

I noted this and just wondered what you thought of the situation in Eden when A & E became, according to God's own words, like him.

They did not go after another God but chose to emulate him the way scriptures tell us to do, yet God still threw a sissy fit and went directly against scripture by putting culpability for A & E's actions on the rest of us . Original sin.

Regards

DL