@LeakyNun I would presume, however, that you don't have a problem with police/the courts punishing someone who does harm. While "doing harm" isn't strictly the same as "not doing good", let's be real. If you've never done any good, you've certainly done harm. So your objection isn't there, it's somewhere else.
Classical conditioning (also known as Pavlovian or respondent conditioning) is a learning process in which an innate response to a potent stimulus comes to be elicited in response to a previously neutral stimulus; this is achieved by repeated pairings of the neutral stimulus with the potent stimulus. The basic facts about classical conditioning were discovered by Ivan Pavlov through experiments with dogs. Together with operant conditioning, classical conditioning became the foundation of behaviorism, a school of psychology which was dominant in the mid-20th century and is still an important influence...
I think that's only true for a certain perspective regarding God, and maybe not even then. For instance, a omnibenevolent and omniscient God would have the best standards for morality possible. It seems like your core objection is to a fear-based system of morality, not the chosen foundation of morality.
@LeakyNun Well, given the premise that an omnibenevolent and omniscient God exists, I think the conclusion follows. His omniscience would mean that He knows all systems of morality and which is the best (given some criteria), and His omnibenevolence would lead to choosing the "goodest" one.
Of course, there's no guarantee whatsoever that we'll agree.
Axioms exist in philosophy too. And everywhere else for that matter. It's just something that you assume to be true (for various reasons). Also, is "mathematics is not science" supposed to be a flaw? :P
@LeakyNun You are using "Morality" the way most would use "Ethics" Ethics deals with shoulds and should nots, correct and incorrect, Morality deals with rights and wrongs, holy and sinful.
@LeakyNun If God was a murderous hateful being we would be sitting here chatting about how God defines hate. How people who refuse to lie and injure others go against the nature of creation.
I suggest you switch to a purely atheistic terminology of words like "preferable" and "advantageous" But using the term good suggests a moral standard beyond yourself.
@LeakyNun Quite the opposite, if God thought murder was good then creation itself would reflect that and in that reality murder would be naturally seen as good.
Look every other world view, including science, is ultimately circular. Only a worldview with an ultimate being, God, can have a definite starting point and source for all creation we know as our reality. There is no absolute "good" without a creator.
@LeakyNun err ok. Though I find it odd people who hold your position don't like absolute truth, but are fine with constants in science...thats another debate
@LeakyNun well its not really, I suppose. I mean, if c is always c and atoms follow rules, and gravity, which we still don't even understand, works the same, why in the world can't you see moral absolutes built into the universe as well? Because that would suggest a creator even more than science already does?
@LeakyNun We're talking about truth. If your good is only good because a bunch of people agreed on it, or whether good is good because who one who created this system was good and wants things to operate in harmony with him.
@LeakyNun Well that depends on what you are calling "good". My point is that the very fact you are asking the question and know that "good" is better than "bad" shows us, ontologically, that if God exists he must be, or at the least, prefer, good himself as well.
@LeakyNun Well 1) if he was flicking it, how would you even know?...2) Most understandings of a supreme being/God generally agree to a certain level of consistency. Christians would even say unchanging (his nature or character that is). So constants in nature would be reflective of that.
@LeakyNun No...I'm not really arguing his existence. Already moved past that with the whole circular vs beginning point. Thought you were past it to when asking things like "how do you know that god is good?" Which discussion do you want to have? We have to assume, for sake of discussion, that a God does hypothetically exist, OR we have to talk about if one does nor not (or that one hypothetically does not)
I'm assuming a "God" and am now discussing his character. That's where I was starting from. Where would you like to start at?
@LeakyNun I've answered that at least twice. Neither time have you directly responded to it. I've presented my position. It is, granted, largely philosophical, but I would argue also sound logic.
"My point is that the very fact you are asking the question and know that "good" is better than "bad" shows us, ontologically, that if God exists he must be, or at the least, prefer, good himself as well."
The point of Genesis (that Christians can agree on at least) is to show God as the Creator. Creations come from, come out of Creators. Creations cannot be totally divorced and isolated from their creators.
A creation will always reflect in some part, the thoughts, feelings, ideas, principles and nature of the creator. It can be a moody painting, a sharp and angular architecture or a sappy poem. It always tells us something about the creator.
@LeakyNun There's a lot of simplifications going on in and between the last two posts. And I'm struggling with how to respond without validating or dismissing something I don't intend to.
@LeakyNun In your previous statement. I'm inclined to say "yes" But I'm afraid you'd misunderstand. I don't like the "command" part of divine command theory.=
@LeakyNun As if its only right or wrong because its been commanded as such. I disagree, its right or wrong because of our intent. But we can't really judge or even understand intentions, so that's where the commands came, to instruct our hearts.
@LeakyNun Because, in those 99%, it is rooted in thoughts of perversion: adultery, lust, etc. And those things are in turn wrong because of how they perceive and think about people. This is what Jesus was trying to tell us on the Sermon on the Mount.
And, thinking that way about people is not loving toward them, caring for them as well or better than yourself.
Love God, Love others. Those are the closest thing to commands I have in my ethic.
@LeakyNun God does say many things are wrong. But when he's doing that its for our benefit. He not saying they are wrong because he said so, he's saying they are wrong because its bad for you and other people. Its an admittedly complex ethic that is happening beneath the surface of any given moral command.
But the advantage is I can explain to anyone why doing X is wrong, without ever saying "its against God's laws". Instead I can get to the reasons behind the laws. I was able to explain to my brother-in-law and girlfriend why it was going to be difficult living together before marriage.
@LeakyNun Oh in practice its probably not that different at all. In mathematics, you can create a formula that mimics and plots out on a curve much like a more basic exponential formula.
But when you carry both out to their end point much further along...you start to see they diverge quite a bit. They may have appeared to be the same early on, but the eventual results are not the same.
@LeakyNun But in slavery, the people in charge aren't really worried about how the slaves will treat them. So, because they can get away with it, is it ok?
@LeakyNun Ok that's fine. But there's really nothing to talk about then. My assumption started with a creator and absolutes/constants. (or rather a creator who IS absolute and constant)
But this comes back to my earlier point. Whatever morality you want to construct, your reasons for it will always become circular, because its relativistic.
@LeakyNun God is the basis of my morality. You said Humans are basis of yours. Well what is the basis for whatever it is about humans that morality is based on in them? Natural selection?
@LeakyNun I believe we all have a basic level of morality that is a part of us naturally as opposed to through nurture. So not conditioned, but intrinsic (and I'd be ok with instilled, but I'd say instilled by the creator)
@LeakyNun Well I do think there is a nurture component as well. And that is everything from nature around us (General Revelation) to as I said before, the law being given to instruct (Special Revelation). In what you are saying, this revelation would be conditioning of some form I believe?
@Joshua I mean, you are saying that there are some morality that our parents did not instruct us, our teachers did not tell us, but supposedly is written in our hearts by God himself?
@LeakyNun Well that is a very hard line to distinguish. Yes. Some part. I'll leave it vague, the problem being I see sin as corrupting it. So we have errors that obscure things.
@LeakyNun You can do, and some have been done, all kinds of social experiments with children. But again, the problem is one of my basic assumptions is also: Sin. which would basically corrupt your test results. Lord of the Flies style?
@bruisedreed But its getting late, I might need to tag you in.
@LeakyNun Right, but if your assumption is a humanistic human nature you will interpret the results far differently than I will with the perspective of a sinful human nature. People are horrible. Its actually a theological idea call "common grace" that we have even arrived at this level of civilization.
Because by all rights we should be in total world war constantly.
@LeakyNun Never stopped us from trying in the past :) While I think our nature contains remnants of the image of God, sin has corrupted it. In fact, I would say all sinful or wrong intents (and acts which are really just...more intent) are corruptions from good ones.
@LeakyNun Yes I understood. But people still do war. And its clearly in the best interest of subgroups of people to engage in war at various times. So again...relativistic.
@LeakyNun Divine Command Theory. It seems to entertain the possibility that God might command something that's objectively immoral. The problem, rather, is that we humans, in our fallen state, often, if not usually, don't understand what God is commanding us to do. So we hear a lot of things as divine commands that aren't divine commands at all. Or the message gets garbled on the way.
The thing is, God always speaks and acts according to God's nature. So since God is morality, it would be impossible for God to give an immoral command. However, what we hear on the other end is another story. And yes, that does apply to the Bible as literally written. Many commandments are attributed to God in the Bible that are not actual divine commands, but what a fallen race of humans heard God to say.
@LeakyNun I don't think they are claiming they were shown what to do in a vision, so it wouldn't be a hallucination. As far as I'm aware, what justification they claim for their actions is from their particular interpretation of certain Koranic texts and hadiths. I will leave it to Lee to defend whether he thinks the Koran is from God or not. I personally don't think so.
@LeakyNun I don't believe that if you don't do good, God will punish you. Rather, I believe that evil punishes itself. As stated in the old, evocative KJV language, "Evil shall slay the wicked" (Psalm 34:21). If you smoke cigarettes, God doesn't punish you for it. The act itself does so by sickening your body. It's the same with every other evil action.
@LeakyNun If you were a pregnant woman and it was inconvenient to you personally to continue the pregnancy, how would you decide whether it is moral or immoral for you to abort the fetus?
@LeakyNun Honestly, I doubt they're really all that religious. A lot of the military leaders are former Baathists from Saddam Hussein's regime, which leaned toward the secular. I think they're wrapping themselves in a mantle of religion when it's really just a factional fight for power, money, and territory.
@LeeWoofenden That is incorrect - one of the major reasons they have been successful in their worldwide recruitment is because they provide theological justifications for what they are doing
@bruisedreed Sure, they think they're religious. And you can say they're religious if you want. But I think they're just using religion to justify their material-world war.
@LeakyNun The ancient Israelites were marginally religious, and they were certainly not spiritual. The OT narrative itself continually tells of how "stiff-necked" and rebellious they were, and how they were constantly breaking God's commandments, going after other gods, etc., etc.. At several times along the way God was ready to destroy the whole lot of 'em, only Moses intervened. They're simply not presented as a very religious or spiritual group of people even in the Bible itself.
So expecting them to have an accurate understanding of God's true will is a little unrealistic.
@LeakyNun In the Bible narrative, yes. But I've just been saying that the Bible narrative does not, in its literal meaning, present a true and accurate picture of God's actual nature and commands.
Every divine revelation, the Bible included, is written through human authors.
@LeakyNun I don't know. I'm not an ancient Hebrew nor am I God, so I don't have much basis to say what God really wanted them to do. In the event, God had to act pragmatically, and gradually bend them away from even worse atrocities toward being less atrocious. It was a continual path of moving toward the lesser of evils.
@LeakyNun You should recondsider the consideration of hypothetical situations. All future events are mere hypotheticals to us now, but if they require a complex moral calculus, when we encounter them we will be unprepared to make reasoned decisions if we haven't considered their possibility before hand
@LeakyNun In general, human wars represent spiritual battles of good against evil, or perhaps of lesser evil against greater evil. God said something about eradicating evil. The Israelites heard it as eradicating people whom they saw as evil. Not the same thing at all, but we humans have dull hearing when it comes to divine commands.
@LeakyNun Their belief that God was with them certainly helped them. But I don't think God actually desires people to come to violent deaths, and I don't believe God actually helps people to kill one another.
> "And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
@LeakyNun But really, the arguments on those sites generally don't affect my beliefs at all. They're mostly completely beside the point for me, because they attack beliefs that I don't hold.
Generally speaking, they're attacking beliefs based on a literal interpretation of the sacred scriptures in question. But my interpretation of the Bible, although based on the literal meaning, is largely non-literal in character.
So most of the arguments are simply irrelevant to my beliefs.
@LeakyNun This isn't just about someone saying something - If you saw someone murdering another person wouldn't you try to stop it? What is the difference here? When it comes to competing values - right to life versus right to choose which takes priority? How could you make a decision as to which takes priority?
so our respective moral calculus would diverge at this point - feel free to continue on the basis of your own assumptions and see where it can take you in terms of guiding your actions in such situations
@LeakyNun For one thing, if God's will were not constant, the universe would be far more chaotic than it is. It appears that the universe is a fairly orderly place, following definite rules. That suggests an orderly God who follows definite rules rather than being an arbitrary being of whims and changes of mind/will.
The Christian and Missionary Alliance (C&MA) is an evangelical Protestant denomination within Christianity.
Founded by Rev. Albert Benjamin Simpson, an ordained minister of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, in 1887, the C&MA did not start off as a denomination, but rather began as two distinct parachurch organizations: the Christian Alliance, which focused on the pursuit and promotion of the Higher Christian life, and the Evangelical Missionary Alliance, which focused on mobilizing "consecrated" Christians in the work of foreign missionary efforts. These two groups amalgamated in 1897 to form...
You might be interested to know that I have a 19 year old son (my youngest) who, last I knew, didn't think there is a God. Not sure what he thinks now.
@El'endiaStarman @LeakyNun Oh, and about me disagreeing that science is the best way to know what's real, El'endia may be referring to what I expressed in this article: Where is the Proof of the Afterlife?
In nuclear physics, the island of stability is the prediction that a set of heavy isotopes with a near magic number of protons and neutrons will temporarily reverse the trend of decreasing stability in elements heavier than uranium. Although predictions of the exact location differ somewhat, Klaus Blaum expects the island of stability to occur in the region near the isotope 300Ubn. Estimates about the amount of stability on the island are usually around a half-life of minutes or days, with some optimistic predictions expecting half-lives of millions of years.
Although the theory has existed since...