Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:

Beanybag wrote:I've read up a bit on divine simplicity, I know what it says. However, not everyone would seem to suscribe* to this belief about God.

Well they should. After all, it does answer all objections.

It also creates objections, inconsistencies and confusion of its own. It's very difficult to tell what is right.

Do not do to others you would not others do to you.

1over137 wrote:Do not do to others you would not others do to you.

While this gets you very far, it doesn't help in cases where two people have differing preferences. It's just a principle of fairness. While fairness is certainly a pillar of morality, I think (alongside empathy), it's only the beginning. I tend to prefer this version, though: Love one another as I have loved you.

Beanybag wrote:

1over137 wrote:Do not do to others you would not others do to you.

While this gets you very far, it doesn't help in cases where two people have differing preferences. It's just a principle of fairness. While fairness is certainly a pillar of morality, I think (alongside empathy), it's only the beginning. I tend to prefer this version, though: Love one another as I have loved you.

I would agree with that as a moral maxim (Love one another as I have loved you) as long as Christ is used as the example of course.
That He loved Us so much that He was willing to suffer and die for us, they he forgave those that abadoned him, that he loved Us more than he hated our sins, that He was righteous in condemnation and loving in forgiveness, these are the examples to follow when we "love as He loved Us".

Beanybag wrote:

1over137 wrote:Do not do to others you would not others do to you.

While this gets you very far, it doesn't help in cases where two people have differing preferences. It's just a principle of fairness. While fairness is certainly a pillar of morality, I think (alongside empathy), it's only the beginning. I tend to prefer this version, though: Love one another as I have loved you.

I can't think of anything else which would get you further. Furthemore, I think people have some common preferences. For example not killing other people. In theism based on the command, in atheism based on evolution theory.

To the principle of "Love one another as I have loved you": What is love for atheists? You guys debated that we were created in the image of God, or something along those lines, but what if there is no God? What then? Where is the universality? Or then love comes from social evolution?

1over137 wrote:

Beanybag wrote:

1over137 wrote:Do not do to others you would not others do to you.

While this gets you very far, it doesn't help in cases where two people have differing preferences. It's just a principle of fairness. While fairness is certainly a pillar of morality, I think (alongside empathy), it's only the beginning. I tend to prefer this version, though: Love one another as I have loved you.

I can't think of anything else which would get you further. Furthemore, I think people have some common preferences. For example not killing other people. In theism based on the command, in atheism based on evolution theory.

To the principle of "Love one another as I have loved you": What is love for atheists? You guys debated that we were created in the image of God, or something along those lines, but what if there is no God? What then? Where is the universality? Or then love comes from social evolution?

There is nothing inherently wrong with killing in atheistic evolution, it is part of natural selection and survival of the fittest.

Beanybag wrote:It also creates objections, inconsistencies and confusion of its own. It's very difficult to tell what is right.

Are you of the persuasion that philosophy, much less the philosophy of God, should be easy? DS only creates objections, inconsistencies, and confusions of its own if you hold to other erroneous ideas that you then try to reconcile with the facts. Thus it is not DS that creates the objection, but the attempt to harmonize DS with incorrect ideas about God (e.g., that God is subject to time, a view, sadly, that has gained much traction in recent years in large part due to the unnoticed impact of process philosophy on Christian thought).

But perhaps you'd like to point out some of these objections and inconsistencies that you find so compelling? I'm not trying to derail the thread, but you asked a question--What is morality--and then received the answer that Christian philosophers historically gave for nearly 2,000 years. Your response to that answer was to dismiss it with merely one sentence (well, two, if you include your statement that many reject it--to which I say, "So what? Any view of morality anyone proposes here will be rejected by some!"). If God is morality, and in an important sense He is, then morality becomes easy to understand. It is behavior properly oriented toward the Good (which, on DS, is identical with God). Any such behavior is oriented through the intellect and thus grasped and willed through it. And that answers your question to Paul about how we know right from wrong. The answer is through reason. That some may reason incorrectly says nothing more about the fact of Right and Wrong than the fact that some get their sums wrong says anything against the fact that Math is objective. And even if I could not convince you of the error of your sum (or you me), my refusal to accept that error would not say anything about that reality.

Thus we return to an old maxim I'm rather fond of: Epistemology does not determine ontology.

So, again, without stepping on the toes of those offering differing or complimentary answers to what you have been given thus far, given that you have been given the traditional answer to your question, it behooves you, I think, to offer an explanation as to why you think it fails (or, at least, why you find it unpersuasive).

PaulSacramento wrote: There is nothing inherently wrong with killing in atheistic evolution, it is part of natural selection and survival of the fittest.

Then social evolution is the key word.

PaulSacramento wrote:There is nothing inherently wrong with killing in atheistic evolution, it is part of natural selection and survival of the fittest.

Secular ethics isn't really ever darwinian.. that's more along the lines of nazis and fascists (might makes right), and they're driven by an ideology that is rather exclusive, non-scientific, and not what I would consider secular. Further, among intelligent beings, murder is not natural selection - it is artificial selection and is deviating from natural evolution. Killing is certainly wrong at a very basic level, ethically, by the simple acknowledgement of human preference. It's like 1/137 says, there is common preference humans can agree on that, while somewhat subjective, is non arbitrary and still meaningful. People value their lives, so to take other people's lives is inconsistent. Clearly, murder would be wrong.

1over137 wrote:I can't think of anything else which would get you further. Furthemore, I think people have some common preferences. For example not killing other people. In theism based on the command, in atheism based on evolution theory.

To the principle of "Love one another as I have loved you": What is love for atheists? You guys debated that we were created in the image of God, or something along those lines, but what if there is no God? What then? Where is the universality? Or then love comes from social evolution?

You can certainly get further. Unfortunately, humans don't always know what's best for themselves. I don't want to get into politics, but certain psychological facts become pertinent to the conversation when we start dealing with things like addiction, compulsion, dunning-kreuger effect, etc. Take something as simple as taxes and social programs. Is it correct and ethical to have taxes to enforce social programs? There's a lot of disagreement on this and a lot of different ways to justify either side. We should help one another and support social programs! We should respect what other people have earned for themselves and what we have earned for ourselves! Ethics are not just for the individual, but for the society. Ethics doesn't even really have a use at all until you consider interactions between people.

While I consider the golden rule a very useful guide for personal ethics, it isn't as helpful with larger decisions.

Jac3510 wrote:

Beanybag wrote:It also creates objections, inconsistencies and confusion of its own. It's very difficult to tell what is right.

Are you of the persuasion that philosophy, much less the philosophy of God, should be easy? DS only creates objections, inconsistencies, and confusions of its own if you hold to other erroneous ideas that you then try to reconcile with the facts. Thus it is not DS that creates the objection, but the attempt to harmonize DS with incorrect ideas about God (e.g., that God is subject to time, a view, sadly, that has gained much traction in recent years in large part due to the unnoticed impact of process philosophy on Christian thought).

Certainly, and that's all I mean to say. I don't mean to critisize divine simplicity, but applying that attribute to the God of the bible certainly raises some questions when you treat all these properties as equivalent and infinite. How does goodness speak? How does morality die and then rise from the grave? How does logic love? It's a strange bag that leaves me wanting for a more concrete explanation (which some think isn't possible due to God's infinite nature). I'm not trying to dismiss it or challenge it in this thread, I simply want most to know what other understandings of morality people have here.

and then received the answer that Christian philosophers historically gave for nearly 2,000 years.

For 2000 years? I'm not sure if it's been that firmly held for that long. There was a controversy sometime ago about the trinity and they only narrowly decided that the trinity was in fact one. There's been many other such disputes along the way. I think it's good to recognize that there may be other explanations and I'm just trying to hear them.

if you include your statement that many reject it--to which I say, "So what? Any view of morality anyone proposes here will be rejected by some!").

Isn't that what I said, though? I simply mean that the objective or subjective grounding isn't the important part - no matter the grounding people will reject morality. We shouldn't be concerned about whether or not morality is objective or subjective because people will still reject it, the choice to be moral is a choice all the same.

And that answers your question to Paul about how we know right from wrong. The answer is through reason. That some may reason incorrectly says nothing more about the fact of Right and Wrong than the fact that some get their sums wrong says anything against the fact that Math is objective. And even if I could not convince you of the error of your sum (or you me), my refusal to accept that error would not say anything about that reality.

I suppose that's the problem, however. Our reason leads us to different conclusions. I simply want to know what conclusion he has reached. Saying morality is reason doesn't tell me whether or not he believes, say, donating blood to be good or bad. That's something that would be rather easy for me to judge ethically, but I can't seem to apply the same rules when trying to understand Paul's morality.

So, again, without stepping on the toes of those offering differing or complimentary answers to what you have been given thus far, given that you have been given the traditional answer to your question, it behooves you, I think, to offer an explanation as to why you think it fails (or, at least, why you find it unpersuasive).

I am not trying to say it is unpersuasive or fails. I am only trying to understand what other people believe.

Beany wrote:

Killing is certainly wrong at a very basic level, ethically, by the simple acknowledgement of human preference.

On what do you base your statement, that killing(I assume you mean murder) is certainly wrong?

RickD wrote:Beany wrote:

Killing is certainly wrong at a very basic level, ethically, by the simple acknowledgement of human preference.

On what do you base your statement, that killing(I assume you mean murder) is certainly wrong?

Humans prefer life to death, this would be a common preference. It could be said to be selected for through natural selection or given to us by God. Either way, to take another's life is certainly wrong based on this preference and an acknowledgement of fairness. Given the premises, the conclusion follows.

Beanybag wrote:You can certainly get further.

Am curious. Could not find the answer in your answer.

1over137 wrote:

Beanybag wrote:You can certainly get further.

Am curious. Could not find the answer in your answer.

Basically, sometimes not doing unto others as you would not have them do unto you isn't consistent with their own take of that. A person might love it if everyone around him stopped to give him hugs, but other people might feel very uncomfortable with this. You might see no problem with people being cut-throat competitive with you in a business environment and act accordingly, but people from other cultures find this behavior deplorable. It works well for the common preferences but not all preferences are common. In order to get further, you need ethics that will consider the preferences of others and possible differences in preferences. We don't always know if other people's preferences align with our own, hence the need for consent (informed consent, in order to account for manipulation). You might say that by respect, asking permission, consideration of differences of preferences are all derivable by the golden rule as well, but it's not necessarily so, only sometimes so. I do think the golden rule does get you pretty far, though.

Beanybag wrote:Certainly, and that's all I mean to say. I don't mean to critisize divine simplicity, but applying that attribute to the God of the bible certainly raises some questions when you treat all these properties as equivalent and infinite. How does goodness speak? How does morality die and then rise from the grave? How does logic love? It's a strange bag that leaves me wanting for a more concrete explanation (which some think isn't possible due to God's infinite nature). I'm not trying to dismiss it or challenge it in this thread, I simply want most to know what other understandings of morality people have here.

But none of those are particularly difficult questions. When we talk of God's speaking or loving or rising from the grave, we are talking about His act from a particular perspective. So God is good insofar as we consider His existence under its notion of desirability. He "speaks" (which I would hasten to add is an anthropomorphism) insofar as He reveals His will to others. The fact that many call that will "good" is evidence that the two are only differentiated in the mind, not in reality. He rose from the grave in His human nature, not His divine nature. He "loves" (again, an anthropomorphism, and more specifically, an anthropopathism) insofar as we benefit from His will. Again, all of this is very elementary. It is only difficult (if at all) to the modern mind, and that because we have an anthropomorphic view of God--we want a God who, like us, is composed of various parts--who does this rather than that; who speaks and thinks (discursively) and feels and emotes and desires, etc. That isn't God. And if you think it is, that's fine, then you'll have some other very serious problems to account for (e.g., Euthyphro).

For 2000 years? I'm not sure if it's been that firmly held for that long. There was a controversy sometime ago about the trinity and they only narrowly decided that the trinity was in fact one. There's been many other such disputes along the way. I think it's good to recognize that there may be other explanations and I'm just trying to hear them.

At least! Aristotle taught long before the Church that God was simple (in fact, Aristotle went on to point out that simplicity of the soul!).

Isn't that what I said, though? I simply mean that the objective or subjective grounding isn't the important part - no matter the grounding people will reject morality. We shouldn't be concerned about whether or not morality is objective or subjective because people will still reject it, the choice to be moral is a choice all the same.

No, that isn't what you said. I'm not talking about people rejecting morality, because no one does that. You said that some people reject divine simplicity generally, and specifically in the context of providing that as a grounding for morality. If you are really just trying to find out what people believe (which, no offense, I doubt), then your remark that some people reject DS is unrelated at best. So what? You're just pointing out the obvious. You could have said the same thing to Paul or 1/137 or anyone else. But when Byblos suggested DS as a proper grounding--which is the right answer--your response is that some don't accept that grounding? What is or was the point of that response?

I suppose that's the problem, however. Our reason leads us to different conclusions. I simply want to know what conclusion he has reached. Saying morality is reason doesn't tell me whether or not he believes, say, donating blood to be good or bad. That's something that would be rather easy for me to judge ethically, but I can't seem to apply the same rules when trying to understand Paul's morality.

Now you are changing the question. You wanted to know what morality is. That's an ontological question. Now you are changing the question to how we know in any specific situation what is right or wrong. That would be like me asking, "What is the US Tax Code?" and being told that it is a document containing all the tax regulations that our representatives have come up with over the years, and then me retorting, "Yes, but that doesn't tell me whether my gift to ABC Organization is tax deductible!!1!1"

As I said before, you need to keep separate epistemological and ontological questions. Certainly, our ontology of morality will suggest, if not entail, epistemological criteria. But the two issues are not identical. If, then, you want to know how we know this right and that is wrong, then you need to ask about that specific situation and let people provide you their answers. You can then, if you like, as about the epistemological criteria they used to come up with that answer. And then, if you really want to get technical, you can go on to ask what ontology of morality that criteria suggests (if any). But all that goes back to my original reply in this thread in distinguishing between ethics and morals, where ethics is the science of morality and morality is the concrete matter of proper behavior directed toward what is right and good.

I am not trying to say it is unpersuasive or fails. I am only trying to understand what other people believe.

Then now you know that, historically, the Church has taught that morality is identical with God, and this they ground and find coherence in His nature, which itself is grounded in the doctrine of divine simplicity. You also know that many in modern times have rejected that view, and that serious problems with the nature of morality (and other issues, too!) have arisen precisely due to that rejection. Those of us who adhere to the classical doctrine have no need to worry about such problems. We look at all the fuss and shrug our shoulders, because they are only a problem if you accept notions about God and morality that have been historically rejected.

Jac3510 wrote:

Isn't that what I said, though? I simply mean that the objective or subjective grounding isn't the important part - no matter the grounding people will reject morality. We shouldn't be concerned about whether or not morality is objective or subjective because people will still reject it, the choice to be moral is a choice all the same.

No, that isn't what you said. I'm not talking about people rejecting morality, because no one does that. You said that some people reject divine simplicity generally, and specifically in the context of providing that as a grounding for morality. If you are really just trying to find out what people believe (which, no offense, I doubt), then your remark that some people reject DS is unrelated at best. So what? You're just pointing out the obvious. You could have said the same thing to Paul or 1/137 or anyone else. But when Byblos suggested DS as a proper grounding--which is the right answer--your response is that some don't accept that grounding? What is or was the point of that response?

I am genuinely trying to find out what people believe. The point of the response is that some people believe differently. You may think that your belief is the only possible correct one, but is it not possible that somewhere you made an error? Not to say that you did, but simply to recognize the possibility. You say God does not speak in the anthropogenic, some people say he does. You say he's timeless, others disagree. You say they're wrong, they say you're wrong. I am not in a position to know which side is right, so I'd like to hear from both, or more.

I suppose that's the problem, however. Our reason leads us to different conclusions. I simply want to know what conclusion he has reached. Saying morality is reason doesn't tell me whether or not he believes, say, donating blood to be good or bad. That's something that would be rather easy for me to judge ethically, but I can't seem to apply the same rules when trying to understand Paul's morality.

Now you are changing the question. You wanted to know what morality is. That's an ontological question. Now you are changing the question to how we know in any specific situation what is right or wrong. That would be like me asking, "What is the US Tax Code?" and being told that it is a document containing all the tax regulations that our representatives have come up with over the years, and then me retorting, "Yes, but that doesn't tell me whether my gift to ABC Organization is tax deductible!!1!1"

In my original post, I asked quite a bit more than you are implying. I did not ask the single question "What is morality" (ontologically), but also asked epistemic questions of morality. I did not change any questions, I simply asked more than one. Please go back to the previous posts if you doubt this.

I am not trying to say it is unpersuasive or fails. I am only trying to understand what other people believe.

Then now you know that, historically, the Church has taught that morality is identical with God, and this they ground and find coherence in His nature, which itself is grounded in the doctrine of divine simplicity. You also know that many in modern times have rejected that view, and that serious problems with the nature of morality (and other issues, too!) have arisen precisely due to that rejection. Those of us who adhere to the classical doctrine have no need to worry about such problems. We look at all the fuss and shrug our shoulders, because they are only a problem if you accept notions about God and morality that have been historically rejected.

The Catholic Church has been fairly consistent with its approach to divine simplicity, yes. Are all the Christians here Roman Catholics? Is there no dissent? Isn't it, like you said, not easy to discern the philosophy of God? I don't think it's fair to pretend as if you have a monopoly on truth here. You may have a strong position that creates for a strong moral framework, but if, in providing that strong position, it contradicts other people's conclusions they already made about God, they may dissent or withhold judgment. Why take their voice away? I am not trying to attack anyone's position, I just want to learn about other people's beliefs through a conversation.