Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What’s Your Basis for ‘Reason’ and ‘Morality?’
A Catholic cathedral in France taken by my nephew Luke Renoe. This visual art hangs in our home, a marker of transcendence.
Now those who follow me on social media, my websites, and teaching videos know that I have deep respect for other points of view. But everyone who knows me also realizes that my first response will always be to ask straightforward questions. So here are the questions I would ask Kate Cohen.
“How do you define ‘reason’ and ‘morality?’” “What is the source or origin of those concepts, ‘reason’ and ‘morality’?’” And most important of all “Who gets to answer these questions, then, apply them?” Again, those who know me know that these are questions I ask everyone all the time, whether in high school, undergraduate, Ph.D. studies, or casual conversation.
And my answer will always be the same: the standard for ‘reason’ and ‘morality’ must have a transcendent source. If there is no outside, supernatural origin for decision-making about right and wrong, then we are left with human definitions, sources, and decision-makers. And if we are left solely with humans at the helm we are left with a haunting question, “Who will decide which humans decide and how will those decisions be made?”
Published in General
You’re not putting it this way. This is a totally different question. Can we just stick with the first one for now, please?
I think it’s an important point. If Christianity produces rotten fruit, maybe it’s not just the fruit that should be discarded, but also the tree itself.
And again, just because Luther wrote it doesn’t mean all Christians, or even those Christians who call themselves Lutherans, follow that.
Maybe so, but why change the subject? And if I join you in changing the subject, will you not just change it again?
I was under the impression you thought the earlier subject was important too. You said you wanted to talk about it, and you backed out of talking about it the moment I made my first comment on it.
Copy that into your notes. There will be a quiz later on.
Then you are a nihilist unless you can cite any – any – perfect institution.
Cool.
Actually, no. I think human beings have an imperfect nature, a mixed bag of good and bad tendencies obtained through eons of evolution through natural selection. So, all human institutions are going to be imperfect.
But most Christians tell me that God is perfect and that accepting Jesus as ones lord and savior has a transformative impact on a person. The problem is, as I see it, when one I at the history of Christianity I don’t see much of a transformative impact on those who have claimed to be Christians over the past 2,000 years.
Christians seem, on average, no worse but also no better than people who aren’t Christian, at least until about 1500 to 2000.
So all trees can bear imperfect fruit. That would make rooting out trees for doing so rather pointless.
Your lack of perception is beyond correction, then.
Biased generalization.
Your point of view is biased. My generalization is correct.
I’m former Catholic. Born, raised, went to the school (until 10th grade). I’m no longer Catholic (my dad says I am). My wife was also born and raised Catholic. Though I have some theological issues with Catholicism, I love my Catholic brothers and sisters as fellow Christ followers.
That said, Django’s got a solid point. Christ said that people would know we are His followers by the love we show for one another. Yet I know as many Catholics and Protestants who think the other group are all bound for hell. Catholics are missing some pieces. Protestants are also missing some pieces. My purpose isn’t to stir up the 2,000 year old debate here, just to point out that our disunity has not helped.
That’s why, even though I lean agnostic or atheist, I think universalism has a lot of appeal.
A God who is all knowing, perfectly good and all powerful wouldn’t likely have 7 to 8 billion human beings scrambling around wondering if this or that religious group was the correct one while some accuse the other religious sect of being “Children of the Devil.”
So, all of these conflicting revelations that we hear about could be a sign that most of them, perhaps all of them, are not from God, but that God is going cut all of us fallible human beings who are vulnerable to being duped by false religions some slack in the afterlife.
We all end up in heaven and everyone wins. Or maybe not. But it’s an uplifting story, ain’t it?
Well, you wouldn’t. But you’re not God.
This brings up Dr. Stephen Law’s “Evil God Hypothesis.”
God could provide one set of revelations to the Hindus, another set of revelations to the Jews, some more revelations to the Christians, other revelations to the Muslims, other revelations to the Mormons and so on and so forth.
As we can see, all of these people believing in the accuracy of differing, perhaps even conflicting, revelations causes religious strife, even religious war.
So, maybe all of these conflicting revelations is part of the Evil God’s plan to divide us and keep us all in a perpetual war of all against all against each other, leading to misery.
But not so fast, says Dr. Law. There is the Problem of Good (the opposite of the Problem of Evil).
If God is perfectly Evil, why is there so much laughter? Why are there giggling babies and cute puppies? Why are there beautiful sunsets and hand-holding romances?
Ah, well, the Evil God does allow some good to appear, but only so as to create more evil later on. He creates a giggling baby so that the baby’s parents adore them and then the Evil God gives the giggling baby cancer so as to create grief for the parents.
Now this Evil God seems a bit far fetched, but no more far fetched than the Good God hypothesis where God allows millions of children to die in front of their parents eyes in order to allow for some greater good.
Does Dr. Stephen Law derive these qualities “Good” and “Evil?” Because strict materialists will need a meter for that.
I did ask Dr. Stephen Law, when a group of us philosophy geeks interviewed him last year, if he believed that there is a “moral reality” or if morality is illusory or entirely subjective.
Law responded that he feels it in his bones that there is a moral reality, but that it could be an illusion similar to the illusion that makes him feel stationary even as he sits on a planet that is spinning on its axis and swirling around the sun.
But I think when Dr. Law speaks of “Good” and “Evil” he is likely thinking of things like “happiness” and “suffering” or things similar to that.
Now it is possible that God doesn’t really care about human beings being happy and that is why God permits so many differing revelations about him to proliferate, causing religious strife. Perhaps God does not intervene to stop children dying in front of their parents’ eyes because God doesn’t want to reduce suffering.
Maybe God has deliberately duped Muslims into being Muslim just because he wants millions of people to burn in hell for eternity.
Anything is possible. But the key question is what is most likely.
I was doing some ministry work in Jordan and was told exactly that by an Arab Christian. He said, and I paraphrase “God said he would give them a lie that they would believe, so why try to convert them? You are going against God’s will.” I don’t buy it.
And even if it were true, we don’t really do ministry work to convert people. We do ministry work to care for people.
One of the non-canonical gospels, Apocalypse of Peter, describes guided tours of hell. In these tours woman who seduced men in an immoral way are being tortured terribly.
This made me wonder, if whether it would be easier on all of us if we could be given guided tours and both heaven and hell.
If any of us wondered if a “good Buddhist” could make it into heaven or if the Calvinists were “right” or if the Arminians were “right,” we could look at which types of people are in heaven, which types of people are in hell and could then, empirically determine which salvation theology was correct.
Of course, it’s not that easy. Someone says that the Catholics won’t make it into heaven or the Jews won’t make it into heaven and all we can do is say, “Well, we’ll see” or we won’t if there is no heaven and hell and at all after we die.
Heaven to me is nothing more nor less than being in the presence of God. With all of the questions answered.
Hell is the opposite.
Who goes where? Well, I know what I believe. And it’s either correct or incorrect.
Uplifting because it tells us to be nicer when we have religious disagreements?
I would have thought it was downdragging because it makes G-d into an old Grandma who doesn’t know how to punish any sins.
There is surely a better way to promote charity in religious disagreement and moral responsibility with consequences.
Why not both? Or was the point that conversion is because we care?
No, no, no. What we can do is study theology and maybe even philosophy and, through studying the issue, find a likely answer. (Some of my earlier responses.)
Dogs go to Heaven. Cats go to Hell.
God has infinite knowledge and would know that human beings are easily duped into false religions. Thus, God would likely cut people some slack if they stumbled upon a religious or non-religious doctrine that wasn’t the right one.
He knows His own.
But at least a large majority of the world’s population will not get the right answer as they try to figure out which among the world’s religions is the correct religion.
The Muslims are convinced that Islam is true. Hindus believe their religion is true. Mormons believe Mormonism is true.
God knows that humans are easily duped. So, if God exists, God is likely to say to a human being who swung and missed when it came to religion, “I could never expect you to have figured out which among all of the world’s religions was the correct one. So, of course I am not going to burn you forever just because you choose religion A instead of religion M.”
God isn’t a cruel dude (assuming God exists at all).
God believes that all human beings are His own.
Yes! You’re getting somewhere.
Way to ignore the question.
Another fine instance of your habit of not taking any responsibility for getting to the right answer yourself.