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?’
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
Ok. I’ll take a crack at your question about being nicer when we have religious disagreements.
It’s uplifting because, if true it would mean God is kind, not cruel, to human beings who have limited ability to know which religions are true and which are false.
You didn’t quite make the connection to us. But at least you tried to answer the question.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean.
Is that uplifting story good because it uplifts us or because it uplifts G-d?
That story accomplishes 2 things. [1] It comforts people who are confused about which, if any, religious ideas are correct because [2] it presents God as a being who would understand that human beings are in a difficult epistemic position and would be merciful, rather than vengeful, toward them.
So is the story uplifting story because it uplifts us, because it uplifts G-d, or both?
If uplifts (comforts) human beings. It depicts God as a decent, not vengeful Being. So, I suppose both.
Thank you.
And it’s uplifting to us because it’s comforting?
Yes.
Thank you.
Well, I already made my response the first time. But I can add to it: Comfort is not the only, nor even the most important, uplift we need.
Not at first anyway. First we need the uplifting of knowing what the problem is; only then will we understand comfort properly.
Sure. But no one wants to be tortured for an infinite amount of time because one could not figure out which among various so-called “revelations from God” were real revelations versus false revelations.
So, perhaps “uplift” isn’t the right word, but “relief” or “comfort” would be a better word.
Many Christians depict God in such a way that he appears to be as bad as Hitler and Stalin. If God takes a universalist position on salvation, then he’s not Hitler or Stalin.
We don’t convert. We care. Christ converts. If we are kind to someone, if we care for them in their need, and they don’t convert, have we wasted our time? Maybe. I don’t think so.
And I would argue that doctrine has nothing (or almost nothing) to do with saving faith.
Jolly good.
Heavy, if God appeared in front of you in such glory and splendor that you fell down on your face and couldn’t move, and He said to you, “Yes, I ordered the killing of all those babies that I created, and I have My reasons, trust Me on this,” would you be able to worship Him?
If There Is No God, Why Not Murder?
with Emerson Green.
No. I would probably think that I was hallucinating. But even if I wasn’t, I don’t think I could have confidence that these reasons would be good reasons. I would be thinking about the Evil God Hypothesis.
Well, this is honest.
And Adversarial.