Church Morality vs. Secular Morality: A Matter of Premise

Morality is such a divisive issue. In simple terms, morality is “the quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.” The divisiveness lies not in whether an act is in accord with certain standards of right and wrong, but on which standard should the rightness or wrongness of an act be judged.

In society, Church morality and secular morality often come into conflict with each other because their standards, and especially their underlying premises which dictate these standards, are as different as night and day. As such, their moral conflict is essentially a matter of premise, as follows:

.

With such opposing premises, it is of no great surprise that the Church blames secularism for destroying the morals of society, while secularists accuse the Church of trying to impose a misogynistic and bigoted moral system straight out of the Middle Ages.

For instance, on the issue of birth control, the Church asserts that it is God’s will that the unitive aspect of sex cannot be isolated, through man’s initiative, from its procreative purpose, meaning sex should not be done only for the sake of pleasure and bonding while avoiding the responsibility that comes with bearing children. And on the issue of gay marriage, the Church insists that God designed marriage to be the exclusive union between a man and a woman.

Secularism, on the other hand, operating on the premise that no one really knows the will of God – assuming he exists – has no objection towards contraceptive sex as long as the state laws on marriage, rape, and abortion are not violated. As for gay marriage, secularism has no opposition to its legalization as long as it is between two consenting adults.

If a moral system is based on the premises of the Church, it is easily justifiable to ban contraception and gay marriages since both are condemned by God, and the pleasures as well as the sacrifices of this life are nothing compared to the potential happiness and suffering in the next. But as the blogger Philosophy Bro once tweeted, “‘Because God said so’ isn’t a bad excuse if He really said so – proving that is the hard part.”

Since it is clear to the secularist that this life is the only life we really know exists, welfare and happiness in this life should take precedence over any imaginable but unverifiable condition after death – especially since we have absolutely no idea how to secure an advantage in the next life, if there is one. What’s wrong with passionate sex without the possibility of pregnancy if both partners are enjoying it and hurting no one, not even a fetus or a zygote? What’s so objectionable about two people of the same gender falling in love with each other and wanting nothing more than to publicly proclaim such love and enjoy the legal rights and benefits of a state-sanctioned union?

These intimacy and relationship issues appear to go beyond the appreciation of the Church hierarchy, who in turn seem intent on imposing a great deal of self-denial on others not only by preaching against hedonistic sex but by actually blocking laws that help poor couples enjoy sex without having more children than they can feed. As Bertrand Russell said, “Religions, which condemn the pleasures of sense, drive men to seek the pleasures of power. Throughout history power has been the vice of the ascetic.” Indeed, what can one expect from powerful men whose own institutional tradition bound them to become lifelong virgins?

70 comments

  1. To 3) Then rephrase it as what was obviously meant within the context “ Western secular MORAL tradition” – do you have any feasible argument up your sleeves or do you depend solely on the play with words at it seems? For me it occurs a quite obvious – as you stick to claims which are refuted since millennia, plus the outright denial, ignorance or purposely twisting of scientific and historical facts.

    Philosophical reasoning like deduction is not yielding new insights – especially not if they are based on totally wrong premises.

    I am still waiting for your *philosophical* refutation of latest neuroscientific findings about morality, but I am not holding my breath ….

    • What historical facts have I twisted? You keep trying to pin this stereotype of yours on me when it's quite obvious that it isn't working.

      In any case, post those findings here so I can read them. Posting a youtube video and asking me to watch it is poor form.

  2. To 2) The ‘golden rule’ is so simple and self evident – not going into details of Kant’s refinement e.g. the categorical imperative here – so it can be ‘plausible affirmed’. Or could you outright deny the golden rule – scientific style – by showing a single example of morality which can NOT be based on the golden rule or some good/moral/altruistic behavior which could NOT BE DONE WITHOUT “transcendent foundation”. Again I remind again about examples of the animal kingdom – do you need a transcendent foundation for altruism in vampire bats, of guilt and shame in all kind of mammals …etc…. ?!?!?

    And your claim of necessary divine absolute morality, seems for me therefore to stem more from personal incredulity ( I can’t imagine – therefore it can’t be) especially as this absolute divine morality claim was already shot down centuries B.C.E with the Euthyphro dilemma : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

    • This might be redundant as it's just a copy of my post in the FF forums but since I promised that I'd post a reply to the Euthyphro Dilemma, here it is:

      God is good because it is his nature to be good, i.e. his nature is the moral good. Knowledge of the moral good is then communicated to us in the form of his divine commands, i.e. Divine Command Theory. This is still, however, a different thing to the two horns of the Euthyphro Dilemma, one of which is that the good is external to God and the other is that the good is arbitrary, in that whatever he commands will be good even if we would normally consider it evil. Supposedly, both horns of the dilemma are theologically incompatible with the normal conception of God in that in the first one, God is not the font of all goodness and that in the other, God could command evil and it would still be good.

      The third option is that God's nature is the moral good and that logically, all that he commands would therefore be good. On first glance, it's the same as the second horn of the dilemma in that whatever God commands becomes good simply because he commands it (as a sort of a tyranny of the strong) but on closer inspection, it does not. God''s essentially good nature is such that he logically cannot command what we commonsensically consider to be evil.

      Two readily available conceptions of God that fulfill this criteria is St. Anselm's "id quo maius cogitari nequit" (that than which no greater could be concieved) or the more generic "that which is worthy of worship" (which is the one Plantinga uses). On these definitions, God is essentially, i.e. by nature, loving, kind, generous, charitable, etc, etc. These conceptions of God then evade both horns of Euthyphro's Dilemma because when it comes to the first, the good is God himself and in the second, the good is not arbitrary because God cannot command evil. In light of this understanding, Divine Command Theory can thus be modified in such a way that it no longer runs afoul of the second horn of Euthyphro's Dilemma:

      "However, divine command theorists can accept Cudworth's (1731/1976) point with equanimity if they embed their divine command account of moral deontology in an axiological theory that, like the theistic Platonism espoused by Adams, makes ethical goodness independent of God's will and commands. Understood in this way, goodness is determined by God's immutable nature and character; it is a matter of who and what God is. God's essential nature, which is paradigmatic of goodness, will then constrain what God can command. Hence, it is open to divine command theorists to hold that it is impossible for God to command lying and so is impossible for lying to be obligatory. This view is consistent with granting that lying would be obligatory if, per impossible, God were to command it.

      Certain forms of divine command ethics can be shown to stand up well under philosophical scrutiny. Divine command accounts of obligation and wrongness deserve to be regarded as respectable options in ethical theory if the larger theistic worldviews of which they are components are themselves philosophically defensible."

      – Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 'Divine Command Theories of Ethics', p 3:93.

  3. To 1) : to repeat the old chestnut (sorry !) : extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence : so it’s up to you _XIII_ to provide proof that ONLY a theistic system is able to provide “plausibly ground objective moral values “ It’s NOT UP TO ME to provide the by PROOF OF A NEGATIVE – which is by the way is impossible as your should know as self-proclaimed philosopher.

    • "The eastern cultures that have thrived even longer than the Abrahamic lineages would beg to differ."

      That is a positive claim that carries a burden of proof.

      In any case, the reason I think that only a theistic system is able to plausibly ground the objectivity of moral values and duties is because without reference to God (or some other transcendent foundation), our moral beliefs have no warrant. This is because on Evolutionary Naturalism (EN) our initial pool of considered moral beliefs is 'contaminated' so-to-speak. On EN, our moral beliefs are fashioned by evolution and natural selection. They are illusions foisted upon us by the evolutionary process because it confers us with reproductive fitness.

      The problem arises when we come to realize that evolution is not truth-aimed, but fitness-aimed. If somehow the formation of a false belief will help us survive, then that is what evolution will furnish us with. If our believing that the moon is made of cheese can help us to survive (maybe it spurs technological progress), then evolution will furnish us with that belief. There is thus no warrant or reason to think that on EN, our moral intuitions are truth-aimed because the process that formed them are not truth-aimed. To quote:

      “if our best theory of why people believe P does not require that P is true, then there are no grounds to believe P is true”
      – Sommers & Rosenberg (2003), p.667

      For further reading, Mark Linville fleshes out this argument in more detail in his excellent article on the Moral Argument in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.

  4. The problem is that this so-called 'secular morality', as understood in western terms, is by-and-large merely derivative from Christian principles. Also, another problem is that secular morality is illusory.

      • Which is why I said 'as understood in western terms'. A prominent example would be the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

        In any case, name me one eastern system of morality that plausibly grounds the objectivity of moral values and duties. (That is, secular, which makes no appeal to a transcendent foundation for morality.)

        • The Christian foundation e.g. as very basis finally the Bible recording the teachings of Christ is hailing slavery – also as reconfirmation in the New Testament. Or take the handling of different opinion in Matt 12:30 …. who is not with me is against me and scatters … Luke 19:27-29 where Christ says : who is not following me is my enemies and I kill him in front of me…. well and I guess as *good Christian* you will hate your entire family and even yourself to be a follower of Christ and take a whip to clean out the money changers from their shops. And I could go on and on ….
          The Universal declaration of human rights (UDHR) is luckily not at all based on those disgusting Christian *morality* teachings.

          And outside the Bible the greedy clergy , televangelists and the ilk is not living up to the few communist teachings sprinkled over the Gospel from extinct Ebonite or Stoic/Cynic teachings.
          So what on earth are you talking about the whole time ?!?

          • This is irrelevant.

            I am asking for an eastern system of morality that plausibly grounds the objectivity of moral values and duties. How is this an answer?

        • >>” name me one eastern system of morality that plausibly grounds the objectivity of moral values and duties “<<

          Well can Christianity “plausible ground the objectivity of moral values” ?!? If you implicitly claim the primacy of Christianity ( as not to put words into your mouth …. but your unsupported statements have some consequences when thought through …..) based on (a) a superior absolute value system or (b) historically predating “western secularism”. Based on the disgusting Bible teachings (a) is shot down and because “Eastern morality systems” predates the earliest Gospel by at least 6 centuries also (b) evaporates into thin air.

          And a plausible ground or objective morality boils in the end all done – for whatever religious or non-religious value system – to the good old ‘golden rule’ (do not unto others …) which is also not a Christian invention by the way. It can be traced down all over the animal kingdom including proto humans (my earlier point) and ‘tit for tat’ is the optimal mathematically strategy to enforce moral behavior in social context – all independent from Christianity.

          And another one: secularity and secular democracy can be traced down all the way to ancient Greek – predating Christianity also by centuries – therefore the *Western secular tradition* including morality is NOT AT ALL based on Christianity.

          • 1. The question was not whether or not Christianity grounds the objectivity of moral values and duties, it's whether or not there is an eastern system that does so. In any case, my position is that it's theism, not Christianity per se, that can plausibly ground objective moral values and duties. To refute my position, you have to do much more than refute Christianity, you have to show that theism is false.

            2. I do not deny that most moral systems are based on some variation of the 'Golden Rule' which I also agree is not special or specific to Christianity. What I'm saying is that there is no good reason to think that the 'goodness' of the Golden Rule can be plausibly affirmed to be an objective feature of the world without appealing to a transcendent foundation for morality.

            This is because without such a foundation, moral values and duties become mere 'constructs' of an evolutionary system that is perfectly fine with furnishing you with false beliefs if it confers you with reproductive fitness.

            3. I did not say anything about Western secular tradition. I said Western secular 'morality'. Again, the claim I made is very specific.

          • Roland,

            Don't want to bug your discussion with XIII, but the Golden rule is only as good as the person claiming it. I'd hope people would treat me the way they want to be treated, unless they wanted to be treated in a way that I would rather not be treated.

            Jesus wanted something much more profound than that; he said "love your enemy".

            In any case, the notion that human life is sacred is a purely Christian idea.

      • 1. The Chinese have the Confucian code of ethics
        2. The Japanese have the Code of Bushido
        3. Even the early Filipinos have the Code of Kalantiaw before Spanish Christian influence

        These are all codes of conduct, morality, and ethics that have roughly the same analogs as the 10 Commandments, the Golden Rule, the Beatitudes, etc…

    • _XII_ claims >>"'secular morality' … is by-and-large merely derivative from Christian principles "<<

      What we usually consider as morality is evident even in the animal kingdom (shame, altruism, a sense of right and wrong) – and caring for the sick is evident by fossil founds dating back to Neanderthals and pre humans for several hundred thousands of years. The sense and preference for right and wrong can be even g\found in babies before they can be religiously indoctrinated.

      The much more ‘moral’ and quite concerned about all sentient being based teachings of Hinduism and Buddhism are predating Christianity by several centuries .

      So if someone is a forger and copycat it’s the authors of the Bible and Christians claiming to be the first ones, but this ad nausea stated Christian claim gets boring as it was refuted thousands of times also here in the FFF Forum.

      • I never said anything about Christians being the first to value altruism or that shame is non-existent in the animal world. I made a very specific claim so don't put words in my mouth. Again, I said "Secular morality, us understood in western terms, is by-and-large merely derivative from Christian principles".

        It's very specific.

        What I mean is that the secular moral values and duties, as understood by westerners and the free thought crowd, are the cultural remnants of Christian Europe.

        • ///What I mean is that the secular moral values and duties, as understood by westerners and the free thought crowd, are the cultural remnants of Christian Europe. //

          To use an analogy, like how modern chemistry had its origins in alchemy?

        • Posts here are limited to a few lines, so not sure where I should begin.
          First the alleged *very specific* claim that secular morality is *as understood by Westerners* derived from * Christian principles*.
          Well what is (1) “understood by Westerners* ? or do you mean your personal private interpretation ? which in discussions with theists is usually a moving goal post to evade all arguments.
          And (2) what are those “Christian principles” – there are 33,000 (some count 38,000) Christian sects all with different interpretations and all claim the absolute truth …. The Bible is highly self contra dictionary and you can cherry pick whatever suit your personal agenda – so which moral teaching to pick ?

          My first post here just gives a few examples about Christian *morality* like your god Yahweh’s absolute demand to stone adulterers, naughty children (5 times in the Bible !) and homosexuals all to death ! So have you followed this Christian moral advise and killed already a bakla today ? or don’t you follow your own Christian morality ?!?

          • 1. As understood by Westerners, that is, morality as understood in the Western world which culturally speaking is undeniably Christian in nature. This shouldn't really be controversial considering the massive influence Christianity has always exerted on Western history. Obviously, western culture, as such, will always be suffused with strong Christian elements as a throwback to the era when Christianity dominated European history.

            2. Which is why I said 'principles'. I meant to highlight the principle of the moral teachings, not their specific content.

    • _XII_ claims >>" >>” Also, another problem is that secular morality is illusory. “<<

      Sam Harris with “the moral landscape” and Patricia Churchland with “Braintrust: what Neuroscience tells us about morality” show clearly, scientifically (e.g. with evidence !!! ) that the one who is illusory about claiming to be the basis and origin of morality are the religious fairy tale myths.

        • You want to ‘refute’ arguments from neuroscience made from neuroscientists ? With what ? Bible verses and warm fuzzy feeling ? Even those fuzzy warm feelings can be explained and those explanations are – because scientific – of course supported by evidence not just as play with words.

          A short Youtube search shows several videos from Sam Harris about his statement that science and secular philosophy have a lot to say about morality – much more than all religions who usually claim the absolute and soley ownership:
          http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=sam+h

          Same for Patricia Churchland : http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Patri

          • Give me a bit more credit here. I never appeal to the Bible or 'fuzzy' feelings when debating with other people. I always use philosophy, reason and logic.

          • You make bold and unsustainable claims, however *Christian morality* finally boils down – whatever pass one might follow – to the teachings as revealed in the Bible as THE basis for Christianity.

            So claiming that “secular morality” is a copy of *Christian morality* and an illusion, is totally wrong – when :
            -There is no common agreed *Christian morality* (33,000 sects with different interpretations ….)
            -The basis of all Christianity e.g. the Bible is self contradicting on lots of topics of moral relevancy
            -The basis of all Christianity e.g. the Bible is full of disgusting anti moral teachings (hail slavery, kill homosexuals, adulteress, disobedient children, workers on Saturday ….etc…)
            -The Christian leadership is massively acting greedy and immoral themselves – no divine guidance to be seen here
            -The “absolute morality” claimed from theist to be resting at a deity was already refuted centuries B.C.E. e.g. before the N.T. (arbitrary just because god demands – versus self-evident ).
            -Claims of ‘divine inspiration’ as claimed from many religious leaders is unverifiable and contradicts each other
            -The historical sequence is reversed (secular democracy actually predates Christianity) to the basis of the claim made (secular morality is a copy of Christian morality)
            -And the argument is made based on wrong facts: “secular Western value systems and democracy” is based on the enlightenment, which was overcoming the Christian dark ages of a divine’ installed and protected’ emperors supported from the clergy.

          • 1. Again, I said it's the principles. While Christians may differ as regards to whether or not some actions like sodomy is bad (to highlight a contentious issue), they are remarkably consistent as to the principles. These are values like altruism, charity, love, mercy, forgiveness, salvation, etc, etc.

            I am not referring to the particulars but to the generalities.

            2. If the Bible is self-contradictory, it is irrelevant. I did not say that Christian morality is correct, mind you, only that secular morality, us understood by the west, has it's origins in Christian morality. That is not controversial, in fact, it is to be expected considering the arena where it arose.

            3. If Christian leadership is greedy or immoral, it is also irrelevant. All that would show is that the leadership is acting in a way that is inconsistent with their belief systems.

            4. The Euthyphro Dilemma, if that is what you're referring to, has already been solved.

            5. I made no appeal to divine inspiration.

            6. The enlightenment was chiefly political in nature, not about the reinvention of the foundations of morality. By-and-large, this reinvention of secular morality on purely secular grounds (without reference to it;s Christian roots) has yet to be even accomplished. Sam Harris tries (when he identifies creaturely flourishing with the moral good) but also fails (he is unable to solve what he calls 'the value problem' for instance).

            Name me one enlightenment thinker who made a secular moral system?

          • This will be long. I'm not forcing anyone to read it. But someone needs to say it. I'm just 'free-thinking'.

            /-There is no common agreed *Christian morality* (33,000 sects with different interpretations ….) /

            It's a fable that the large number of Christian denominations show Christian disunity. Truth is that the differences in denominations are due to the need to cater to specific
            populations. In other words, many denominations are doctrinally identical, but disconnected from each other to serve a certain cultural or geographic group.

            /-The basis of all Christianity e.g. the Bible is self contradicting on lots of topics of moral relevancy /

            — No, Jesus is the basis "of all Christianity". He repudiated some mosaic practices. And, don't make the mistake of projecting your 21st century morality to people of that
            time. For instance: today, we imprison thieves, give them 3 square meals a day, and provide them sexy time with their wives (in the U.S. at least). If we did this during the dark ages, everyone would be stealing. Today prison time can disincentivize stealing, back then, not so much. The times were different.

            /The Christian leadership is massively acting greedy and immoral themselves – no divine guidance to be seen here/

            — Because ruling elites are often bad.

            /The “absolute morality” claimed from theist to be resting at a deity was already refuted centuries B.C.E. e.g. before the N.T. (arbitrary just because god demands – versus self-evident ). /

            — Euthyphro posits a false dilemma since it assumes those are the only 2 possible avenues. There's a third one: Good is God's nature.

            /-Claims of ‘divine inspiration’ as claimed from many religious leaders is unverifiable and contradicts each other /

            — Divine inspiration would be meta-physical in nature, hence cannot be empirically verified. Also, claiming divine inspiration is an easy justification for anything, so, heuristically, most so-called "divine inspirations" would be of the contrived variety. The probability that a claim is wrong isn't proof that the claim will be wrong under all circumstances.

            /The historical sequence is reversed (secular democracy actually predates Christianity) to the basis of the claim made (secular morality is a copy of Christian morality) /

            –Nobody is talking about "secular democracy". The best thing you can come up with, absent Christianity, is an enlightened, self-interested form of morality. The best Sam Harris can come up with is some iteration of utilitarianism. The notion that humans must be treated as ends in themselves and not as a means to an end is a wholly Christian idea.

            /And the argument is made based on wrong facts: “secular Western value systems and democracy” is based on the enlightenment, which was overcoming the Christian dark ages of a divine’ installed and protected’ emperors supported from
            the clergy.
            /

            –Most of the original Enlightenment thinkers were Christians. I think you mean things like the 'bill of rights' and other such. These were all inspired by philosophies and principles of the age of enlightenment. Ironically though, they assume a natural law exists that people have certain natural rights to property, to liberty and to life, and these are held to be universal. Funny thing is, that's something you can only get from theism, since you really ought to know by now, objective/absolute morality doesn't exist on an atheism that's predicated on naturalism.

          • [Euthyphro posits a false dilemma since it assumes those are the only 2 possible avenues. There's a third one: Good is God's nature.]

            The Ethyphro dilemma is basically this: "Does God command something because it is good, or is something good because God commands it?" What you did there was to simply substitute God's COMMAND with God's NATURE. As such, let me ask you this: What is "good" and what is God's nature? Is it God's nature because it is good, or is it good because it is God's nature? If it's the former, then God's nature is dependent on some other criteria for goodness. If it's the latter, then goodness is defined according to God's nature. It's the same dilemma albeit with different terms.

          • It's neither the former nor the latter.

            God DOES NOT command something because it is good. God DOES NOT command something because it is good.

            God commands something because HE IS GOOD.

          • You did not answer my question, which was: What is "good" and what is God's nature? Is it God's nature because it is good, or is it good because it is God's nature?

          • You did not answer my question, which was: What is "good" and what is God's nature? Is it God's nature because it is good, or is it good because it is God's nature?

            — Geez. It is good because it's God's nature/ Good is God's nature/ God is good.

            How many times must we discuss this?

          • [It is good because it's God's nature]

            Then you're saying that goodness is defined according to God's nature, and this is parallel to saying that something is good because God commands it. As such, your argument is gored by the second horn of the Euthyphro dilemma.

          • /Then you're saying that goodness is defined according to God's nature, and this is parallel to saying that something is good because God commands it./

            — Your mistake is in thinking it's "parallel". There is absolutely no reason to think it's "parallel". None.

            Saying something is good because God commands it would make things arbitrarily good based on God's whims. Saying God is good, would make everything He command's good, because His nature IS good.

            How on earth is that "parallel"?

          • It is parallel because in your explanation, goodness is dependent on God's nature, while in the original second horn of the Euthyphro dilemma, goodness is dependent on God's command.

          • If goodness is dependent on God's nature, then what's good isn't arbitrary since it has its ontology in the nature of God.

            If goodness is dependent on whatever God commands, then its ontology is the whim of the deity.

            Do you think that your humanity is as arbitrary as, say, your opinion on who should win the next PBA championship?

          • In case you haven't noticed, I'm not attacking your contention from the arbitrariness/capriciousness angle, but from the mere DEPENDENCE of goodness on God – whether we are talking about God's nature or God's command. It's like Hume's is-ought problem. God's nature or "the being of God" is an 'is'. How do we derive a moral 'ought' from that? How can we say that if it's God's nature, it must be good?

          • It's completely different whether goodness depends on God's commands, or flows from his nature. Former will make goodness arbitrary while the latter won't, since nature is unchanging.

            /How can we say that if it's God's nature, it must be good?/

            — Because His nature IS good.

            It's like you're asking "how can we say that cheese tastes cheesy?" Because it's the nature of cheese to taste like cheese. Uncheese-tasting cheese would be uncharacteristic of cheese.

          • Your analogy is faulty because it only talks about cheese and cheesy, the latter merely being the adjective form of the former. If we're to use your analogy, it's like saying that it is God's nature to be GODLY. In your contention, however, you introduced another term: Good. To show why your analogy is faulty, let me present it this way:

            Your analogy: It is the nature of cheese to be cheesy.

            Your contention: It is the nature of God to be good.

            See the difference? If we're going to use your analogy, the most we can derive is that it is the nature of God to be GODLY – but not necessarily good, because "good" is yet to be defined. You cannot derive "good" (a moral 'ought') from the nature of God (an 'is').

          • Your analogy is faulty because it only talks about cheese and cheesy, the latter merely being the adjective form of the former. If we're to use your analogy, it's like saying that it is God's nature to be GODLY. In your contention, however, you introduced another term: Good. To show why your analogy is faulty, let me present it this way:

            You've just answered your own question. "Godly" is another term for being maximally great. The maximally greatest being IS good. If He wasn't, then he wouldn't be maximally great; he wouldn't be "Godly".

            There's nothing wrong with my analogy, since cheesy taste isn't an "adjective form" of cheese. If cheese tasting hard candy existed, then it's candy that tastes like cheese but isn't cheese and therefore isn't an "adjective form" of cheese.

          • Your definition of "Godly" as being maximally great is simply a theistic claim, meaning it is just a definition of something whose existence – and qualities – is simply assumed.

            If you don't mind, I would like to use another analogy instead of cheese to drive my point, because the taste of cheese is complicated and varied. Let's use sugar instead. We say that sugar is sweet. Why do we say that sugar is sweet? Because the taste of sugar satisfies the quality of sweetness, and sweetness is a taste quality not dependent on the existence of sugar since such quality is shared by other substances such as honey and saccharin. As such, sugar is said to be sweet because its taste is consistent with the external/independent quality of sweetness.

            But if you insist on using cheese, which, as I mentioned earlier, has a complicated and varied taste, let's try to isolate just one taste of cheese, which is creaminess (much like isolating one of God's alleged qualities, which is goodness). We say cheese tastes creamy, and creamy is a taste quality independent of the existence of cheese since such quality is shared by other foods and beverages like milk and margarine.

            My point is this. To be able to claim that God is good (or even that "Godly" means "maximally great"), one must first be able to define what is good, because to simply say that "It is good because it's God's nature/ Good is God's nature/ God is good" is a rhetorical tautology – "a series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because the statements depend on the assumption that they are already correct."

          • /My point is this. To be able to claim that God is good ….so on and so forth/

            –No, that actually wasn't your point. This was actually what your point was:

            "If it's the former, then God's nature is dependent on some other criteria for goodness. If it's the latter, then goodness is defined according to God's nature. It's the same dilemma albeit with different terms.

            Which I've been able to clearly show is not the case at all. 'God is good' is a different horn of the argument which solves the dilemma. That's my point. I really don't have to play another game of out-pedanting the pedant with you; I don't have to define anything. I would if you want me to, and if you admit that you're going off at a tangent.

          • What I'm saying is, your supposed solution to the Euthyphro dilemma that "God is good" is not a solution at all because it is merely a rhetorical tautology, so you are still stuck between the two horns of the Euthyphro dilemma.

          • Innerminds and Miguel, as this particular comment branch seems to be approaching unreadability, what say you we make another one (and I'll join in)? 🙂

          • And what I'm saying is that it isn't a "rhetorical tautology"

            What God commands is good = arbitrary

            God likes good = good is independent of Him

            God is good = He is good, so commands good things. Good isn't independent of him insofar as nobody can be independent of his nature.

            I have no clue as to why you keep asserting I'm still stuck on the 2 horns of the dilemma.

          • "God is good, so God commands good things" is a rhetorical tautology because it is "a series of self-reinforcing statements that cannot be disproved because the statements depend on the assumption that they are already correct."

            I like XIII's suggestion. Why don't we take this to the forum? If you want to start a new thread, you can post the link to that thread as your response to this latest post of mine.

          • Innerminds, please be the one to do that. I don't know how to make threads at the forum, actually. Thanks.

          • Sam Harris's arguments in that book are of the philosophical variety, actually. He never uses arguments "from neuroscience".

            Sam Harris about his statement that science and secular philosophy have a lot to say about morality

            — Which is why only atheists riding the new-atheism pop culture find his arguments persuasive, while the more au courant atheists, not so much. I'm not just asserting this, even Sam Harris recognized this much.

      • As to the first, Twin-Skies gave an excellent analogy below.

        As to the second, if moral values and duties are not objective, they are illusory.

          • il·lu·so·ry   [ih-loo-suh-ree, -zuh-]
            adjective

            1. causing illusion; deceptive; misleading.
            2. of the nature of an illusion; unreal.

            It means that moral values and duties are not objective features of reality. They are not real.

          • Because on naturalism, we are a bit like ants. Ants are as altruistic as anyone can possibly be. Ants self immolate for the sake of their colony. They do that not because it's the moral thing to do, but because they've been hoodwinked by natural selection. The same with us, if naturalism were true. While you may *think* you're actually doing something good to that old man by giving him your seat at the bus, it's an illusion. Natural selection wants you to think it's good, so to speak. You're just a slave to your DNA.

            "DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. "
            –Richard Dawkins.

          • That is the point. That if, and this is the IF that a lot of believers are scared about, if god truly doesn't exist, then it doesn't make any difference whether they believe morality to be based on something "higher".

          • It does make a difference because following your worldview to its logical conclusion will lead you to believe morality is illusory.

          • But what is the problem with that if that is the truth?
            If in fact god doesn't exist, then secular morality if you call it illusory is at least true. If god truly doesn't exist, then it doesnt matter if you feel your morality is not illusory, it will be in fact be false.

            Actually, Christian morality is arbitrary.

          • [But what is the problem with that if that is the truth? ]

            The problem is that it's not real. People who ponder on the implications of this will be consistent with their worldview by being nihilists.

            [If in fact god doesn't exist, then secular morality if you call it illusory is at least true.]

            Well if it's predicated on naturalism, then ofcourse it's not true, that's the point. It will never be true.

            [If god truly doesn't exist, then it doesnt matter if you feel your morality is not illusory, it will be in fact be false.]

            Obviously.

            [Actually, Christian morality is arbitrary.]

            I Disagree.

          • [I Disagree.]

            Sorry, I didn't read up on your exchange with innerminds. I can see that you already touched on the topic.

            Christian morality is subject to the whims of the alleged god, for example, the ten commandments. Also in the bible this god ordered murder and genocide for trivial reasons.

            Throughout history, Christian morality have been dispensed by it's self-appointed authoritative interpreters, like priests and popes, (e.g., RH) which makes Christian morality subject to human caprice even and moreso if god exists and if same god gave the orders through them. If you are to be honest, you can never deny that it changes in time just like the illusory morality with secular foundation. I don't see much difference in that both change and adapt as we develop more sophisticated thinking on top of, or additional to, or even contrary from previous ideas.

            To say that "God is good" is just BS. You cannot define god as good because that will be different from god of the bible which is inherently mischievous if not outright evil.

          • So you're saying that God cannot possibly be good because your reading of the bible doesn't portray him as such.

            It will be hard to refute such a sweeping statement like this, maybe if you gave me specific examples that I can work on.

            What I will say, however, is that you need to read the bible and understand it in its context instead of parroting what you hear from new atheists who don't even have an atom of knowledge about what the bible says.

          • I am not saying god cannot possibly be good. If a god is defined as all-powerful, then that statement is true whether god is good or evil. What I said was that god is mischievous or even evil if I am to believe in the bible. If god is powerful but chose to do evil acts, then that is different from god being possibly good. You don't need new atheists to tell you that as Epicurus already put that into perspective. Based on the same reasoning, you can also think of why there is hell and you can come up with a a lot of things without somebody telling you, that hell doesn't make sense in the light of an all-merciful, all-loving, all-good god – there simply is no logic in it.

            So my statement cannot be refuted because you can say it's subjective. But even your view is subjective. If you were born to atheist parents there would have been a higher chance that you would have been thinking differently than if you were raised Catholic.

            I have read my bible since I could remember. I attended Catholic school and had bible studies since I was little. To say people (like your new atheists) who disagree with you don't have an atom of knowledge about what the bible says is a obviously a no-brainer that cannot be defended by rational argument.

            Now If you want a specific example, how about the first commandment:

            Thou Shalt Not Have Any Gods Before Me

            We are always taught in Christianity that the ten commandments are very important. Now the first commandment IS ARBITRARY, given by the alleged god. Even entertaining not believing or believing other gods are what Catholics call a grave sin – mortal sin – in other words, straight to hell. What gives? That made non-Christians committing mortal sins because they were born in different cultures.

  5. >>" the Church of trying to impose a misogynistic and bigoted moral system straight out of the Middle Ages "<<

    Sorry to correct you ….. but this Christian *moral guidance* about adultery, homosexuals, naughty kids, praise of slavery etc. as stipulated in Leviticus (naughty children also in Exo21:15, Deut 21:18-21, Matt 15:3-4, Mark 7:10) is dating back to the verbal transmitted Bronze age myths of illiterate goat herders, written down later in Ironage-1 from semi-literate goat herders, and usually re-confirmed during Ironage-2 in the New Testament – way before the Middle ages.

    Just to repeat the Christian *moral* advise for all those transgression as demanded from Judean fertility god Yahweh is : kill them all ! Severe transgressions like extramarital sex, homosexuality, working on Saturdays, naughty kids disobeying their parents : each punishable by stoning to death.
    All *moral* advise which the Catholic church is demanding, is finally ALL based on those absolute basic Judo-Christian rules from the Bronze age – a fact which we should never forget when the RCC or other sects are claiming the moral high ground.

Leave a reply

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here