Is there such a thing as morality or ethics?

_{Denyse O'Leary

October 17, 2021

Ethics, Intelligent Design, Naturalism, theism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty now challenges neurosurgeon Michael Egnor: There is no way to know whether a moral doctrine represents any reality apart from belief:

Michael Egnor: You’ve agreed with me that there are people who act out of respect for an objective moral law.
Matt Dillahunty: I agree with you there are people who act that way because of their belief and whether they believe it’s objective or not is irrelevant. They can believe it’s subjective and still do it. [01:29:30]
Michael Egnor: So, you don’t believe that it’s objectively wrong, for example, to kill innocent people, or rape babies, or exterminate the Jews?
Matt Dillahunty: Hang on. We just went through a whole bunch of stuff and when you got to a point where it was exposed that you were wrong about what you said, you went back to: I don’t think it’s objectively wrong to rape people and kill babies. That’s not what we were just discussing. We were discussing altruism and whether or not there’s a justification for it.
Michael Egnor: Yeah. But it’s what we’re discussing now, Matt. My question is, is it objectively wrong to do certain things, outside of opinions? [01:30:00]
Matt Dillahunty: I’ve already answered this and I’m sorry that you don’t understand it. I will try one more time.
When you declare what a foundation of morality is, once that’s done, you can compare the consequences of various actions with respect to that foundation, with respect to that goal. That comparison can be objective in the same way that the rules of chess are ultimately arbitrary. They didn’t have to be that way. We made up the game. It is objectively against the rules for you to move your pawn forward four spaces at the beginning of the game. Now, you can say, is it objectively wrong? Well, no, we could have house rules, but we’re talking about these rules.
News, “8. Does morality really exist? If so, does it come from God?” at Mind Matters News

C.S. Lewis (1898–1963) certainly disagreed with Dillahunty in The Abolition of Man (1943), where he talks about the Tao that forms the basis of all human morality.

Takehome: Michael Egnor insists that a moral law exists independently of varying opinions. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, that has always been the traditional view worldwide.

The debate to date:

Debate: Former atheist neurosurgeon vs. former Christian activist. At Theology Unleashed, each gets a chance to state his case and interrogate the other. In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and broadcaster Matt Dillahunty clash over the existence of God.
A neurosurgeon’s ten proofs for the existence of God. First, how did a medic, formerly an atheist, who cuts open people’s brains for a living, come to be sure there is irrefutable proof for God? In a lively debate at Theology Unleashed, Michael Egnor and Matt Dillahunty clash over “Does God exist?” Egnor starts off.
Atheist Dillahunty spots fallacies in Christian Egnor’s views. “My position is that it’s unacceptable to believe something if the available evidence does not support it.” Dillahunty: We can’t conclusively disprove an unfalsifiable proposition. And that is what most “God” definitions, at least as far as I can tell, are.
Egnor now tries to find out what Dillahunty actually knows… About philosophical arguments for the existence of God, as he begins a rebuttal. Atheist Dillahunty appears unable to recall the philosophical arguments for God’s existence, which poses a challenge for Egnor in rebutting him.
Egnor, Dillahunty dispute the basic causes behind the universe. In a peppery exchange, Egnor argues that proofs of God’s existence follow the same logical structure as proofs in science. If the universe begins in a singularity (where Einstein’s equations break down), what lies behind it? Egnor challenges Dillahunty on that.
Is Matt Dillahunty using science as a crutch for his atheism? That’s neurosurgeon Michael Egnor’s accusation in this third part of the debate, which features a continued discussion of singularities, where conventional “laws of nature” break down.
If the “supernatural” means “outside of conventional nature,” Michael Egnor argues, science routinely accepts it, based on evidence.
Dillahunty asks 2nd oldest question: If God exists, why evil? In the debate between Christian neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and atheist broadcaster Matt Dillahunty, the question of raping a baby was bound to arise.
Egnor argues that there is an objective moral law against such acts; Dillahunty argues, no, it is all just human judgment.
Does morality really exist? If so, does it come from God? Matt Dillahunty now challenges Michael Egnor: There is no way to know whether a moral doctrine represents any reality apart from belief. Michael Egnor insists that a moral law exists independently of varying opinions. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, that has always been the traditional view worldwide.

You may also wish to read:

Science can and does point to God’s existence. Michael Egnor: Natural science is not at all methodologically naturalist — it routinely points to causes outside of nature. If we are to understand natural effects, we must be open to all kinds of causes, including causes that transcend nature.

The Divine Hiddenness argument against God’s existence = nonsense. God in Himself is immeasurably greater than we are, and He transcends all human knowledge. A God with whom we do not struggle — who is not in some substantial and painful way hidden to us — is not God but is a mere figment of our imagination.

Atheist Claims about logical fallacies often just mean: Shut Up! In the recent debate, Matt Dillahunty accuses theists of “the fallacy of the argument from personal incredulity” because we examine his claims and find them incredible. What atheists fear most is having to explain themselves, and the invocation of fictitious “fallacies” is one of their favorite ways to evade scrutiny.

and

Theists vs. atheists: Which group has the burden of proof? Because Dillahunty refuses to debate me again, I’ll address his claim that atheists have no burden of proof in the debate over God’s existence in this post. Both atheists and theists make positive statements about the nature of the universe. If atheists shun the ensuing burden of proof, it should count against them.

Comments

Kind of hard for me to say whether or not I have a personal epistemology
:) You talked with some dead people , you have the pleasure as your god and ultimate goal , you hate Christianity(Cross?), you have MRT and nothing comes to your mind?
Conditions for a duty to exist are not themselves duties.
:) Oops, you add more and more duties/commandments (copyrighted by WJM) ? Maybe you should stop confirming Kairosfocus with every comment you post?Lieutenant Commander Data_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

LCD asks:
Are you objective and not bound of any epistemology ? You would be the first one I met
Definition of epistemology:
"the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.
Kind of hard for me to say whether or not I have a personal epistemology, given that definition. I certainly don't have one that I think objectively applies to everyone else.
Necessary conditions? Well…maybe you want to rephrase to not sound like a …duty? You fight the concept of duty of Kairosfocus and place instead your own duties? You are very confused .
Conditions for a duty to exist are not themselves duties. You can claim I have a duty under the law to jump rope for an hour on Saturday; if I ask you to prove it, you can look up the statute and show it to me. That will show me what the authority is (state, federal, local) and what the penalty is for not obeying the law. The ink on the paper or the text on the website are not duties; they are physical facts that represent the duty in question and show that the conditions for the duty actually exist, therefore the duty actually exists.William J Murray_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

Correction to my post at #497: "It’s also apparent to me that you ~~don’t~~ consider your ontology/epistemology as objectively real and valid for everyone, and that they are operating from it whether they know it or not, whether they agree to it or not." Take the "don't" out.William J Murray_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT}

Have been following this for a while and have completely lost track of what the original discussion point was. But this is normal for many online blogs. The existence of objective moral truths is a non-warranted conclusion. Not that they do not exist, but that they are not warranted if morality is examined objectively. What can be claimed to be objectively true? 1) That humans are emotional beings. 2) That every human, with the exception of a very small minority, have their own idea of right and wrong (moral values). 3) That humans, when they do something they believe to be wrong, have an emotional response (guilt/remorse). The question that has no warranted conclusion is whether there are objective moral truths, or are they merely subjective derivations based on upbringing and the surrounding society? Are the moral “truths” in an urban environment different than those in a rural environment? Are they different in a patriarchal society than they are in a matriarchal society? Than a nomadic society? Are they different in a pre-industrial society? Are they different in a theistic society than they are in a secular society?Joe Schooner_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT}

Origines, nope and directly parallel to mathematical phenomena. KFkairosfocus_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @505
The pivotal issue is accessible warrant communicable to others [as is the self evidence of “I exist”] ..
This is exactly not the pivotal issue wrt "I exist". The warrant for the existence of one’s conscious self-awareness lies solely in the personal experience of its undeniability — its self-evidency. Testimony of others has no effect whatsoever on the credibility of “I exist” for oneself. One could be surrounded by solely empty spacetime and conclude “I exist” and be as certain about it as one could ever possibly be. One could be surrounded by people who all declare that no one exists, and still be completely certain that one exists. This means that communicability to others is irrelevant, does not serve a purpose WRT warrant, since others have no bearing whatsoever on the credibility/warrant of “I exist.”Origenes_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

Ram Eternal torment is not a necessary entailment of actions having consequences. My children have violated my rules many times. I never once have had the idea of throwing them into eternal torment no matter what the do.
Ok ,I understood that your kids can do whatever they want without consequences. If they want to set your house on fire or to play with guns/knifes/other dangerous tools or to kill you/your pets/other people you will let them do it. So sweet. Now I know that are not a monstrous parent you just have mental problems.Lieutenant Commander Data_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
06:44 AM
6
06
44
AM
PDT}

Davidl1 Again, I’m not an expert
Why are you not an expert ?
WJM That’s how you interpret it because of your commitment to your epistemology and your sense of duty.
Are you objective and not bound of any epistemiology ? You would be the first one I met . :)
Argument: The necessary conditions for any actual duty to exist are
:) Necessary conditions? Well...maybe you want to rephrase to not sound like a ...duty? You fight the concept of duty of Kairosfocus and place instead your own duties? You are very confused .Lieutenant Commander Data_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT}

PS: are 0 and 2 + 3 = 5 relative to our imagination or the power balance of our community? See 483 above.kairosfocus_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

Origines, scroll up to my discussion of mathematical abstracta. The pivotal issue is accessible warrant communicable to others [as is the self evidence of "I exist"], not whether the objective entity or state of affairs is a physical or abstract phenomenon (for want of a better word). All of this draining foot-dragging resistance to what 7 year olds readily know is telling us that a major ideological commitment is at stake and will be protected by any and all reinforcement to hold it in place. This is then influencing many who would otherwise see right through the game. This reminds me of the current definitional switcheroo on vaccines https://technofog.substack.com/p/cdc-emails-our-definition-of-vaccine?justPublished=true KFkairosfocus_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
05:44 AM
5
05
44
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus @496
I have shown, per undeniable certainty that the fact of self-aware consciousness is self-evident.
Sure, but is utterly irrelevant, since self-evidency does not equal "existing outside of the mind."
This [warrant] is what moves it into the onward category, objective truth.
Nope, for something to be 'objective' it has to exist "outside of mind", “existing independently of perception or an individual’s conceptions”, it has to be “accessible to others”, and so on. Try reading post @494 again.Origenes_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT}

PS: To one who is numb to the voice of truth, right reason and resulting warrant have but little force. Another warning:
Matt 6: 22 “The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, 23 but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!
kairosfocus_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

WJM, here is what I had in mind, and this assessment on direct observation of a decaying culture is painful but needs to be pondered:
Eph 4: 17 Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. 18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart. 19 They have become callous [= have lost morally driven sensitivity] and have given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of impurity. [--> an addiction cycle of desensitisation and ever increasing need for stronger stimulation to break through the numbness . . . ] 20 But that is not the way you learned Christ!— 21 assuming that you have heard about him and were taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus, 22 to put off your old self,6 which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, 23 and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness. 25 Therefore, having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another . . .
KFkairosfocus_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT}

D1, I am not going into a grand exposition of the doctrine of eternality, judgement eschatology etc. That is not UD's purpose nor is it advisable given the sorts of accusations that are routinely made. Besides, UD does not dispose of a panel of theological and philosophical experts with time for such. I took a very limited focus to rebalance some rhetoric above, and I point to Ge Hinnon as a key scriptural model on what happens when per Rom 1 God is locked out; noting that soul unlike brain has no parts to disintegrate leading to a very different property on durability. There are other places where such can be profitably pursued, including on the nature and durability of rational soul. My view, on experience, is that many Christians, parsons and even theologians are lacking in sound background on this area and amateurish, ill instructed well meaning interventions (such as by flawed analogies) will only feed the distractive rhetorical fire; I noted above on the pivotal importance of the venom in the veins perspective in Scripture as giving some rebalancing because of that. This thread is about the objectivity of moral truth, and by extension the significance of moral government as regulating our rationality itself. Duties to truth, right reason, warrant and wider prudence, sound conscience, neighbour, so too fairness and justice etc are in key part constitutive of responsible rationality and also of sound civilisation, in the guise, core of natural, built in law. It is the betrayal by intellectual and cultural leadership across several generations that has led us to a sad, ruinous pass today. And reformation is desperately needed. KFkairosfocus_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

Querius: how would God communicate with humanity without destroying their free will? By communicating with them. And persuading them. Just as you do with various people in your life, I would assume. Have you ever had children? Persons attempt to persuade persons constantly with the intent of altering their choices. That's part of the dynamic of personal interaction. You're doing that in this thread.ram_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
05:07 AM
5
05
07
AM
PDT}

LCD: I explained why. No you didn't. You replied... "This eternal torment is not an idea...." Bald assertion. "it’s a reality" Bald assertion. "that explain [sic] the fundamental importance of moral law." Those bald assertions are not explanations. "Our actions and thoughts have REAL consequences." Eternal torment is not a necessary entailment of actions having consequences. My children have violated my rules many times. I never once have had the idea of throwing them into eternal torment no matter what the do. I believe those who believe in a creator who would torment conscious entities forever are sorely misguided. They cannot prove such a creator exists yet are attracted to such a belief. It reveals the kind of the personalities that such believers have. Astonishing to those of us who repulsed by the very idea of such a monstrous creator.ram_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
05:03 AM
5
05
03
AM
PDT}

KF, thanks for the response. I see references in Romans 2 to "wrath and anger" for people who sin, but I didn't see anything that jumps out as "eternal torment". Romans 2:7 contrasts the "wrath and anger" with eternal life, so that seems consistent with eternal destruction as the consequence. Certainly something to be avoided, but not eternal torment. Regarding the soul, Matthew 10:28 says "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Instead, fear the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell". Since the soul is "destroyed" (not tormented) it seems that it won't suffer eternally. Also, Ezekiel 18:4 says "The soul who sins is the one who will die.". Those seem consistent with the idea that death, not torment, is the consequence. Again, I'm not an expert, and I know there's a lot of context that needs to be taken into account. It just seems from what I remember that eternal torment was not really consistent with what I've read.davidl1_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

KF said:
Such, reveals a breakdown of sensitivity, and requires rehabilitation.
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but what it appears to be is that because I don't feel a duty to truth (lack of sensitivity) that you think I need to be trained into feeling like I have a duty. Isn't that what "sensitivity" to something implies? A feeling? Did you just admit that "duty to truth" is a feeling? Feelings aren't duties. A sense of duty is not a duty. For a duty to exist, the conditions for that duty must exist. To know one has a duty, they must be aware of those conditions.
It also points to rhetoric weaponised to persuade without due balance of duty to truth.
That's how you interpret it because of your commitment to your epistemology and your sense of duty. As I've said many times, I'm not trying to persuade anyone about anything - but, you apparently cannot accept that. Instead, you are apparently entirely comfortable telling me why I say and do the things I do even against my own objections and corrections. It's also apparent to me that you don't consider your ontology/epistemology as objectively real and valid for everyone, and that they are operating from it whether they know it or not, whether they agree to it or not. That is evidenced by the way you keep insisting that what I say and how I say it necessarily implies recognition of duty to truth. Well, it would mean that if I was operating under your particular ontology and epistemology - but I am not. That's a concept you don't seem to be able to interact with, apparently because (and you've attempted to make this case) you think your views represent reality, and can be gleaned from reality, prior to having any ontological commitments whatsoever. Watch this point unfold in your comment that follows:
Further to which, in simple prudence we are forced ...
"Simple prudence?" YOu mean, prudence as constructed within your particular ontology/epistemology. And, who is "we?" Why don't you just use "I"? Are you speaking for others? Are you THAT comfortable with mind-reading?
... to view your continued argumentation as not serving truth through responsible right reason and warrant,
Do you mean "responsible right reason and warrant" as it exists under your particular ontology and epistemology? Of course what I argue does not serve your particular concept of those things. If I agreed with your ontology and epistemology, we wouldn't have debated any of the things we've debated over the past year or so. But, that's the tell-tale evidence for the point I was making above; you don't consider your ontology and epistemology and all the entailments thereof theoretical; you consider them to be reality. Look at what you just said - that because I don't feel I have a duty to truth, that means my arguments are rhetorical attempts to persuade people. Logical arguments stand or fall on their own merits, KF. Even if was insane or evil, that would be 100% irrelevant to assessing the validity of the argument. Pointing at me and saying I'm a flawed person is just avoiding the argument. Argument: The necessary conditions for any actual duty to exist are (1) an authority that holds us responsible for the fulfillment of the duty, and (2) consequences for doing/not doing our duty. Therefore, an actual duty cannot be identified as such unless those two conditions are present. Furthermore, an actual duty cannot be know to exist by any individual unless they are aware of the existence of those two conditions. Individuals cannot be appealing to or implying any actual duty they do not know exists (by being aware of those actual conditions.) Yet, to you that argument must be "rhetoric" because I don't know I have a "duty" to truth - a duty I cannot know exists because you refuse to even identify the conditions necessary for me to know I have such a duty? A sense of duty is not an actual duty KF. That's why they call it a "sense" of duty. But, go ahead, keep addressing my supposed flaws to avoid the logic of the arguments I make. What's next? Pounding on the table? Throwing your shoe at me?
... but as pushing what you want others to adhere to for reasons irrelevant to truth, or perhaps reflecting your particular outlook.
I don't care what others adhere to. I'm not trying to persuade anyone into anything - I don't even think that's a remote possibility. But, of course, I can't possibly have any other reason or motivation than what your view projects on me, because you know the real reality and the real rules and the real truth behind what everyone else does or even thinks.William J Murray_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT}

origenes, my wants count for nil. I have shown, per undeniable certainty that the fact of self-aware consciousness is self-evident. This is as opposed to the possibility of errors in specific perceptions, ideas etc (say a drunk seeing flying pink elephants). The fact of self awareness is warranted to utter certainty for the one with that experience and such warrant can be reduced to intelligible terms and discussed with others as is happening in this comment. This is what moves it into the onward category, objective truth. Something a seven year old can grasp: I doubt my self-awareness, but WHO is doubting? Ans, me. And that is so even if I am simultaneously contemplating pink flying elephants due to too much of the hot pure white crystal clear 63% alc by vol stuff from uncle Johnny Wray and his Nephew. KFkairosfocus_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT}

Warranting an opinion that a painting is beautiful, is totally different procedures from warranting a fact that there is a camel out the back. I'm going to brush all aside that is not an accurate reflection of the rules used in common discourse with subjective statements, and objective statements. And what a load of rubbish it is. Look at Origenes asserting that "I exist" is the most subjective statement ever. Pure fantasizing, without consideration for the logic used with subjective statements in common discourse. How can someone be so arrogant to just assert things without investigation?mohammadnursyamsu_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT}

Kairosfocus, You want the statement “I exist” to be an ‘objective truth’. “I exist” constitutes a claim about the “I” — consciousness/ conscious self-awareness/ the mind. The “I” is famously not externally accessible/ available to others; only the subject itself has access. IOWs one’s conscious self-awareness is a companionless experience. To repurpose your own expression, the “I” is not part of ‘the world of the direct senses.’ It does however fit in nicely with the dictionary definition of subjectivity that you offered in @115: “Dependent on or taking place in a person’s mind rather than the external world.” Yet you want “I exist” to be an ‘objective truth’. In @278 Jerry cites the Merriam Webster dictionary:
objective – based on facts rather than feelings or opinions; existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world
So, ‘objective’ refers to what exists “outside of mind”. Newsflash: the “I” does not exist outside of mind. You have offered the following definition of objectivity:
Objectivity (...) has to do with warranted claims that are accessible to — accountable before — others, not just perceptions and tastes or personal views of a subject.
The “I”, one’s consciousness, is not accessible to others. And the perception, personal view of the subject is all that is involved. You have also offered this definition:
Objective adj 1. (Philosophy) existing independently of perception or an individual’s conceptions.
The “I” is in no way ‘existing independently of perception or an individual’s conceptions.’ Yet you want “I exist" to be an ‘objective truth.’
Kairosfocus: Objective truth is about the degree of truth that is externally accessible (i.e. in principle available to “anyone”) (…)
The “I” is not externally accessible, it is not available to the direct senses of others. The “I” is not in principle available to “anyone.” Yet you want “I exist” to be an ‘objective truth.’Origenes_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

MNY, our experiences, perceptions, imaginations etc MAY be warranted but sometimes they are not. That is a commonplace, you have no right to ignore it or brush it aside. Our inner experience therefore is not equivalent to knowledge so we have to address warrant. Which, is generally something that can in key parts be expressed intelligibly and communicated. Yes, our awareness is knowledge that we have experiences of perception etc but that does not confer warrant that the content of such is reliable or credibly accurate to reality. That this is seemingly such a struggle when it is readily accessible to 7 year olds, says something about the ideologies and crooked yardsticks afoot in our day. KFkairosfocus_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
03:45 AM
3
03
45
AM
PDT}

Some here have fantasized that subjectivity and objectivity is about internal, and externally accessible knowledge. A complete and utter fantasy that they bloviated from their never ending know it all arrogance. Certainly the things inside a closed cupboard are not magically subjective for not being accessible from the outside. Similarly inside a brain, or mind, there does not appear to be any logical relation between something being inside, or outside, and it being subjective or objective. That just appears to be a totally arbitrary fantasy. Obviously inside and outside are used metaphorically, but then what are they a metaphore of? If one would investigate the logic used with subjective statements, and objective statements, in common discourse, then ....... one would find the answer as to how subjectivity and objectivity functions. One can do that, or one can make up arbitrary fantasies.mohammadnursyamsu_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT}

D1, the issue is the meaning of death as dis-integration of the composite, separation and chaotic consequences. Punishment, too, requires some drawing out, as there are overtones of unjust disproportion and ill-judged rage that are being rhetorically exploited. Hence, my reluctant discussion in 488 on the significance of the rational, self-moved significantly free and responsible soul. Thence, nature of a willfully warped soul as evil, thus perverse and chaotic. Thence, as soul is unified inherently, it cannot de-compose, only deteriorate. Onward, containment and resulting, bolted from the inside, mismanaged gehenna. Rom 2 makes for sobering reading, especially when we observe the access/responsiveness to light, path of life principle. likewise, the one-self as one's own judge by standards demanded of others principle. KFkairosfocus_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
02:47 AM
2
02
47
AM
PDT}

I'm not an expert on these things, but I would think that a face-value interpretation of the Bible is that death, not suffering, is the punishment for sin. I'm not claiming that resolves everything, but it might be worth considering. Romans 6:12 - For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (no reference to torment) John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that everyone who believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life (reward is eternal life, not avoidance of torment) 2 Thess 1:9 - They will suffer the penalty of eternal destruction, separated from the presence of the Lord and the glory of His might (penalty is eternal destruction, not torment) Phil 3:19, 20 - Many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and their glory is in their shame. Their minds are set on earthly things. (destruction, not torment) Still not a feel-good ending, but better that eternal torment.davidl1_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
02:28 AM
2
02
28
AM
PDT}

PPS: Let us go to Rom 13:
Rom 13: 8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
Notice, Moshe as he draws out the principles of the decalogue, even pointing to duties of property owners towards the poor, duties to the impaired and to duty of justice in court, and freedom to reason frankly but fairly with neighbour:
Lev 19: 9 “When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap your field right up to its edge, neither shall you gather the gleanings after your harvest. 10 And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the LORD your God. 11 “You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to one another. 12 You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD. 13 “You shall not oppress your neighbor or rob him. The wages of a hired worker shall not remain with you all night until the morning. 14 You shall not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block before the blind, but you shall fear your God: I am the LORD. 15 “You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor. 16 You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life1 of your neighbor: I am the LORD. 17 “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. 18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.
Compare, Cicero -- prototype man without the Bible -- in On the Republic:
, On the Republic, Bk 3: {22.} [33] L . . . True law is right reason in agreement with [--> our morally governed] nature , it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, though neither have any effect on the wicked. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to attempt to repeal any part of it [--> as universally binding core of law], and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people [--> as binding, universal, coeval with our humanity], and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. [--> sound conscience- guided reason will point out the core] And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst penalties, even if he escapes what is commonly considered punishment. . . . – Marcus Tullius Cicero, c. 55 - 54 BC
Fast forward 1800 years to Locke citing Hooker:
[2nd Treatise on Civil Gov't, Ch 2 sec. 5:] . . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [This directly echoes St. Paul in Rom 2: "14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them . . . " and 13: "9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law . . . " Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [Eccl. Polity ,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80, cf. here. Emphasis added.] [Augmented citation, Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Ch 2 Sect. 5. ]
This pattern of thought has been pivotal for civilisation, and speaks to us today in our voyage of folly.kairosfocus_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT}

WJM, again, with all due respects, it is clear that your root problem is as I quoted at 392, >>I don’t recognize that I am compelled by any duty to truth because I don’t know of any such duty.>> Such, reveals a breakdown of sensitivity, and requires rehabilitation. It also points to rhetoric weaponised to persuade without due balance of duty to truth. Further to which, in simple prudence we are forced to view your continued argumentation as not serving truth through responsible right reason and warrant, but as pushing what you want others to adhere to for reasons irrelevant to truth, or perhaps reflecting your particular outlook. Such undermines the basis for good faith discussion. This comes through when there is obvious contempt for the Christian view of God and a linked rhetorical push of attempted discrediting. UD is not the proper venue for such exchanges, and there are other fora with those of relevant expertise who have engaged and will engage such topics under the rubric Christian apologetics. If somewhere, you seek serious answers, I suggest you repair there. KF PS: On the nature of the soul and its fate. I think we need to look a bit at logic of being, tied to rational responsible freedom. We know that computational substrates made up from organisation of prior independently existing parts are inherently GIGO-limited, non rational programmed dynamic-stochastic entities. They are not free, cannot be rational and responsible. If the human soul (including mind and conscience) is reduced to such a substrate, it becomes only an illusion of freedom, responsibility and rationality. Which self-refers and destroys reasoned discussion, ending in absurdity. Instead, we start from the premise, rational, responsible, conversational, free. Such then points to: non-composite, not a computational substrate made up from prior independently existing parts. An inherently unified, non composite whole. Which then raises a question: we know that computational substrates can be destroyed by removal or breakdown of parts, leading to breakdown of synergy. But, what can destroy a unified, non composite -- so, inherently non-material -- rational responsible entity? The answer comes back, such may deteriorate in function through warping from proper end leading to frustration or privation from true end, but that is very different from a composite entity suffering destruction by disintegration or decomposition. We then come to recognition of contingent souls -- we are conceived by parents and so, caused beings -- that are self-moved, rational, responsible, free, able to interact with bodies, but as souls, immortal. For, death is about disintegration and decomposition. The seemingly odd notion, immortal soul, has a point. So, the further point is, the soul may advance to its true end or may be twisted aside into frustration and privation of that end but is not subject to the sort of breakdown that disintegrates and destroys a computer or the like computational substrate. This also points to the difference between brains as computational substrates subject to disintegration and decay and the mind. Mind being a faculty of soul, not a separable component. The sobering issue of eternal fate therefore arises. Fulfillment of proper end and redemptive, healing driven restoration to such are the relatively easy part. But what of the willfully perverted, warped away from due ends? The answer seems to be containment and confinement so that damage is not unduly extended to pervade all things. Where, too, the doors of hell so to speak are locked from the inside, and the horrors of a mismanaged gehenna make sense as the ultimately crooked cannot work together for the common good. (A lesson not irrelevant to the current breakdowns of our civilisation; heading for a foretaste of gehenna.) Justice respects the choice made and defends the civil peace and wider good by confinement. Willful, collective warping creates a mismanaged toxic gehenna. Where, the perverse choice made is in defiance of sound conscience, it is anything but innocent ignorance at work. It is a failing of the soul test of life. The gift of responsible rational freedom opens up an order of good, good from virtue, starting with love, truth and goodness. But that freedom can be perverted into evils instead, wreaking havoc. We have a duty instead to heed sound conscience and go towards the right. Which, now in specifically Christian context, is informed by:
Rom 2: 1 Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. 2 We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. 3 Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? [--> notice, we here judge ourselves by the expectations of justice, virtue and goodness we demand of others] 4 Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 He will render to each one according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life [--> notice, judgement by response to light one has, and thus by path towards the light, however stumbling]; 8 but for those who are self-seeking1 and do not obey the truth [--> danger of loss of sensitivity to duty to truth], but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury [--> response to willful, self-seeking failure of the soul test of life]. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil [--> perversion, frustration, privation of the good out of its proper end, leading to chaos], the Jew first and also the Greek [--> man with and without covenantal, scriptural prophetic, revelatory tradition], 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good [--> i.e. walks in the light and truth one has reasonable access to, towards due end, however imperfectly . . . there is no excuse for cynical hyperskeptical disregard for the light one has or for stifling the voice of conscience], the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality. [--> divine fairness] 12 For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts [--> core, creation order, built in law of our rational, responsible nature, most easily seen through the duty to neighbour principle cf 13:8 - 10], while their conscience also bears witness [--> sound conscience as a witness], and their conflicting thoughts [--> inner and community level debate under force of the voice of the light one has] accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. [ESV]
Strange reflections but sobering and inviting us to the path of the truth, the good, the right.kairosfocus_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
02:08 AM
2
02
08
AM
PDT}

Querius @461 asks:
Then consider the different paths that God might have taken. For example, how would God communicate with humanity without destroying their free will?
Why ask me a question like that when you've already established that whatever changes I would propose that would appear to be a better alternative (such as my non-sentient bad-guy NPC idea that would eliminate eternal suffering) would be me foolishly imagining I could design a better system because I don't know all that your hypothetical God knows? The thing about that view is that it is a true "God of the gaps" argument; any gaps in the logic or reasoning are explained by God knowing stuff we do not that would explain why he did things the way he did, even if there are what appear to be obvious, rational alternatives that seem to be a much, much better system.William J Murray_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT}

Ram @431:
Does he enjoy watching them suffer? Is he unable to snuff them out? Or what?
What's just as bad is that the Christians here apparently, once they are in heaven, are going to be A-OK with all those people suffering for eternity and it's not going to dampen their joy and happiness one bit. When we get to the Christian Heaven, do we just forget about all the people suffering for eternity? Out of sight, out of mind? Countless people suffering eternal torment, and we're dancing with joy in the light of the Lord?William J Murray_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT}

Querius @465 said:
No, you’re not trying to explain the rules of football, but rather your rules of football.
You say that as if it makes a difference to the point I was making. Do you have any idea what point I was making?
My point is relevant using a kal v’chomer argument. If my criticism was applicable to the arrogance of someone claiming to be able to design a better substitute for the Krebs Cycle, how much more applicable is it to someone claiming they could have done a better job at creating and managing entities with free will than the God who created the universe?
This is an example is what I mean by Christians here not passing the Turing test. My question was specifically about making one specific change to the world God already created that would make zero noticeable difference during the lives here of anyone who makes it into heaven, but ensures no conscious, sentient being suffers eternal torment.William J Murray_{November 7, 2021
November
11
Nov
7
07
2021
01:35 AM
1
01
35
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 21 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply