Gods and morality

[Copernicus]

IMO, the belief that morality must be based on some kind of authority is quite natural for everyone, because we were all given moral guidance from authority figures during childhood. Gods assume parental authority as people become adults, so they tend to reflect the moral views of a self-organized society.

Surely a mortal would, in fact, seem like a helpless child from the perspective of a deity.

That depends on the nature of the deity that your imagination constructs. But the standard Christian god does not view humans as helpless, since they are supposedly gifted with the ability to defy his will and merit a trip to the fiery lake. Well, maybe that's not your favorite version of the Christian god, but we can sit around forever imagining gods, some of whom fit your criteria and probably many more who do not.

 

[Politesse]

IMO, the belief that morality must be based on some kind of authority is quite natural for everyone, because we were all given moral guidance from authority figures during childhood. Gods assume parental authority as people become adults, so they tend to reflect the moral views of a self-organized society.

Surely a mortal would, in fact, seem like a helpless child from the perspective of a deity.

That depends on the nature of the deity that your imagination constructs. But the standard Christian god does not view humans as helpless, since they are supposedly gifted with the ability to defy his will and merit a trip to the fiery lake. Well, maybe that's not your favorite version of the Christian god, but we can sit around forever imagining gods, some of whom fit your criteria and probably many more who do not.

Surely immortality or something close to it is a minimal part of the definition of deity? Humans laugh at the idea of taking life advice from someone only sixty years their junior. What about 600 years, 6000, or 60,000? If nothing else, you would have ample opportunity to see the outcomes of just about every sort of choice play out a million times over in such a (to us barely imaginable) span of time. Even in cultures wherein the gods are considered morally ambiguous, they are generally regarded as being wiser and more moral than humans. Coyote may be a archetypal fool compared to his brother, but humans still sought his aid in times of trouble.

 

[ruby sparks]

Surely immortality or something close to it is a minimal part of the definition of deity? Humans laugh at the idea of taking life advice from someone only sixty years their junior. What about 600 years, 6000, or 60,000? If nothing else, you would have ample opportunity to see the outcomes of just about every sort of choice play out a million times over in such a (to us barely imaginable) span of time. Even in cultures wherein the gods are considered morally ambiguous, they are generally regarded as being wiser and more moral than humans. Coyote may be a archetypal fool compared to his brother, but humans still sought his aid in times of trouble.

So you're saying that god had to learn about morality?

Also, if that does take a very, very long time, then it's surely unreasonable to judge humans who only get 80 short years at it.

Anyways, if I lived for millions of years or whatever, I'm fairly sure I'd get fed up of always doing the right thing and I'd do wrong things just to make my existence more interesting, especially if there was no higher authority to answer to about it. Maybe that's what happened to god. Maybe he started out as a really decent young person with good intentions and just got bored.

 

[Politesse]

Surely immortality or something close to it is a minimal part of the definition of deity? Humans laugh at the idea of taking life advice from someone only sixty years their junior. What about 600 years, 6000, or 60,000? If nothing else, you would have ample opportunity to see the outcomes of just about every sort of choice play out a million times over in such a (to us barely imaginable) span of time. Even in cultures wherein the gods are considered morally ambiguous, they are generally regarded as being wiser and more moral than humans. Coyote may be a archetypal fool compared to his brother, but humans still sought his aid in times of trouble.

So you're saying that god had to learn about morality?

Also, if that does take a very, very long time, then it's surely unreasonable to judge humans who only get 80 short years at it.

Anyways, if I lived for millions of years or whatever, I'm fairly sure I'd get bored of always doing the right thing and I'd do wrong things just to make my existence more interesting. Maybe that's what happened to god. Maybe he started out as a really decent bloke.

That would explain all the Coyote stories.

 

[ruby sparks]

That would explain all the Coyote stories.

Possibly. But those are fiction, and that can be illuminating, but in the end it's important to at least distinguish fiction from.....no wait, sorry, I forgot who I was talking to for a moment there.

 

[Politesse]

That would explain all the Coyote stories.

Possibly. But those are fiction, and that can be illuminating, but in the end it's important to at least distinguish fiction from.....no wait, sorry, I forgot who I was talking to for a moment there.

You really are slow to learn if you're still expecting me to suddenly pop up as some Billy Graham type incapable of discussing my own discipline with recourse to Christian dogma.

But you are proving my point in any case: this discussion is disguised as a moral conversation, but is in fact an ontological one. If one accepts that gods exist in the first place, giving prior consideration to theif moral perspectives is sensible. It will always come back to the question of whether the gods exist.

 

[ruby sparks]

You really are slow to learn if you're still expecting me to suddenly pop up as some Billy Graham type incapable of discussing my own discipline with recourse to Christian dogma.

Sorry. I knew your religious beliefs were of the milder, liberal variety, but I was under the impression you believed god existed. My mistake. Gosh, that IS a mild and liberal variety. 'Sea of Faith' by any chance?

It will always come back to the question of whether the gods exist.

In theory then, that could keep the thread nice and short.

Next up (as ever): elves.

 

[Politesse]

You really are slow to learn if you're still expecting me to suddenly pop up as some Billy Graham type incapable of discussing my own discipline with recourse to Christian dogma.

Sorry. I knew your religious beliefs were of the milder, liberal variety, but I was under the impression you believed god existed. My mistake. Gosh, that IS a mild and liberal variety. 'Sea of Faith' by any chance?

It will always come back to the question of whether the gods exist.

In theory then, that could keep the thread nice and short.

Next up (as ever): elves.

My personal beliefs haven't changed (I am and have always been agnostic with respect to God's existence), they just aren't relevant to a cross-cultural discussion of theism. I don't approve of personal attacks in intellectual discussions.

 

[ruby sparks]

My personal beliefs haven't changed (I am and have always been agnostic with respect to God's existence), they just aren't relevant to a cross-cultural discussion of theism. I don't approve of personal attacks in intellectual discussions.

Ok. Can I just double check if you are as agnostic about the existence of elves?

For example, on a rising scale of 1-10 (with 10 being certainty about existence), would you say you're, for example, a 7 for god but only a 4 for elves? Or would you just say that you think one (or the other) is more likely to exist (without putting a number on it) and if so which one, or are they both equally likely to exist, in your opinion?

 

[Politesse]

My personal beliefs haven't changed (I am and have always been agnostic with respect to God's existence), they just aren't relevant to a cross-cultural discussion of theism. I don't approve of personal attacks in intellectual discussions.

Ok. Can I just double check if you are as agnostic about the existence of elves?

For example, on a rising scale of 1-10 (with 10 being certainty about existence), would you say you're, for example, a 7 for god but only a 4 for elves? Or would you just say that you think one (or the other) is more likely to exist (without putting a number on it) and if so which one, or are they both equally likely to exist, in your opinion?

I am utterly uninterested in establishing the ontological status of gods or elves. Any number assigned to either probability would be meaningless, by dint of having no rational basis whatsoever.

 

[ruby sparks]

I am utterly uninterested in establishing the ontological status of gods ......

Wow. I did not know that. So not only do you not know, you don't even care.

 

[Politesse]

I am utterly uninterested in establishing the ontological status of gods ......

Wow. I did not know that. So not only do you not know, you don't even care.

No, because speculation and bluster are just that. I'm interested in religion, indeed fascinated with it, and vigorously participate in religion through both my personal and professional activities. But there is no rational basis on which to "prove" or "disprove" or "assign probabilities" God's existence, or elves, and I find the question itself dull, at least in that few new arguments or conversations are ever advanced to it, and those who are interested in it are usually too set in their ways to have a real conversation thereabout.

 

[Copernicus]

That depends on the nature of the deity that your imagination constructs. But the standard Christian god does not view humans as helpless, since they are supposedly gifted with the ability to defy his will and merit a trip to the fiery lake. Well, maybe that's not your favorite version of the Christian god, but we can sit around forever imagining gods, some of whom fit your criteria and probably many more who do not.

Surely immortality or something close to it is a minimal part of the definition of deity? Humans laugh at the idea of taking life advice from someone only sixty years their junior. What about 600 years, 6000, or 60,000? If nothing else, you would have ample opportunity to see the outcomes of just about every sort of choice play out a million times over in such a (to us barely imaginable) span of time. Even in cultures wherein the gods are considered morally ambiguous, they are generally regarded as being wiser and more moral than humans. Coyote may be a archetypal fool compared to his brother, but humans still sought his aid in times of trouble.

Immortality is compatible with all sorts of gods, including ones who repeatedly forget everything they've learned or want nothing better than to torture their human creations. Ruby beat me to pointing out the obvious flaw in your imagined being--one that actually needed to learn from experience. It us more common to imagine gods as beings that come equipped with perfect knowledge of one sort or another. That's the problem with imaginary perfect beings. It is impossible to imagine them without human limitations, and they are only useful to humans if they serve human needs. So gods are always deeply concerned with the behavior of human beings. If they weren't, then why bother believing in them?

 

[Politesse]

That depends on the nature of the deity that your imagination constructs. But the standard Christian god does not view humans as helpless, since they are supposedly gifted with the ability to defy his will and merit a trip to the fiery lake. Well, maybe that's not your favorite version of the Christian god, but we can sit around forever imagining gods, some of whom fit your criteria and probably many more who do not.

Surely immortality or something close to it is a minimal part of the definition of deity? Humans laugh at the idea of taking life advice from someone only sixty years their junior. What about 600 years, 6000, or 60,000? If nothing else, you would have ample opportunity to see the outcomes of just about every sort of choice play out a million times over in such a (to us barely imaginable) span of time. Even in cultures wherein the gods are considered morally ambiguous, they are generally regarded as being wiser and more moral than humans. Coyote may be a archetypal fool compared to his brother, but humans still sought his aid in times of trouble.

Immortality is compatible with all sorts of gods, including ones who repeatedly forget everything they've learned or want nothing better than to torture their human creations. Ruby beat me to pointing out the obvious flaw in your imagined being--one that actually needed to learn from experience. It us more common to imagine gods as beings that come equipped with perfect knowledge of one sort or another. That's the problem with imaginary perfect beings. It is impossible to imagine them without human limitations, and they are only useful to humans if they serve human needs. So gods are always deeply concerned with the behavior of human beings. If they weren't, then why bother believing in them?

"Why bother believing in them"? What a bizarre question. I believe in the existence of plenty of things and people that don't serve me personally. I am a white guy, but not that conceited.

But you agree with my basic point, that the moral question is kind of a red herring for the ontological question that is really being asked?

 

[Copernicus]

The question was obviously rhetorical, i.e. an assertion in the form of a question. One has no reason to believe in gods, if they serve no human purpose. I was responding to a remark that you made during the discussion, not addressing the "ontological question". It doesn't strike me as a red herring at all. Basically, it asks for an objective criterion to choose one putative god's moral code over that of another. Nobody, including you, seems to have come up with an answer, because there is no such criterion. If you acknowledge that, only then does it become clear that it is beside the point to ask for one. But you have to acknowledge the lack of such a criterion first.

 

[Treedbear]

The question was obviously rhetorical, i.e. an assertion in the form of a question. One has no reason to believe in gods, if they serve no human purpose. I was responding to a remark that you made during the discussion, not addressing the "ontological question". It doesn't strike me as a red herring at all. Basically, it asks for an objective criterion to choose one putative god's moral code over that of another. Nobody, including you, seems to have come up with an answer, because there is no such criterion. If you acknowledge that, only then does it become clear that it is beside the point to ask for one. But you have to acknowledge the lack of such a criterion first.

It seems like you've stated it backwards. If an objective criterion for a moral code can be identified it would obviate the need for a God.

 

[Copernicus]

The question was obviously rhetorical, i.e. an assertion in the form of a question. One has no reason to believe in gods, if they serve no human purpose. I was responding to a remark that you made during the discussion, not addressing the "ontological question". It doesn't strike me as a red herring at all. Basically, it asks for an objective criterion to choose one putative god's moral code over that of another. Nobody, including you, seems to have come up with an answer, because there is no such criterion. If you acknowledge that, only then does it become clear that it is beside the point to ask for one. But you have to acknowledge the lack of such a criterion first.

It seems like you've stated it backwards. If an objective criterion for a moral code can be identified it would obviate the need for a God.

But the objective criterion was about choosing which divine authority to take direction from. That criterion may have nothing to do with the moral code that the authority dictates. You don't ask questions of that authority. You just obey. OTOH, the original question was a bit convoluted and did seem to ask about an objective standard that exists independently of the deity.

Question. How could we discern who the true god or goddess or gods are goddesses are if we do not rely on our own subjective opinions, or somehow find some objective moral standard that exists seperate and apart from the deities telling us which is right. These gods and goddesses are theoretically good and define good and are supposedly more wiser and powerful than we ever could be. So, how do we know which one is right assuming one does exist?

 

[4321lynx]

The question was obviously rhetorical, i.e. an assertion in the form of a question. One has no reason to believe in gods, if they serve no human purpose. I was responding to a remark that you made during the discussion, not addressing the "ontological question". It doesn't strike me as a red herring at all. Basically, it asks for an objective criterion to choose one putative god's moral code over that of another. Nobody, including you, seems to have come up with an answer, because there is no such criterion. If you acknowledge that, only then does it become clear that it is beside the point to ask for one. But you have to acknowledge the lack of such a criterion first.

It seems like you've stated it backwards. If an objective criterion for a moral code can be identified it would obviate the need for a God.

Gods and morals are human inventions and both serve to facilitate control over human individuals and human groups. That is what they are all about control.' Very useful. No wonder humans adopted them.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The question was obviously rhetorical, i.e. an assertion in the form of a question. One has no reason to believe in gods, if they serve no human purpose. I was responding to a remark that you made during the discussion, not addressing the "ontological question". It doesn't strike me as a red herring at all. Basically, it asks for an objective criterion to choose one putative god's moral code over that of another. Nobody, including you, seems to have come up with an answer, because there is no such criterion. If you acknowledge that, only then does it become clear that it is beside the point to ask for one. But you have to acknowledge the lack of such a criterion first.

It seems like you've stated it backwards. If an objective criterion for a moral code can be identified it would obviate the need for a God.

Gods and morals are human inventions and both serve to facilitate control over human individuals and human groups. That is what they are all about control.' Very useful. No wonder humans adopted them.

Discussions about gods and moral codes are discussions about people and personal preference. No two gods are the same for the simple fact that no two people are the same, and nor do they share the same experiences. This is why gods are so different and so similar.

Ultimately, whenever someone argues for the existence of a god they are simply arguing their own personal authority on a given matter or subject.

 

[Copernicus]

...
Ultimately, whenever someone argues for the existence of a god they are simply arguing their own personal authority on a given matter or subject.

Exactly. And there are some advantages to that strategy. It augments the persuasive power of the argument to have it backed up by the creator of the universe. From a social perspective, it is considered rude to question or attack another person's religious faith, so arguing against the moral prescription justifies an aggressive response.