News-Record.com

I would argue that in the situation posited by many Christians, that "morality" is defined by fiat from God, the whole idea of an objective system of morality is impossible. After all, if we assume that God can change his mind on anything he wants, morality is nothing if not fluid, the minute-to-minute decision of a being who is outside the "system," so to speak. Certainly, the text of the Bible bears this out, with God ordering killings, kidnappings, rape and genocide, all contrary to "laws" handed out just a short time before.

As to a naturalistic view of how to define morality -- the simple guiding principle of "How best for humans to live in a society" provides all the information you need. All societies have certain rules they developed pretty much the same independantly of each other. At the same time, there are variations to many other rules that one would expect from truly independant, natural development.

That's it, in a nutshell. I hope tomorrow's discussion at Wake gives more food for thought to all who attend.

First of all, in order to make your accusations against God, you will need more than casual statements, John. The situation in ancient Israel and the world in which it struggled was much more complex and contingent than simplistic statements can address. God does not change from minute to minute; He is unchangeable and immutable. The doings of sinful human beings with wills and lusts, and the practical necessities of guiding a them into a theocratic Promised Land were fraught with all kinds of contingent dealings. Theology 101 would help understanding these things.

The idea that God condoned murder is unwarranted. He did command the Israelites to rid the Promised Land of vile, immoral and corrupt nations, as judgment for their sin, and in fulfillment of promises to His chosen seed. All sin and idolatry has the death penalty over it from God’s perspective; it is only His mercy and grace that has stayed his hand from final judgment on rebellious man as a race. But one has to have a true understanding of the horrendous cosmic consequences of sin to understand God’s judgments.

If ad hoc morality and ethics are so great an explanation, how do you explain the horrific things that happen when people/nations reject God and His moral precepts: Hitler, Stalin, slave holders, Hollywood, American pop culture, ad nauseam. The fact that essential moral values are universal, with localized variants, only emphasizes the biblical teaching that God created all people in His divine image, and that even marred by the terrible effects of sin and the Fall, it still manifests itself in across the globe. Have you ever read Romans 2. St. Paul deals with this subject rather pointedly.

Even ancient texts from diverse cultures: Egypt, the Vedas, Chinese Confucianism, Hammurabi, etc. all have versions or portions of the Law of Moses. Even YOU stated, “All societies have certain rules they developed pretty much THE SAME INDEPENDENT of each other.” And so, independent law systems corroborate biblical truth, rather than opposing it. The first table is not evident in every instance in the perfection given at Sinai, but the second table is universal, although variable and incomplete – as you also noted. The Law is not truly the Law unless accompanied by the truth about its Giver. This key contextual element is missing in all other systems.

No one is claiming that all law systems take the Sinai form, but that the innate impulses to implement it are definitely universal. All societies have some kind of rules or customs regarding murder, lying, theft or adultery, regardless of the occasional exception. It’s organic, genetic and irreversible. It’s the Law, and it was pure, and divinely given. Try killing, seducing someone’s wife, stealing or giving false witness in court and see how non-absolute and situational it is. If those things are neutral or even good in your estimation, why not go do them. ‘Bet ya won’t – or I hope you don’t.

So your statement that an objective standard is impossible is itself impossible – absurd in fact. God’s Law has always been and always will be. If not, we’re in big time mega-trouble! Actually we, as a culture are already reeling from our sinful disobedience. But such is the nature of darkness. Only the Light of Christ can open blinded eyes and hardened hearts. Kyrie eleison!!

"God does not change from minute to minute; He is unchangeable and immutable."

You know, I've heard that quite often, but the Bible disagrees. I'll leave it to you to find the verses that says that God changed his mind several times. Now, if you are going to hold that the Bible doesn't say what the words in it mean, that's obviously your choice. Just don't expect to be taken seriously by the rest of us.

"The idea that God condoned murder is unwarranted. He did command the Israelites to rid the Promised Land of vile, immoral and corrupt nations, as judgment for their sin, and in fulfillment of promises to His chosen seed."

This is known today as "ethnic cleansing," Nikos. And it illustrates my point precisely. In a system of objective morality, that sort of thing would be condemned universally. In your world, it's OK because God said so. I urge you to read Numbers 31 and tell the world that it was a warrantned action. You know, the genocide, the killing of all non-virgin females and the distribution of the virgins between the soldiers and priests... these are all seen as "good under the situation" by your definition. And so often, I hear your sort condemning "situational ethics." Give us a break!

"Even YOU stated, “All societies have certain rules they developed pretty much THE SAME INDEPENDENT of each other.” And so, independent law systems corroborate biblical truth, rather than opposing it."

We've been over this before, Nikos, and I'm getting a little tired of it. How do you suppose the Chinese or even Incan civilizations figured out these rules if they didn't have God talking to them? According to the Bible, they only talked to dead idols. Yet the Chinese knew of the "Golden Rule" five centuries before Jesus "revealed" it to some Jews in Palestine.

"All societies have some kind of rules or customs regarding murder, lying, theft or adultery, regardless of the occasional exception. It’s organic, genetic and irreversible."

Exactly. It's natural and there was no need to have it "revealed." I see we agree on this.

"So your statement that an objective standard is impossible is itself impossible"

I did not say that. Either you are lying or unable to understand what I said. Your post certainly appeared to support my contention, though, so I thank you for that.

I don't have much time now, but suffice it to say, the universality of the Law is NOT, as I stated plainly, because God said it at Sinai, but because all people are made in the image and likeness of God in terms of their inner nature, and, which is then manifested in their interpersonal and social relationships.

Your statement that I was lying was entirely unwarranted! Be careful. Until you establish that I had merely made a mistake in reading of yoour piece, you should not jump to judgment. You said, and I quote: "The whole idea of an objective system of morality is impossible." So, if I still understand the English language, you did in fact say it. Now, if I am misunderstanding your intent in saying it, I will certainly receive your corrective explanations. But your slide into adhominem attack is unbecoming.

Well, I must leave, but will take up the thread later. Have a great day.

Nikos says:

"Until you establish that I had merely made a mistake in reading of your piece, you should not jump to judgment. You said, and I quote: 'The whole idea of an objective system of morality is impossible.' "

And I get my chops busted for "taking things out of context"! How pathetic is this? But as the saying goes, "Fundamentalism means never having to say 'I was wrong.' "

Also, I seem to recall that I said that you were either lying or had not understood what I said. Let's see... I'll just look up at my earlier post. Yep, there it is! In context, I said that I thought there were two possibilities. So that makes twice in this very thread that you have chosen to respond without regard to the intent I plainly stated. I would expect a moral person to express contrition for such lapses, but since Nikos is never wrong, I'm not going to hold my breath.

"Well, I must leave, but will take up the thread later."

I'll bet you'll have enormous fun with that when you do.

So, if anyone thinks their own ethnic tradition has had its own ethical base, prior to and divorced from the Christian God's inner spark, they are just sadly misled. In fact, any and all good judgement and conscience they have reinforced through their own teachings and wisdom, are not actually their own wisdom, but a pale reflection of an alien deity they had never heard of? Any "proof" given for independent ethical constructs are automatically subsumed into the catch-all Christian batch of concepts. "God made them in his image, even if they were not aware of his existence, so this was the best they could do in that culture and time, albeit imperfectly. Ditto even for atheists who deny his existence; they still got that spark of god in them, so any good they think or do is entirely owing to this little bit of god they still have."

Is this a rough approximation of your taut little argument, Nikos? Can it be such an argument is a wee tautological, even? It boils down to "Christian God = Good; anything not attributed to the benvolence of the Christian God is either a) good only as it reflects Christian morals and rules; or b) entirely evil because it does not."

This is exactly the kind of Absolutism that leads to ethnic cleansing, as John intimated.

The question, to me, is not "can there be morality without God," but rather, "without God, what right do we have to call it morality?" Every culture has historically practiced and approved of behavior which our culture condemns, yet those cultures thought those very actions we despise were required by morality. The Aztecs thought that if the priest didn't rip the living heart out of his victim every morning, the sun wouldn't rise. Perhaps Jophn might consider this an ethical improvement over Christianity, but I doubt that even most atheists would agree if he did. It was not long ago that Hindus were persuaded to stop the practice of "suttee," which required a widow to cast herself on the burning pyre of her dead husband. Most medieval cultures, whatever their religion, thought that torturing prisoners and persecuting heretics were good things. Genghis Khan came to cities flourishing with commerce, art, and peace, and left behind him a smoking ruin filled with corpses, yet he thought himself superior to other men; and so did his followers if they wanted to live. The horrors of Communism are too recent to need repeating, yet those who committed them were convinced that the morality of their system, the class struggle, both required and justified them. And slavery was universal in the ancient pagan world. But I trust I've made my point. Without an authority transcending mere human culture, who can say these actions, and centuries more of the same, were moral evils? We are left with an unresolvable "yes it is, no it isn't" argument, and the only possible resolution is at gunpoint.
There's another aspect to the problem as well, which is that even if most cultures share a common set of moral principles, not one is capable of obeying them perfectly. Only Jesus Christ can change the human heart so that His people can create orphanages, hospitals, leprosariums, universities, and snatch human babies from the pools where pagan Romans had tossed them to drown. Yes, people do evil things in the name of Christ; but if that makes Christianity false, why shouldn't they do them? The only reason to blame professing Christians for acting contrary to Christ's teaching is that 1) those teachings are objectively good and ought to be followed by everyone, or 2) everyone ought to follow the teaching they profess to believe. Both of these positions are assertions of the objestive morality which John says is impossible. So what's it to be? God's unchangeable righteousness, for which we are designed and in which are pleasures forevermore, or the whims of every individual or culture, none of which are any more valid than any others, even those of any deranged psychopath who manages to get himself in charge of a country? Neither morality nor truth can be determined by majority vote. Even Hamas, bloodthirsty terrorists though they are, managed to win an election. Does that make them right in murdering innocent Israelis? If there's no revelation from God, why not? Their culture says it's right. By what principle, John, can you say they're wrong (if indeed you do say it)?

"The Aztecs thought that if the priest didn't rip the living heart out of his victim every morning, the sun wouldn't rise. Perhaps John might consider this an ethical improvement over Christianity, but I doubt that even most atheists would agree if he did."

I only said that every culture develops its own set of rules independently, that allow those cultures to work... I didn't say that they were all "good." In the case of such superstitions as those mentioned above, social evolution would have run its course toward a more gentle condition, one would hope.

"Without an authority transcending mere human culture, who can say these actions, and centuries more of the same, were moral evils? We are left with an unresolvable "yes it is, no it isn't" argument, and the only possible resolution is at gunpoint."

I disagree. Once can indeed use reason and logic to establish the efficacy of any rule, once you agree on an overall goal. If we agree that all in a society should work to maximize human happiness, for instance, then we shouldn't have any need to resort to violence. The problem I see is, not everyone thinks that all humans should be allowed to be happy. My mind boggles at this realization, but it's sadly the truth.

"There's another aspect to the problem as well, which is that even if most cultures share a common set of moral principles, not one is capable of obeying them perfectly."

There's that recurring obsession with the Platonic Ideal again. In a real world, there will always be conflicts and pain. This is what the Buddhists teach, and I tend to agree. We live in a world of paradoxes. Our best course is to handle them as best we can manage with the tools we have -- our minds and our ability to accept compromise.

"Even Hamas, bloodthirsty terrorists though they are, managed to win an election. Does that make them right in murdering innocent Israelis? If there's no revelation from God, why not? Their culture says it's right. By what principle, John, can you say they're wrong (if indeed you do say it)?"

Because I think it's pretty obvious that killing any person is not something you could reasonably expect to lead to an increase in the happiness of the community.

Aristotle's eudamonia aside, are we sure what most people define as "happiness" is really a) feasible for everyone, b) attainable in a world where being happy often means being better off than one's relative comparison group, and/or c) desirable, since "happy" may also imply "unaware of sorrow", thus obstinately blind to suffering of others or even the depth of one's own often conflicted human condition?

Perhaps morals are fungible; ethics are negotiated; and the conscience must somehow be employed to find balance in a life of compromise. One pays the price in the human system of laws if one is caught, of course, violating societal mores; the dirctives attributed to dieties are supposed to be above human law, but usually are in the long term equally rife with counterexamples and exceptions.

"Aristotle's eudamonia aside, are we sure what most people define as "happiness" is really a) feasible for everyone, b) attainable in a world where being happy often means being better off than one's relative comparison group, and/or c) desirable, since "happy" may also imply "unaware of sorrow", thus obstinately blind to suffering of others or even the depth of one's own often conflicted human condition?"

Not at all certain on any of those counts -- yet I think it provides a decent starting point, perhaps as a "vision statement." Naturally, it's not reasonable to expect that everyone can be made "happy" at the same time or all the time. Those are "ideals" that are obviously impossible.

But if one could hope to measure overall happiness of a society, surely creating an environment that maximizes that measure would be a goal everyone would be willing to cooperate on.