Is God necessary for morality?

[Belinda]

Xianity can flourish as a life-enhancing moral philosophy in this world where we have now to contend with environmental disaster. But only if Xianity adapts to situations and Jesus Christ is a moveable icon.

Personally I find the idea that someone else can pay for my wickedness morally bankrupt, but I can see why some people would find that appealing. Jesus Christ has always been a moveable icon. It's just like Xenophanes said:

“The Ethiops say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
While the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle; and each they would shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of their own.”

Same with JC. To Ethiopian christians, Jesus is "flat-nosed and black". God (almost certainly) did not create us 'in his image', it is people who wish to believe who create their god in their image. Bear in mind that the Jesus Mr Can worships is the same idol of the KKK.

Fundamentalism such as Immanuel Can endorses does not further the duration of Xianity.

Mr Can's particular brand of christianity will die when he does. While that will be a loss to his loved ones, christianity will survive.

The doctrine of the Atonement , when adapted to situation ethics, means men are not altogether bad as a species, and the good men do demonstrates this. When I claim Xianity can flourish in this era of environmental disaster I include adaptation of traditional doctrines if they can be reinterpeted for the purpose of situation ethics. This is how we interpret poetry, by interpretation and reinterpretation. Religion must be art , not science or politics.

[uwot]

Too late!

I duped myself into deism a while back.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Crom, the little I know about him, is a kinda 'fuck off and leave me alone' sort of god, which presumably is why he moulded you in that image. Who could object to that? As far as I understand, Crom has no plans to shish kebab my goolies, unlike some supreme beings I could mention. If he doesn't really care what we get up to, how is he the arbiter of objective morality?

[Skepdick]

Personally I find the idea that someone else can pay for my wickedness morally bankrupt.

And yet, we live in an inter-connected world where every course of action ultimately reduces to a principal-agent problem - a moral hazard of some sort. Your actions are other people's consequences.

So the implication of your claim is that if you can't account for all of the negative externalities of your behaviour, then you are morally bankrupt. Or morally hazardous anyway.

And that's a lens no different than Romans 3:10.

[uwot]

The doctrine of the Atonement , when adapted to situation ethics, means men are not altogether bad as a species, and the good men do demonstrates this.

I think the thing I dislike most about christianity is the need for atonement, precisely because all people are born in sin. In other words, men are altogether bad as a species and according to christianity are under no obligation to do any practical good; it is enough simply to accept Jesus Christ as your saviour.

When I claim Xianity can flourish in this era of environmental disaster I include adaptation of traditional doctrines if they can be reinterpeted for the purpose of situation ethics. This is how we interpret poetry, by interpretation and reinterpretation. Religion must be art , not science or politics.

It's a nice idea that there is an epitome of human loveliness that we should all strive to emulate, but Jesus, in my view, comes with too much baggage.

[henry quirk]

Too late!

I duped myself into deism a while back.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Crom, the little I know about him, is a kinda 'fuck off and leave me alone' sort of god, which presumably is why he moulded you in that image. Who could object to that? As far as I understand, Crom has no plans to shish kebab my goolies, unlike some supreme beings I could mention. If he doesn't really care what we get up to, how is he the arbiter of objective morality?

Here's what you won't like...

Yeah, my god is hands off, but he left us with, or installed in each of us, a compass that always points true north. As free wills, we can choose to ignore true north, but that don't mean true north ain't real (it just means we can be real friggin' stupid).

So: does Crom arbitrate? I think so, through us.

Bein' hands off only means bein' hands off, it doesn't mean don't give a shit.

[uwot]

Here's what you won't like...

What I dislike about the christian god is that he created us sinful, either that or you have to buy the Adam and Eve bullshit. Better yet, anyone who doesn't believe we are born sinful is going to be tortured forever, because ultimately that is what good is. How much of a bastard is Crom? How badly will he whup my arse for not believing in him?

[henry quirk]

How much of a bastard is Crom?

I'd like to believe he's a mean motherfucker, but: I don't know.


How badly will he whup my arse for not believing in him?

I'd like to believe he set shit up so each gets what he deserves in the here and now, but: I don't know.

My reason and reasoning only take me so far.

That each has an infallible compass (conscience, moral sense, etc.) seems obvious, meaning we're expected to abide.

That each is a free will and can choose to go south seems obvious, meaning we're not programmed to abide.

That each, in his own way, is capable of self-defending here and now, is capable of seekin' redress here and now, seems obvious, meaning no man ought to be waitin' to balance the scales (and if scales can be balanced today what does a person need with hell?).

This is what I've sussed out...but I could be wrong.

[uwot]

I don't know.

The most important words in English. There's a whole bunch of shit that you and I believe passionately, and will never agree on, but at least we can argue for ourselves and not go bleating for daddy.

[henry quirk]

I don't know.

The most important words in English. There's a whole bunch of shit that you and I believe passionately, and will never agree on, but at least we can argue for ourselves and not go bleating for daddy.

As it was intended...

He dwells on a great mountain. What use to call on him? Little he cares if men live or die. Better to be silent than to call his attention to you; he will send you dooms, not fortune! He is grim and loveless, but at birth he breathes power to strive and slay into a man's soul. What else shall men ask of the gods?

[Sculptor]

Here's what you won't like...

What I dislike about the christian god is that he created us sinful, either that or you have to buy the Adam and Eve bullshit. Better yet, anyone who doesn't believe we are born sinful is going to be tortured forever, because ultimately that is what good is. How much of a bastard is Crom? How badly will he whup my arse for not believing in him?

He created us ill and commands us to be good.
Yet being omniscient has known full well since the dawn of time those of us who shall die sinners and those who shall die saints, and he has created each one of us with that knowledge in his head.

[uwot]

He created us ill and commands us to be good.

Yeah; he really is a bit of a shit god.

Yet being omniscient has known full well since the dawn of time those of us who shall die sinners and those who shall die saints, and he has created each one of us with that knowledge in his head.

Time waster too. Frankly give any four year old ten lego bricks and thirty seconds and they will create a better god.

[Sculptor]

He created us ill and commands us to be good.

Yeah; he really is a bit of a shit god.

Yet being omniscient has known full well since the dawn of time those of us who shall die sinners and those who shall die saints, and he has created each one of us with that knowledge in his head.

Time waster too. Frankly give any four year old ten lego bricks and thirty seconds and they will create a better god.

Agreed.

[Immanuel Can]

I would have thought that the concept of a good God who was the creator of the universe would be applicable to both Catholic and non-Catholic.

It is. But that's not what you were talking about. You were saying that all Christians are indebted to the Aristotelian tradition.
They're not.

Actually, they are.

Nope.

Nonetheless, I am interested in you claim that you can prove the existence of God with mathematics, could you provide me with an example of the mathematics?

Sure.

Consider the infinite regress argument.

Well, it's not "hot." It's stone cold, actually, because it's been settled. Even people who nowadays lean to the Kantian know that the CI had three distinct forms, and nobody has yet been able to propose exactly how to reconcile them. So it's not even really debated anymore.
My claim that Kant wrote three different CI's? Sure. But you should know that yourself, if you know Kant at all.

https://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class ... orical.htm

Look under "formulas not equivalent," in particular.

As I said before, these types of arguments are never settled to the satisfaction of everyone, there will be philosophers who say Kant's formulations are consistent.

Nope. I could give you dozens of such sites, and point you to all kinds of books. Or just look at the plain evidence of the CI's themselves. It's obvious they're not at all the same.

The Euthyphro Dilemma has nothing to do with Plato's ethics.

It sure does.

But again, if you're not interested in looking at the evidence, there's no more I can tell you.

[Ginkgo]

I would have thought that the concept of a good God who was the creator of the universe would be applicable to both Catholic and non-Catholic.

It is. But that's not what you were talking about. You were saying that all Christians are indebted to the Aristotelian tradition.
They're not.

Actually, they are.

Nope.

Nonetheless, I am interested in you claim that you can prove the existence of God with mathematics, could you provide me with an example of the mathematics?

Sure.

Consider the infinite regress argument.

Well, it's not "hot." It's stone cold, actually, because it's been settled. Even people who nowadays lean to the Kantian know that the CI had three distinct forms, and nobody has yet been able to propose exactly how to reconcile them. So it's not even really debated anymore.
My claim that Kant wrote three different CI's? Sure. But you should know that yourself, if you know Kant at all.

https://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class ... orical.htm

Look under "formulas not equivalent," in particular.

As I said before, these types of arguments are never settled to the satisfaction of everyone, there will be philosophers who say Kant's formulations are consistent.

Nope. I could give you dozens of such sites, and point you to all kinds of books. Or just look at the plain evidence of the CI's themselves. It's obvious they're not at all the same.

The Euthyphro Dilemma has nothing to do with Plato's ethics.

It sure does.

But again, if you're not interested in looking at the evidence, there's no more I can tell you.

I would have thought the Cosmological argument was applicable to all Christian denominations. It is an argument that you embrace, as well as Christians interested in proving the existence of God. As I said before, Aristotle was the first philosopher to formulate a Cosmological argument. That is the Christian link to Aristotle.

So, how does an infinite regress prove the existence of God? As far as I know an infinite regress is a fallacy. It is like an elephant holding up the world while standing on top of a giant turtle. We then ask what is holding up the giant turtle? The answer is, of course, another giant turtle. If we ask what is holding up that turtle the answer becomes another giant turtle. It is turtles all they way down and so on ad infinitum. The fallacy occurs when we rely on itself for its own explanation.

I did read the Euthyphro Dilemma again for the umpteenth time. As I said before, the argument has nothing to do with Plato's ethics. His ethics are contained within the Republic, and that is a fact. If you don't believe me read the Republic.

[Belinda]

The doctrine of the Atonement , when adapted to situation ethics, means men are not altogether bad as a species, and the good men do demonstrates this.

I think the thing I dislike most about christianity is the need for atonement, precisely because all people are born in sin. In other words, men are altogether bad as a species and according to christianity are under no obligation to do any practical good; it is enough simply to accept Jesus Christ as your saviour.

When I claim Xianity can flourish in this era of environmental disaster I include adaptation of traditional doctrines if they can be reinterpeted for the purpose of situation ethics. This is how we interpret poetry, by interpretation and reinterpretation. Religion must be art , not science or politics.

It's a nice idea that there is an epitome of human loveliness that we should all strive to emulate, but Jesus, in my view, comes with too much baggage.

I agree original sin is an unlikeable doctrine. It would be a hard nut to crack for any would be reformer.Original sin would have to be discarded along with other measures of psychological social control.

The baggage Jesus comes with can be disappeared when people understand the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith are two different people. My sons and their friends, and my grandchildren, are not interested in either of them so clean slates and I guess it would not be hard to rehabilitate the Jesus of history according to the best historians. I doubt if Jesus will ever be classed as a major thinker, but he is an example of how a human being may become the icon for an ideology. Fortunately the teaching of Jesus shows that he is a good icon and he follows the Judaic prophets who are among most advanced thinkers of that age along with Socrates and Confucius.