God and morality

[Alexis Jacobi]

You think there is a longing to believe.

And why would that be?

Well first I think we have to start from a position of recognizing that at some points of history, maybe most of them, belief was not a choice. It was a question of ‘worldview’ or metaphysics at the most basic psychic and psychological level. Just a few hundred years ago, in Europe, the View that was “the true description of reality” was that of The Great Chain of Being.

The Great Chain of Being, or Scala Naturae, was for nearly two thousand years the West's explanation of how everything hangs together. It imagined all of existence as a single ladder, forged by God and without a missing rung, ascending from the most meager matter to pure divinity.

At its base lies nothingness and the inanimate, stone and water and earth, which exists but does not live. Just above it comes the world of plants, which possess life and growth yet feel nothing. Animals rise a step higher, for they not only live but move and sense and desire, though they lack reason. Then comes man, the hinge of the entire structure. Humanity stands in the middle, one foot in the dirt and one in heaven, animal in its body and appetite, angelic in its reason and immortal soul. Above man stretch the orders of angels, beings of pure intellect and spirit without bodily weight, themselves ranked from the lowliest guardians to the burning Seraphim who stand nearest the throne. And at the summit, beyond and yet sustaining the whole chain, is God, perfect, infinite and uncreated.

Three principles held the chain together. The first was fullness: a perfect Creator must have created every possible kind of being, for his abundance would leave no potential form unmade. The second was continuity: nature does not make leaps, and so each rung blurs into the next, the most complex mineral barely different from the simplest plant, the highest ape brushing the lowest man. The third was hierarchy: that which has more spirit rightfully governs that which has less.

Born in the thought of Plato and Aristotle and given Christian form by Plotinus, Pseudo-Dionysius and Aquinas, this vision ordered more than nature. It justified the world of men. If God rules the angels and angels rule men and men rule beasts, then by the same necessity the king rules the lord and the lord the peasant. To disobey one's earthly superior was therefore not merely political revolt but a cosmic rupture, a breaking of the very chain of creation. It held until the modern world unmade it, when science revealed extinctions and gaps and when Darwin replaced the ladder with a branching tree.

[Greatest I am]

The God of the Bible puts the good of the few above the good of the many.

Gnostic Christians put a big question mark on such.

You?

[Alexis Jacobi]

You think there is a longing to believe.

And why would that be?

It is pretty obvious, is it not, that *for us* (those pressed out into postmodernity) that certainly we do not have any unifying, comprehendible explanatory picture. This is the basic fact of modernity, isn’t it? What exists are shadows, half- and quarter-pictures, or Full Pictures which people make Herculean efforts to fit themselves into — like a post-Christian who ‘becomes a Buddhist’, or perhaps a Hari Krishna, or maybe an enthusiast of various varieties. And then there are numerous obsessions that take the place of a genuine metaphysical *seat*, right? However, they often seem flimsy, don’t they? Like not very convincing interior decoration.

[Immanuel Can]

Do you think it's possible that neither of those scenarios is the case?

Assuming, as both sides do, that God exists and that He does communicate in some form, what's your alternate scenario?

The alternative scenario would be that God does not speak through or to anyone at all. Essentially, "neither of the above".

Well, that's some form of Atheism or Deism. And it assumes either there's no God, or He does exist but He doesn't communicate. But both Catholics and Protestants insist that He does exist and communicate, so the debate between them does not include those options. If either believed in them, they would be Atheists or Deists, not Catholics or Protestants.

So then, to answer your question, Atheism and Deism are theoretically possible but, I would point out, not sufficiently plausible, and not at all relevant to the debates of the Reformation.

[Gary Childress]

Assuming, as both sides do, that God exists and that He does communicate in some form, what's your alternate scenario?

The alternative scenario would be that God does not speak through or to anyone at all. Essentially, "neither of the above".

Well, that's some form of Atheism or Deism. And it assumes either there's no God, or He does exist but He doesn't communicate. But both Catholics and Protestants insist that He does exist and communicate, so the debate between them does not include those options. If either believed in them, they would be Atheists or Deists, not Catholics or Protestants.

So then, to answer your question, Atheism and Deism are theoretically possible but, I would point out, not sufficiently plausible, and not at all relevant to the debates of the Reformation.

Why is it not "sufficiently" plausible that God does not speak through or to anyone at all?

[Immanuel Can]

The alternative scenario would be that God does not speak through or to anyone at all. Essentially, "neither of the above".

Well, that's some form of Atheism or Deism. And it assumes either there's no God, or He does exist but He doesn't communicate. But both Catholics and Protestants insist that He does exist and communicate, so the debate between them does not include those options. If either believed in them, they would be Atheists or Deists, not Catholics or Protestants.

So then, to answer your question, Atheism and Deism are theoretically possible but, I would point out, not sufficiently plausible, and not at all relevant to the debates of the Reformation.

Why is it not "sufficiently" plausible that God does not speak through or to anyone at all?

Both Deism and Atheism are irrational. They're possible, in extremis, but highly unlikely, given the evidence. Atheism is utterly non-evidentiary, and Deism is just irrelevant, because it posits the existence of God, but not his relevance to us.

In any case, neither is involved in the controversy of the Reformation, which is what we're presently discussing.

[phyllo]

The alternative scenario would be that God does not speak through or to anyone at all. Essentially, "neither of the above".

Well, that's some form of Atheism or Deism. And it assumes either there's no God, or He does exist but He doesn't communicate. But both Catholics and Protestants insist that He does exist and communicate, so the debate between them does not include those options. If either believed in them, they would be Atheists or Deists, not Catholics or Protestants.

So then, to answer your question, Atheism and Deism are theoretically possible but, I would point out, not sufficiently plausible, and not at all relevant to the debates of the Reformation.

Why is it not "sufficiently" plausible that God does not speak through or to anyone at all?

I don't think Mr Can gets the option that both Catholics and Protestants believe that a God exists and communicates but there is no God and no communication from God.

[phyllo]

You think there is a longing to believe.

And why would that be?

It is pretty obvious, is it not, that *for us* (those pressed out into postmodernity) that certainly we do not have any unifying, comprehendible explanatory picture. This is the basic fact of modernity, isn’t it? What exists are shadows, half- and quarter-pictures, or Full Pictures which people make Herculean efforts to fit themselves into — like a post-Christian who ‘becomes a Buddhist’, or perhaps a Hari Krishna, or maybe an enthusiast of various varieties. And then there are numerous obsessions that take the place of a genuine metaphysical *seat*, right? However, they often seem flimsy, don’t they? Like not very convincing interior decoration.

If there is a longing, it's a longing to know, not a longing to believe.

[popeye1945]

Knowing, or believing you know, kills the mystery, allowing one to be secure in one's own delusions. That is why metaphysics is still relevant.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think Mr Can gets the option that both Catholics and Protestants believe that a God exists and communicates but there is no God and no communication from God.

Let's see if I can "get it."

What is your evidence for the claim that there is no God and no communication from God?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Knowing, or believing you know, kills the mystery, allowing one to be secure in one's own delusions. That is why metaphysics is still relevant.

Oh great, thanks!

[Gary Childress]

Well, that's some form of Atheism or Deism. And it assumes either there's no God, or He does exist but He doesn't communicate. But both Catholics and Protestants insist that He does exist and communicate, so the debate between them does not include those options. If either believed in them, they would be Atheists or Deists, not Catholics or Protestants.

So then, to answer your question, Atheism and Deism are theoretically possible but, I would point out, not sufficiently plausible, and not at all relevant to the debates of the Reformation.

Why is it not "sufficiently" plausible that God does not speak through or to anyone at all?

Both Deism and Atheism are irrational. They're possible, in extremis, but highly unlikely, given the evidence. Atheism is utterly non-evidentiary, and Deism is just irrelevant, because it posits the existence of God, but not his relevance to us.

In any case, neither is involved in the controversy of the Reformation, which is what we're presently discussing.

So it is a "fact" that deism and atheism are "irrational" and "highly unlikely" given the "evidence". Is that correct? God speaks to people, either only to the clergy or also to the laity. But it is "evident" that God speaks.

[Alexis Jacobi]

If there is a longing, it's a longing to know, not a longing to believe.

I used ‘believe’ in the sense not only of merely having a hunch, or a hope, that there is something there with which one is related and that responds to one, nor merely a sort of mental habit in which one acts as if there is all of that, but also of knowledge.

[Gary Childress]

Well, that's some form of Atheism or Deism. And it assumes either there's no God, or He does exist but He doesn't communicate. But both Catholics and Protestants insist that He does exist and communicate, so the debate between them does not include those options. If either believed in them, they would be Atheists or Deists, not Catholics or Protestants.

So then, to answer your question, Atheism and Deism are theoretically possible but, I would point out, not sufficiently plausible, and not at all relevant to the debates of the Reformation.

Why is it not "sufficiently" plausible that God does not speak through or to anyone at all?

I don't think Mr Can gets the option that both Catholics and Protestants believe that a God exists and communicates but there is no God and no communication from God.

Well, I don't know if there is no God or no communication from God. Unfortunately, I'm not as enlightened about God as some seem to be.

[Immanuel Can]

Why is it not "sufficiently" plausible that God does not speak through or to anyone at all?

Both Deism and Atheism are irrational. They're possible, in extremis, but highly unlikely, given the evidence. Atheism is utterly non-evidentiary, and Deism is just irrelevant, because it posits the existence of God, but not his relevance to us.

In any case, neither is involved in the controversy of the Reformation, which is what we're presently discussing.

So it is a "fact" that deism and atheism are "irrational" and "highly unlikely" given the "evidence". Is that correct?

That much is pretty obvious. As you will see, popeye cannot produce evidence for his claim, so it is, as I said, non-evidentiary. And, of course, Deism remains irrelevant: if there were a God but He had no form of self-revelation, and no intention for us, and did not have any connection to His creation after having created it, then of what value is it to know He exists? It would be unimportant, either way.

God speaks to people, either only to the clergy or also to the laity. But it is "evident" that God speaks.

I think so. But that is a determination each person must make for himself, based on the available evidence. Most people who don't want to think God speaks simply refuse to look at the evidence, and make their conclusion without it.