God and morality

[Alexis Jacobi]

Says Père Garrigou-Lagrange:

“Although the term naturalism is frequently used with the same signification as rationalism, it rather designates the foundation of rationalism. For naturalism is properly the negation of the possibility of the elevation of our nature to the supernatural order, and rationalism is the application of this doctrine to human reason as liberalism is its application to human liberty.

“Hence rationalism has its proximate foundation in naturalism, just as on the other hand, the virtue of faith is founded in grace. If naturalism signifies not merely the denial of the possibility of knowing the order of supernatural truth, but the denial of the very existence of that order, then it has its foundation in pantheism.

“In order that no truth should be above the powers of our rational nature, our nature must be identified with the divine nature.”

Another theologian commented:

Men imbued with the naturalistic attitude will insist that the highest social organization is the individual state or the whole group of states tending to coalesce into the World-State.They will aim at eliminating every vestige of the supernatural life from social organization. For those who are aware of the importance for the world of respect for the rights of God and who understand the meaning of the Redemption, naturalism is the forerunner of decay and death.

[phyllo]

I'm not a dualist.

I don't think a soul can exist without a body or a body exist without a soul. It's one unified package. So there is nothing to "transcend".

Morality is part of the natural order, not separate or contrary to it. That's demonstrated by the fact that animals have morals.
Instinct, desire and selfishness are limiting. Morality shows how to exceed those limits. You desire a marshmallow but by waiting, you can get more than one.

I understand. You therefore locate yourself within a “naturalistic” perspective. Why bother even to define “soul”? You really only mean brain or mind, right?

"Soul" is an abstraction as is "mind".

They are ways to encapsulate behaviors and characteristics without referring to a physical object.

[Immanuel Can]

See, if we get clear here it is not hard to see that IC and I, because of metaphysical or spiritual commitments (recognitions), cannot accept the naturalistic view of life.

That's not my reason for rejecting Naturalism. I reject Naturalism because it's obviously reductional, inadequate to describe the phenomena we experience in life -- including the intelligence, rationality and personhood involved in the present discussion.

And so do you, though you don't seem to realize you do.

[phyllo]

Men imbued with the naturalistic attitude will insist that the highest social organization is the individual state or the whole group of states tending to coalesce into the World-State.They will aim at eliminating every vestige of the supernatural life from social organization. For those who are aware of the importance for the world of respect for the rights of God and who understand the meaning of the Redemption, naturalism is the forerunner of decay and death.

How can there be a "supernatural life" in a social organization? If 'it' was there, than it would be natural.

What are "the rights of God"?

What is "the meaning of the Redemption"?

[Alexis Jacobi]

"

Soul" is an abstraction as is "mind".

Then I assume the term “God” has no meaning, except as a tremendous abstraction?

It is curious then how your view, as in the paragraphs above, does become pantheistic.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That's not my reason for rejecting Naturalism. I reject Naturalism because it's obviously reductional, inadequate to describe the phenomena we experience in life -- including the intelligence, rationality and personhood involved in the present discussion.

And so do you, though you don't seem to realize you do.

I do not so much ‘reject’ naturalism, rather I try to explain and clarify its limitations. I see the concept as common to our age and to many people — like Phyllo, like Novak, like Promethean, et cetera.

I do not, however, disagree that humans have very special traits and characteristics. Put positively, they have incomparable characteristics. But I am less doctrinaire when compared to you. I grasp your doctrines however. And I can I think explain them to those unconvinced better than you. My conversion rate is at 78% while yours is at 3-4%.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What are "the rights of God"?

Well, if man has rights. Say ‘natural rights’, would not God (the originator, the creator) have rights as well?

Why would you define God as having no rights over his creations?

Within a strict theology, God certainly is understood to have rights. Though the very notion seems to us strangely absurd.

[Alexis Jacobi]

What is "the meaning of the Redemption"?

Excellent question. As I say, if you follow the “Vishnu” model — a divinity that generously will always send an emissary into the “world” of entanglement — you will also accept entanglement as a concept. But whatever could that mean?

Christianity liberates man from “the here-below” (the fallen world) for life in a world beyond constructed, one might say, of imperishable, divine substance. Or do I have it wrong?

Redemption has many connotations, no?

[phyllo]

Then I assume the term “God” has no meaning, except as a tremendous abstraction?

'God' is an abstraction involving a huge range of ideas.

Obviously 'God' is the 'creator'. But then the details multiply.

How many 'gods' do we get? There appears to be no limit since it's not in the limited physical realm.

It is curious then how your view, as in the paragraphs above, does become pantheistic.

I don't know why one would think of 'pantheism' unless one is a theist and sees that as the only model.

[Alexis Jacobi]

[I don't know why one would think of 'pantheism' unless one is a theist and sees that as the only model.

Because there is no division between soul and body, as you said. If there is ‘divinity’ it is similarly inherent. Thus pantheistic.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Christ liberates man from “the here-below” (the fallen world) for life in a world beyond, constructed one might say of imperishable, divine substance. Or do I have it wrong?

Is this how you see it, IC?

[phyllo]

What are "the rights of God"?

Well, if man has rights. Say ‘natural rights’, would not God (the originator, the creator) have rights as well?

Why would you define God as having no rights over his creations?

Within a strict theology, God certainly is understood to have rights. Though the very notion seems to us strangely absurd.

Notice the word "natural".

But if God is supernatural, what are the 'natural rights' of God or the 'supernatural rights' of God.

What does it even mean if God is above it all?

Humans want and need rights. Does God need any of it?

[phyllo]

[I don't know why one would think of 'pantheism' unless one is a theist and sees that as the only model.

Because there is no division between soul and body, as you said. If there is ‘divinity’ it is similarly inherent. Thus pantheistic.

Neither divine nor non-divine.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But if God is supernatural, what are the 'natural rights' of God or the 'supernatural rights' of God.

What does it even mean if God is above it all?

Again, it completely depends on if one accept, or does not accept, that such God exists or does not exist.

And if God exists and created the world in which we exist, then it follows naturally that such a God has rights. But obvious too is that man can do what he pleases, right?

For “God to be above it all” is a turn of phrase, no?

To say “God is the creator of all” orients the phrasing a bit differently.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Neither divine nor non-divine.

Then mere mechanics. Just events. Just interactions of material stuff. No reason, no explanation. To arrive at truth involves stripping away any other conceptual notions.

What’s the name of the ship you sail on, brother?