if...

I assume by your very short reply that you're referring to my statement not being self-evident "If God..." but the question I'm asking is not whether God exists or created anything, it's a thought experiment about if God existed how should man behave? Can you approach it from that angle and share your thoughts?

let me ask you something ..... why do you believe we were "given" something ..... the duality you refer to in human beings is the struggle between YOUR nature as a perfect being/soul and your human nature that predominantly derives from generations of mind activity and societal rituals which goes against nature .

we were not given this .... we developed mental intelligence , and eventually this mental intelligence started to develop its own identity and eventually assumed control of the "bus" if you will , to the point where society by the almost absolute majority exists by mans law ... the law the ego ... the law of taking first always .... the law of separation and categorization .....

how should man behave ? ..... his ego , his false sense of self must die ..... and only then will you realize that it isn't obedience that god is looking for , the church wants obedience ...... god is simply to be found internally so you cease to operate from mental intelligence , but a much larger one that comes from a place which we cannot describe in any more competent manner than using the very finite and limited concept of ....god ..... the first step in understanding god is that you cannot understand something that does not exist in time or space ..... when you find that within ... you won't ask

OK, then. God's insistence on absolute obedience, even to demanding that Abraham kill his son, shows that God is not worthy of being obeyed. God's moral standing is incoherent.

Satanism appears a reasonable option.

This is really a question for a Christian forum, or a theology forum, rather than a philosophy forum. There are many philosophical arguments for and against belief in God but the meaning of that particular story is not one that is often mentioned in connection to philosophy of religion. And also it is a story that needs to be interpreted in the context of ancient religious lore, in which the understanding of ‘sacrifice’ was completely, vastly different from our own.

There’s a piece of sociological terminology which might be relevant - the ‘emic vs etic’ perspective on cultural mores. An etic perspective refers to the perspective of an outside observer, like an anthropologist or doctor might have. The emic perspective is the perspective of those within the tradition. So you’re really taking an etic perspective which incorporates typically modernist attitudes towards the question. Whereas to ‘make sense’ of it in its own terms would require, I think, a willingness to consider an emic perspective, from ‘within’ the domain of discourse in which it is meaningful. In other words - finding some representatives of the tradition to discuss it with. Because I think in terms of modern secular culture, it is probably pretty incomprehensible.

If God exist you should going on living as if God does not exist as you are still clueless to the nature of God.

Would you say the same about other things we once did not know the nature of, such as disease, or neurology? I'm not sure if the nature of god is knowable or not, but wouldn't it be irresponsible to remain willfully ignorant? Also, according to Pascal's wager wouldn't it be more intelligent to behave as if a God does exist?

Would you say the same about other things we once did not know the nature of, such as disease, or neurology? I'm not sure if the nature of the invisible pink unicorn is knowable or not, but wouldn't it be irresponsible to remain willfully ignorant? Also, according to Pascal's wager wouldn't it be more intelligent to behave as if a invisible pink unicorn does exist?

Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.

— Serah Eley

When you all get together and agree on what "God" is, ask me again.

I understand what you're saying. Thank you for introducing me to the emic and etic concepts.The reason I am posting it here in the philosophy forum and not in a religious forum is because I'm not so much interested in the religious apologist answer to "Why did God ask Abraham to sacrifice Isaac?" Instead I am interested in the answer to "If a hypothetical god created us and is all powerful, but his requests are in conflict with our hedonistic nature, what do we do?" This question emerged from the argument that god is the only source of objective morality put forth by William Lane Craig (a religious philosopher). I find his arguments convincing, but when taken for granted it raises other questions. What exactly is an objective moral? Is it one we must follow? Yet god grants free will in religious philosophy, so that can't be what is meant by objective morality. It must be that objective morality is morality that is part of nature, where here nature means god's creation that he has programmed to be natural. It raises all sorts of questions for me. Even if a god is necessary to create objective morality, what is the difference between objective and subjective morality if we are inclined not to obey it? Is it the punishment that makes it objective? Is it the consequence of going against nature (similar to eating an unhealthy diet, health being a byproduct of living in accordance with the laws of nature), or is it that a deity would know what is best for us all and so "good" here is also what we should desire if we were wise?

This is exactly what I'm trying to figure out. If our animal morals (biological hedonism) and desire for self-preservation disagree with god's commands in a world where god creates "objective morals" then what does that mean? What is the difference between objective morals set forth by an all powerful deity and subjective morals (laws) created by mankind?

Fair enough. If not god, we'll call it a collective call to something greater than ourselves. Adequate? If this collective call requires us to dissolve our personal ego and identity, why then should we agree to it? If you as an ego, as an identity, are all YOU know and have, then who or what gets to experience the joys allegedly created or produced by the thing greater than ourselves? I'll give a very simple example. Let's say you spend your whole life working for others. You give away all your money and you spend all your free time volunteering. You as an animal are suffering because the animal wants pleasure and is selfish. Maybe there is some element of pleasure that comes from giving and helping, but no one I have ever met wants to give everything all the time, even if that's what's best for humanity as a collective. So the question becomes: if it is the ego/identity that is experiencing life, and we must kill it to serve the collective, why should we serve the collective? This is very similar to the question I am asking about god, so we're still on the same page, just different terminology.

I find your replies really ignorant and insulting. Why do you come here if you are only interested in mocking people? Why not refrain from commenting at all? You clearly don't even understand the question I'm asking, and your quote was ridiculous and inappropriate. Maybe in your head you are cleverly debating a religious apologist up on stage like Richard Dawkins, but I am not a religious apologist and you are not Richard Dawkins. Maybe if you made an effort to ask questions and understand someone else's position you'd be less of a clown and more of a philosopher.

Fair enough, I think you are considering it from a philosophical perspective. They're difficult questions. As I didn't get confirmed as a Christian then I find it would find it hard to address the point in an 'emic' (i.e. internal) perspective. But from my interpretive framework I think one question that could be asked is, what is at stake? What is sacrifice for, or in honour of?

Here, my response is that I do recognise the possibility of there being an existential reality embedded in religious discourse. That I understand in terms of 'awakening' in the sense of 'awakening to a greater reality' - which is admittedly more characteristic of Eastern, new age and transcendentalist philosophies than ol' school religion. (Which means, among other things, I am not at all sympathetic to W L Craig, as he is a bit too old school for my liking, albeit possessed of powerful rhetorical and polemical chops.)

If a hypothetical god created us and is all powerful, but his requests are in conflict with our hedonistic nature, what do we do? — INFJTheist

What I have tended to do, is to re-interpret such myths in light of known science, anthropology, comparative religion and the like. This started off with completely rejecting Biblical Christianity, in my case (although I've since began to revise my views, and I was never strictly atheist). But overall, I see the different religious traditions as being different 'worlds of discourse' where elemental realities are portrayed in terms of differing cultural metaphors. It's kind of like a vast multi-player game, but with real blood, real hells (and real heavens, for that matter). So in the Christian domain, OT (Old Testament), the Lord is very much an absolute monarch before whom one can only tremble and obey. (The NT dispensation strikes a very different note.)

So, in this model, your hedonistic urges can easily be rationalised in terms of being the residual effects of your biology. After all, life has a strong vested interest in proliferating; hence the irresistible power of sex. But the religious will say, don't get diverted or way-laid by these chimera, your 'real identity' doesn't belong in this domain of flesh and blood, but a higher domain (i.e. 'heaven'). In which case, finding you way out of this illusory domain, or this level of the game, is worth almost any sacrifice - because at the end of it, you realise a glorious destiny.

That might be one way of thinking about it.

Who is Richard Dawkins?

Read up on the Naturalistic Fallacy.

In the end you have a choice. You have to choose between following god and killing your son, or not killing him and being a decent human being.

It's up to you, not god.

great reply and I am glad you are asking from your perspective .... I will never claim I have answers , I have experienced something that has shifted my perception on reality so when I try to communicate my opinions they come from a place of experience on the non believer side of god (which was most of my life , to the belief of that which connects us all )

your first question is , why do we have to to agree .... you do not have to agree to anything , you do not have to pull your hand away from a fire .... you make a choice to do so . This is a little more complex because what drives you away from your connection to Being , god , universe ...whatever incomplete term we use. ..... is your mind , and it's belief that it is YOU .

it isn't , its a tool .... much more powerful than a hand or a foot , but it is a tool nevertheless .... unfortunately because it has the ability to create a self ...an ego .... it also has the ability to assume control of your actions , if you are not present and grounded in the only reality that ever is , the present moment.... which is eternal by nature.


as far as your story about the worker that gives away everything ...... you have to take into consideration that for humanity to return to a state of grace , where our actions are one with natures law , it would take thousands of years of de training our minds to stop using money , manipulation , deceit , violence ....and all those things that separate and diminish us as an ethical species ....


now if i may , i will address the ego experiencing life .


this is my belief based on my experiences , .... your ego , identity ... it is simply an accumulation of memories and reactions , those memories are what you assemble into a story and you call it you . Fir example , my name is Rodrigo ... and according to what almost all humans believe I am a 45 year old man , that went a german private school , came to the US at age 13 , .... has always liked cars , has a charming personality and loves animals and kids. ... i can add a few more years and decades of info but you get the point .... that is the conventional way we describe who I am


but that is not who you are , those are simply your experiences .... and they are memories and memories only allow you to live under the interpretation of those experiences , which are ALWAYS a limited perspective on the entire event you are judging and storing into your memory.

So this entity , we call Rodrigo ... starts to believe the world around him is the fraction of what he saw , his vantage point of life .... the problem is if you now add 7 billion people to the equation , now you have those with other experiences and their perceptions of the SAME circumstances will be completely different . does the ego experience the life ..... no


and i can tell you this with 100% certainty , because there may be a point when you will realize that the mind can actually be observed as it thinks , and if the mind can be observed ....if you can put space between YOU and your thoughts , you will notice one very peculiar thing ..... the mind is its own entity ....and if you are present , you can observe its incessant nature to overthing , plot and repeat the mental babel that most humans play over and over in their head


your final question ...why should we serve the collective ...... when you strip the ego , what remains is pure peace and joy and THAT version of you will experience life in a manner that the very fragile and insecure ego cannot .... and you are not serving any collective , you are not being mandated by god ..... those are illusions of men that hide behind god to push their own ego

last thing i will say ..... there is not one thing I can share with you , that you do not already know within your core.... the only difference is that the mental noise in your head , has severed this connection , which when regained , you will not ask people questions because you will feel them as truth ....and I mean old truth .


thanks for taking the time to discuss , I only say what I believe in my soul (and I am not a religious person at all , religion is .... another subject .... but the internal connection to all , that I feel and I don't need an equation or theorem to know it is more real than anything that is in form thought.



:)

This is very interesting. So your response if I understood it correctly essentially boils down to hedonism being the nature of the world we are playing the game in, but we (the soul, or the intellect, or something higher than the physical reality) are not the animal and therefore we should not limit ourselves to animal behaviors. So it isn't the animal individual vs. the moral collective, it's more that we are seeking a higher benefit through an animal vessel. Sort of like going to school in order to get a degree even though you might dislike school.

This makes sense. My next question would be: isn't that still essentially hedonistic? Maybe not in the sex and wine hedonistic tradition, but in the Epicurean tradition? If our own personal pleasure of the mind/soul/body is the highest good, then can we ever find a rationale to contradict that, even if other morals and goods are proposed by powers greater than ourselves? For example, if the collective good of humanity ever comes in conflict with my own pleasure in an absolute way, could I ever find a rationale to sacrifice myself altruistically?

I don't really know how to interpret a world without personal identity or perspective. I am relatively familiar with eastern religions and philosophies. I am aware that the dissolution of the ego is a primary concept of their beliefs, but if I can not even imagine what they are talking about how is it achievable? I have certainly observed my own thoughts and meditated, etc. I do understand that you can alter your consciousness to a degree, but I have never understood the idea of living without an ego. An ego is an experience. An identity is an experience. Perspective is required to exist. Anything you observe, you do so from a perspective. Maybe you can try to let go of your own memories, or the perspective of a man, but then what other perspective would you take on? How could you have the perspective of a butterfly, or a tree? How could you have no perspective at all? How could you have the perspective of another person, or an existence you have no memories of? To me it is like saying "Imagine that you are not yourself, and instead, you are everything." To some degree this is possible, but I am still myself imagining that I am not myself, so it is anchored to my self/ego/identity/memory/mind either way. I don't see how that can be avoided.

My next question would be: isn't that still essentially hedonistic? Maybe not in the sex and wine hedonistic tradition, but in the Epicurean tradition? If our own personal pleasure of the mind/soul/body is the highest good, then can we ever find a rationale to contradict that, even if other morals and goods are proposed by powers greater than ourselves? — INFJTheist

'Epicurus believed that what he called "pleasure" (ἡδονή) was the greatest good, but that the way to attain such pleasure was to live modestly, to gain knowledge of the workings of the world, and to limit one's desires. This would lead one to attain a state of tranquility (ataraxia) and freedom from fear as well as an absence of bodily pain (aponia). The combination of these two states constitutes happiness in its highest form. Although Epicureanism is a form of hedonism insofar as it declares pleasure to be its sole intrinsic goal, the concept that the absence of pain and fear constitutes the greatest pleasure, and its advocacy of a simple life, make it very different from "hedonism" as colloquially understood.' (Wikipedia). But nevertheless, it lacks what in comparative religion is called the soteriological dimension, i.e. the aim for salvation. It is more a coping mechanism, making the best out of a bad situation.

Some Eastern religions are non-theistic (i.e. Jainism and Buddhism) but they still maintain the aim of eternal bliss and release from the cycle of life and death; which implicitly means that there is something beyond that cycle, which is basically what is denied by all forms of modern atheism. Strictly speaking, as far as atheism is concerned, living organisms are like a kind of runaway chemical reaction (see for example Daniel Dennett's 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea'.)

I completely understand what you mean , how can you interpret a world without a perspective , without an ego .... I am not saying the ego does not interpret events , it does ..... but the egos perspective is so narrow that it is not reality , but more a blink of an eye on a 60 minute event.

let me see if i can explain properly , and forgive me if i do so poorly .......


I am walking on my front yard , and I trip over a garden hose and land on the grass .... a common reaction would be to complain or snap .... blurt out a curse word , get up ...look at the hose and kick it blaming it for now making you completely drenched !!!!!!

now if I may , I will dissect this ..... when I trip and fall on the grass the ego interprets that event as a problem , so it reacts .... the thought judges the situation , the body reacts with emotion .... that is the process of the ego when it is under threat . Now , .... the ego got up and now we must look for blame , and the hose is surely the culprit !!! if it wasn't there it wouldn't have knocked me down ...the ego will hold on to this moment with resentment for a while ...maybe hours or even the day ....

here is the same human being after he has reached possibly a shift in consciousness , enlightenment , found god ....whatever term makes people feel warm and fuzzy ...whatever term we use will never be accurate (that is sadly the point here )


I am walking on my front yard, and i trip over a garden hose and and on the grass ...... I look up make sure everything is right , get up .... maybe chuckle at my clumsiness ..... look down at the hose and put it in a place where it would be less likely for me to trip over next time .


the event is the same .... there was never a problem , problems do not exist ...the mind creates situations into problems ...this is how it maintains control .



now what is the difference ??? subject A ... does not live in the present moment , he lives in thought , when he trips he invokes all the wrong doings done to him into his memory and unleashes for all the injustices of the past ....ego , thought , can only live in the past or the future ...it cannot exist in the moment .... so if you are bound by thought , you will use the memories you have to react to an event ....

but ... if you are present , if you allow things to be as they are , instead of what you wish they could be , you would experience life much differently , the go has a tiny section of perspective .....the consciousness that watches the mind does not judge .... so you do not jump to conclusions and push them as facts ..... the person that lacks ego , allows the mistake to be without judgment nor resentment ...and if something needs to be done to not trip again you do so , from a place of intelligence that does not need to create drama .



that is the best way i can describe it ..... I have felt things that if someone told me about 10 years ago I would have been the first to throw a tomato to ..... but we each have our path of suffering which opens the possibility of salvation ....... I sincerely thank you for engaging in this conversation , I never have to agree with someone , nor disagree .... we are here because something draws us near each other .....

Yes, I'm aware of what Epicurus taught, that is why I referenced him. :) What I was trying to say is that it appears if our own happiness is the greatest good as far as our identity/ego is concerned, how could any other good attempt to usurp it? For example, if God threatens to punish us, then the only reason we would heed his commands is because punishment would threaten our happiness. If we attempt to compare personal happiness to collective happiness, such as in utilitarianism, as soon as collective happiness comes into conflict with personal happiness won't we rebel against utilitarianism? The only exception I see is when these things align with our own happiness, such as when it feels good to be charitable, but that is still a desire to feel good as the highest good. I guess my question is starting to boil down to, isn't the measure of how good a thing is, whether it's God's commandments or charity or selfishness, won't we measure it by how happy it makes us?

There are two things I struggle with in your reply.

1. How is what you are describing not just having a better attitude? What has fundamentally changed? And is it really realistic to expect someone to always have a good attitude? If not, how is what you're describing any different than simply "try to be a more mature person and regulate your emotions better"?
2. If it were possible to detach yourself from your frustration, wouldn't you also detach yourself from your joy? If you do not listen to your thoughts and emotions, don't you become something inhuman and neutral? That's assuming it is even possible, and I have never seen anyone who could do that. Not even monks, who meditate for their entire lives.

It seems to me that you are overlooking the fact that our perspective is more than just our thoughts. It's also our biology. What you're describing is like a form of meditation, where you allow your thoughts simply to pass without judging them, and without judging your life's experience. But judgment is programmed into us as a living being because judgment is part of making good decisions. If there is no difference between tripping over a hose and not tripping over a hose, maybe there is no difference between walking into traffic and not walking into traffic. You say you can apply your intelligence from a place that does not need drama, but we don't react the way we do because we seek drama. Pain is a signal that something is wrong. If you trip over the hose your body is startled, and the neuro-chemical networks that evolved to teach you not to trip over things because you could get injured or be vulnerable to predators kicks in. The whole idea that you can ignore this seems foreign and unlikely to me. Can you ignore a dog barking in your ear? Can you have open surgery done without any medication for pain? Can you lose a loved one without crying, and if so, would you even want to? I feel like this idea of having selective control over our emotions and thoughts is unrealistic. If you can truly do that you are a miracle, but I am very skeptical, having tried these things myself.

1. what I am describing certainly is having a better attitude ..... but why can this one have it and that one cannot ? because they have different states of mind ..... a person who is not run by ego accepts life as it is ....not as you wish it could be ... it is your nonacceptance of the falling event that creates a problem , .... where you to fully accept it and forgive it ... you would then simply be subject B.


2. no ..... that is not how it manifests itself ...... detachment has nothing to do with lack of care or love ....that is a misinterpretation of what it actually means . detachment is to not NEED your girlfriend , but to openly love her which always flows outward and does not need a thing in return ..... detachment will bring you closer to what is real , what is not of this physical world and it will put distance with forms from the physical world .... detachment is the loss of neediness , of insecurities , of control and manipulation


to answer your final statement , ..... both individuals had the exact neurotransmitters fire and do everything identically (within reason ) ..... has nothing to do with biology (except the one that applies to ever changing connection of the brain for new concepts or ideas etc) .....


now let me ask you this .... and it may sound ridiculous ... but since you brought up biology I am going to answer with a biological creature that for all practical purposes is the same for this exercise.


place a dog in this situation ...walks the yard ..trips over the hose .... what is the dogs reaction ????

100% of the times every single dog will react identically .... get up and may notice what it tripped on or not ...the moment is accepted and forgiven immediately ....forgiven simply means to hold no resentment .....


the dog has all the same body parts as the human .... why such a difference >?? the dog does not live in his mind ....it lives under the law of nature which is in our souls ....once the mind activity subsides and you return home .... you no longer sin ...you no longer miss the mark ....what mark ? natures law ..... the flow of life ... I understand if this may not be understandable and that is due to my limited capacity at communicating something
that is infinitely larger than my language

What I was trying to say is that it appears if our own happiness is the greatest good as far as our identity/ego is concerned, how could any other good attempt to usurp it? — INFJTheist

Christianity is predicated on something beyond ego. 'He who saves his own life will loose it, he who loses his life for My sake will be saved' [Matt 15:26].

sn't the measure of how good a thing is, whether it's God's commandments or charity or selfishness, won't we measure it by how happy it makes us? — INFJTheist

Sure - from the viewpoint of self. And as it is an age of individualism, then that is the predominant attitude for many people.

Even if a god is necessary to create objective morality, what is the difference between objective and subjective morality if we are inclined not to obey it? Is it the punishment that makes it objective? Is it the consequence of going against nature (similar to eating an unhealthy diet, health being a byproduct of living in accordance with the laws of nature), or is it that a deity would know what is best for us all and so "good" here is also what we should desire if we were wise? — INFJTheist

Just jumping in randomly, per usual.

Aren't the last two amenable to one another? Beneath legalism, whether religious or atheistic or whatever, isn't there a sort of existential horror of the knowledge of moral "health"? Morality is indeed like physical health. Bad morals eat away at the spiritual body and cause disease. Good morals are what fuel life. To the last point, then, a deity who is the source of that sort of moral reality would be one who knows "what is best for us all and so 'good' here is also what we should desire if we were wise." Wise meaning knowing what sort of exercise and nutrition is needed in order to maintain the health of the spiritual body.

a possible issue i see when people try to evaluate morals as somehow being compliant with gods will ....... here is the issue I see (and I am not disagreeing with anything I am simply giving a point of view)

our egos detest the idea of subjecting ourselves to someone else's code of conduct .... that is evident .... so in that sense we question morality as is it our own or the divine's will .....


how about you attempt to look at it like this ........


when you are hungry ..... how do you know ? you feel it ..... how do you know you are abiding by nature's law ....when you eat and the feeling gets replaced by no hunger. That is nature's law (feel free to call it god's law ...there is no distinction)

now let me ask you .... is it free will if we do not eat ? and food is available ?? .... our morality which i rather not use that word because morality implies rights and wrongs ....and there are NO rights and wrongs in life ...those are our interpretation of events ....good or bad is a judgment , and not even god judges in spite of what people want to believe ....

life is .... as it is ..... if you live in your mind , you will deviate in many forms from your nature as a noble creature that doesnt obey , but simply lives in harmony and with integrity ... of true self ...not the mind made cloud.

a dog has more integrity than humans ... for one simple fact .... it abides by it's nature ...we simply do not , not until the mind subsides and allows space between you , the consciousness that is ....and the physical world that unfolds as you experience life .... until that goes away .... our predominant state is of immediate judgment .... good/bad .... no such thing

There are a lot of assumptions you're making there, it's hard to find a clear line of argument, and I'm not sure how any of it is a response to what I said. Do you have a response to the "spiritual health" analogy I was using? That was the main thrust of what I said.

There are many philosophical arguments for and against belief in God but the meaning of that particular story is not one that is often mentioned in connection to philosophy of religion. — Wayfarer

Not so, the story of Abraham is central to Kierkegaard's philosophy. Also all the questions in the OP are ethical questions of existential import to anyone who wishes to adopt the Christian faith.

Is that so? I have never read Kierkegaard beyond Encyclopedia entries on him. However the story of the significance of Isaac’s sacrifice is not one that I have encountered much in Internet discussions of philosophy of religion.

Perhaps not, but then the question of theodicy is one of the greatest importance in philosophy of (at least Abrahamic) religion, and the story of Abraham certainly exemplifies this question.