A lot of Christians I've talked to would respond with something like, "Why would you think there are objective moral goods or evils if there is no God?" — wonderer1
If there is a god, his morality is an alien one whereby his good is our evil. That is a very weird thing that would put god as some demiurge that is a force for chaos, and we become more moral than the petulant god who wants to see the chaos manifest. — schopenhauer1
The only deity consistent with a world (it purportedly created and sustains) ravaged by natural afflictions (e.g. living creatures inexorably devour living creatures; congenital birth defects; etc), man-made catastrophes and self-inflicted interpersonal miseries is either a Sadist or a fiction – neither of which are worthy of worship. — 180 Proof
and protecting us from a much wider range of horror and misery than we can comprehend — DingoJones
:up:And on and on and hosanna. That is to say apparently gaslighting seems to be the answer. — schopenhauer1
If there are no right and wrong answers to moral questions, how can we say god is wrong, bad, or evil? — Down The Rabbit Hole
I can see the point hiding underneath the question though. Even if there is no cruel god bringing us into this world of suffering, humans brought us here. If you feel it cruel for a god to bring us into this world, to be consistent you would have to say it was cruel for humans to bring us into this world. — Down The Rabbit Hole
I don't know of any objective measurement of the good/evil ratio of the whole universe. On the whole, it seems that our local planet is the only part of the cosmic system with any claim to moral accounts. And, those reports of Good vs Evil are entirely subjective & personal. Except, of course, for the broadcast news of the world, which tends to paint a bleak picture of suffering humanity and blighted ecosystem. From the moralizing media we get a concentrated dose of downers.But supposing there was a god, can we all agree that this world is sufficiently evil enough to account for an evil god? — schopenhauer1
From an old thread "The Problem of Evil"...
The only deity consistent with a world (it purportedly created and sustains) ravaged by natural afflictions (e.g. living creatures inexorably devour living creatures; congenital birth defects; etc), man-made catastrophes and self-inflicted interpersonal miseries is either a Sadist or a fiction – neither of which are worthy of worship.
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof
A sadist, or a fiction…or an impartial force of nature, or is aware of and protecting us from a much wider range of horror and misery than we can comprehend or is part of a pantheon…hardly just the two possibilities you mention.
I mean, its all made up so a decent exercise of ones imagination is all thats needed to show its not just sadist or bust. — DingoJones
If the Universe (Nature) is mostly malevolent, then the Culpable Cause of this ongoing disaster could be construed as morally Evil. But, if Nature is mostly benign, and conducive to sentient human flourishing, then "Mother Nature" could be construed as sufficiently Good for a general moral gold-star. If Gaia is the "god" referred to in the OP, should we view Her as Good, or Evil, or Neutral?
If Nature is morally neutral though, then who do we have to blame for all the adverse aspects of life in this merciless world, "red in tooth & claw"? Who makes all the free-will moral choices in this vale of tears anyway? Do the smiles of a satiated baby offset any of the bloody stuff? How do all such tiny little local Goods add-up in the total scheme of things in an unfinished work of creation : goodish or badish?
The bottom line of the Moral Accounting seems to rest on the question of Agency & Moral Choice. If individual moral agents are free to act selfishly or altruistically, then where should the blame be placed : on the creator of Free Choice or on the Choosers? Is "God" the author of confusion, or of order? Is FreeWill*3 a defect in a world system? Would a cosmos of automatons, be sufficiently Good Enough to warrant a gold star for the designer of a perfectly balanced system of insentient mechanisms? — Gnomon
n other words, is an alien morality ever commensurable with human morality? — schopenhauer1
We can only judge from our own perspective, according to our own standards. So can the aliens. In the sense that we can't judge the god's decisions as right or wrong, nor can the god reward or condemn us by any rules we understand. The god idea is based on a morality given to us by the god. Without that, there is no point in gods: you're right back to saying nature or fate or something equally impersonal. — Vera Mont
So suffering is justified as long as a deity is causing or allowing it? — schopenhauer1
But supposing there was a god, can we all agree that this world is sufficiently evil enough to account for an evil god? — schopenhauer1
Sorry! I was just riffing on the God/Nature notion. :yikes:First, this was a hypothetical "If there was a god". I am not sure "Gaia" as a standin for simply "Nature" counts. So that is a bit moving the target to an insentient non-intentional, phenomeon. — schopenhauer1
As I see it, both of those Utopias were anticipated by the late Jewish/ early Christian notions of Heaven. But why would God make the hopeful future Heaven contingent on winning a piety competition in the here & now Earth? Apparently, the current occupants of Heaven are the Angels, who function more like immaterial email clients for God than as freewill agents, who must constantly battle their material bodies for moral control. Which "world" is "inauthentic" (tantalizing illusion) : the tangible material terran abode, or the invisible immaterial angelic realm? Do your "two utopias" play each other in football? :nerd:Also the assumption that a utopian universe would be somehow itself "inauthentic" is also a bias to the situation we have now. I see two utopias really: — schopenhauer1
I tried to address, in a blog post, that poor excuse for an argument in The Book of Job, that whatever God does is true & good, despite what fallible humans might feel about their plight*1. From that perspective, God is the moral native, and humans are the aliens.Which then brings us back to the original question of what if god's morality is simply alien to ours? — schopenhauer1
Some thinkers resolved that dilemma by dividing responsibility : Old Testament = Jehovah vs Satan ; Gnosticism = Sophia vs Demiurge. But that evades any satisfying ultimate buck-stopper. So, my initial tentative conclusion to that cosmic moral quandary was to assume that the First Cause of our temporary universe was not a moral agent, but more like an amoral Principle of Change (Prime Mover ; Cosmic Causal Energy?). However, since I cannot ignore the physical signs, revealed by Science, of an evolutionary tendency toward the gradual emergence of material complexity & mental sentience & moral ethics, I still have to assume that the Big-Bang-act-of-creation had some purpose behind it (LOGOS)*2. And maybe Humanity collectively can contribute to the improvement of the Game of Life. Therefore, lacking any direct revelation from the Prime Actor, I must admit that I have no idea what that end-game goal might be. Some have guessed that G*D is gestating little limited gods in He/r image. But why? Does G*D have a motherly instinct? All I can say right now, is that it's an open question --- ripe for philosophical exploration. :smile:If you had the ability to create a universe without suffering, but you created it with suffering instead because "You want to see how the game works out", I would count that as immoral. — schopenhauer1
But supposing there was a god, can we all agree that this world is sufficiently evil enough to account for an evil god? — schopenhauer1
But supposing there was a god, can we all agree that this world is sufficiently evil enough to account for an evil god? — schopenhauer1
If there are no right and wrong answers to moral questions, how can we say god is wrong, bad, or evil? — Down The Rabbit Hole
Surely some will say whatever it is that God does, says, or commands is good and not evil, no? But the actions and outcomes say otherwise, at least from the human perspective.
The bigger question then is, "If a morality is alien to human sensibilities, what would make that justifiably moral?". — schopenhauer1
Yes. However, if we were to stick with god for a minute- what does a world with evil and mediocre outcomes reveal for its inhabitants (at least on Earth)? Have you ever noticed oddities in timing? An empty park that has one person in it that you collide with nonetheless? Things like this? There are oddities of life whereby the coincidences are higher than would be expected... One could weave a tale of a god who likes chaos and thrives in it. — schopenhauer1
But why would God make the hopeful future Heaven contingent on winning a piety competition in the here & now Earth? Apparently, the current occupants of Heaven are the Angels, who function more like immaterial email clients for God than as freewill agents, who must constantly battle their material bodies for moral control. Which "world" is "inauthentic" (tantalizing illusion) : the tangible material terran abode, or the invisible immaterial angelic realm? Do your "two utopias" play each other in football? :nerd: — Gnomon
And maybe Humanity collectively can contribute to the improvement of the Game of Life. Therefore, lacking any direct revelation from the Prime Actor, I must admit that I have no idea what that end-game goal might be. Some have guessed that G*D is gestating little limited gods in He/r image. But why? Does G*D have a motherly instinct? All I can say right now, is that it's an open question --- ripe for philosophical exploration. :smile:
PS___My BothAnd philosophy advises us puzzling humans to just suck it up, and accept the good with the bad. But at the same time, still work toward a more moral Utopian culture on Earth. Ain't that what Morality is all about? — Gnomon
Current models of Evolution have constructed a plausible sequence of advancements from extreme simplicity to the amazing organic complexity we see today in our scopes and neighborhoods.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page26.html — Gnomon
I can imagine a much worse life than I have. So a pure sadist isn't plausible to me.
What I do find plausible is the 'demiurge' sketched by Darwin. Where that motherfucker came from I cannot say. No one can, in my view, cuz they's always another why. But so much makes sense in that Darwinian framework. Demystified Schopenhauer, basically.
Graveleaping sex (in squirts of lost time) and graveleaping knowledge. — plaque flag
The outcomes are merely not to our taste. I don't see a basis for saying that they're wrong, bad, or evil.
There could also be a God who commands what is good and what is bad, which we are not privy to. Who are we to demand for God to give us answers. It's not like we can say it is wrong for God not to give us answers.
Our perspective is irrelevant either way. — Down The Rabbit Hole
It does feel like the world is conspiring against me every now and again. But over the course of a lifetime extremely rare events are going to happen. — Down The Rabbit Hole
If the creator is all-knowing, their actions are hard to forgive. However, if the creators were just reckless, or even just naive, there is room for forgiveness. — Down The Rabbit Hole
. Worldly trials were like tests of character - 'God sends these things to try us', my highly religious paternal grandmother would say. The world was not expected to be perfect, although a Christian ought always try to do good and to help assuage the pain of others.
But the expectation of modern culture is that the world ought to be safe. As there is no other world, nor anything to look forward to beyond this life, then a pain-free existence is the best that can be hoped for. Looked at from that perspective, the world we see is obviously defective, inequitable, arbitrary and cruel. That fosters what I call the 'hotel-manager theodicy'. 'Hey, who's in charge here! Can't you see people are suffering!? What kind of manager would allow this? He must be a total jerk!' — Quixodian
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.