Knight wrote:Mithrae wrote:As anything more than an illusion, it does - that's what determinism
means. It may well be that there's nothing contradictory about your views, they're just either circular or meaningless. It seems to boil down to "we ought to seek/follow God's will because it's God's will that we do so." If 'ought to' is a meaningful concept, that's obviously circular.
Consider the analogy: "Why do we think? Because God created us to be thinking creatures." Is this circular? No. So why is it that the fact "we are responsible to God because He created us to be responsible" circular? We are who we are in virtue of God's causation. That isn't circular.
We know that we think, and in fact it's the only thing we can be truly certain of.
Why we think is a secondary question, as you mentioned earlier in response to my theory on why we have empathy or act 'morally.' However the question which you are persistant in asking is not why, but
if we 'ought' to act in any particular fashion. Unlike thinking, we don't know if we ought to seek/follow the will of some deity, if we're 'responsible' to him, so it's a flawed analogy.
(1) Do you disagree that the manner in which God created us is an expression of his will?
(2) Do you disagree that responsibility to God means we ought to seek/follow his will?
(3) Do you disagree that we ought to seek/follow God's will because it's God's will that we do so?
(1) seems self-evident. You equated 'ought to' with responsibility in
post 148, hence point (2) - unless I've misunderstood or you've changed your mind? So (3) follows logically; if we're responsible to God because he made us responsible, then
we ought to seek/follow God's will because it's God's will that we do so.
This is either circular, or an incoherent concept of 'ought to' and responsibility.
Knight wrote:Mithrae wrote:Knight wrote:Mithrae wrote:Knight wrote:Mithrae wrote:There's differences between the two views, certainly, though in general terms I believe that central element of empathy as expressed in the Golden Rule is common to all moral systems.
How would you want to be treated if you were a criminal?
. . . . But in general criminals presumably want to be treated well, just like the rest of us. . . .
Would not a criminal like to be treated with mercy? As a sinner, that is my preference.
...I'm not sure what either your preference regarding the treatment of your 'sin' or some criminals' preference regarding the treatment of their crime has to do with the discussion though. . . .
Because you advocate the golden rule, do you not? That has implications as to how the justice system works. I'm trying to see if you're consistent. . . .
Ah, I see what you're getting at. But you might want to re-read that original statement. They overlap to the extent that they're both regulators of human behaviour, but moral systems aren't the same as legal systems. And in fact even most moral systems acknowledge exceptions to "do unto others..." for example in the case of self-defence; and of course in theory justice meted out on criminals is society's self-defence against those who threaten its members and its stability. A theory in political science is that the state should control a monopoly on violence; in other words that the 'right' to harm others is a prerogative which can't be entrusted to individuals, but as the representative of society's collective members the state and its agents may have that right on occasion - in theory only in defence of society's members themselves. Rest assured that there are many Christians who don't understand the difference between the laws which a state makes and enforces, and their own morals.
Knight wrote:Mithrae wrote:I'd say that "God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden" (v18) is the very epitome of whimsical.
No, that's the epitome of being unconditioned by externals. But what if God acts necessarily in accordance with His own nature? That's my view.
That's pretty much my view of human behaviour, both 'good' and 'bad.' Of course creating living, thinking beings for the express purpose of destruction would almost universally be considered 'bad' by those who aren't Calvinists. And since those vessels of wrath have no choice - for "who can resist His will" when He wants to harden them? - they also are acting necessarily in accordance with their own (enforced) nature. In other words, it seems as though your view of God is a being constrained by his nature to keep creating new members of a species born with a morally corrupt nature, including murderers and rapists who are constrained by their nature? And
this is your source of moral inspiration!?
Knight wrote:Mithrae wrote:Of course we have differing opinions on the merit of each others' moral systems. However my original point stands that a God-centered approach to be morality is a much more obscure and uncertain quest in discovering what this deity actually requires from amongst the myriad of competing claims on the subject, rather than formulating our own codes of behaviour, and likely to be more resistant to change and persistent in error. In going from belief that Paul's letters are the very words of God to believing Calvin's doctrines, you haven't provided a counter-example.
Of what? And as I view Scripture as a precondition for knowledge, I would disagree with pretty much everything you say in regards to its perspicuity. Superficially, it may seem easier just to say "I and others like this, therefore it ought to be done," but when one studies the matter in the context of epistemology - where even the ego and the knowledge of others can be questioned - it turns out to be an impossible matter.
I had to look up perspicuity
I agree with you regarding epistemology, and I've quite liked some of your posts on the matter. It's good to have another philosophically literate theist on the boards, because I think when you get right down to it the partisan rhetoric of both atheists and theists breaks down to little more than often-internally-consistent opinion.
It sounds to me (and building a little on your earlier posts) as though you're saying that since as human minds we can't truly know anything beyond our own existence, divine revelation is a necessary precondition for any genuine knowledge. I'm quite interested in your further thoughts on that if I'm wrong. But that doesn't answer the question of why the
Christian scriptures are a precondition for knowledge, rather than the Jewish scriptures or the Islamic scriptures or the Hindu scriptures or the Buddhist scriptures - or mysticism and a deity's self-revelation to the individual (which frankly seems more plausible than any of the above).
Knight wrote:Mithrae wrote:Thanks for the clarification; the information you'd provided showed only your brother's self-interest, not his lack of empathy.
No? He didn't seem to empathize with my sister when she gets in trouble.
Mithrae wrote:Now going back to what I
originally wrote:
- I'd suspect that the gaps between "This is how I like to be treated" and "This is how s/he likes to be treated" (in other words, empathy) are based largely on family relationships throughout childhood. The big and unjustified leap in reasoning is "This is how I ought to be treated," which most children seem to infer simply from their desire to be treated thus; but looking back on my own and my friends' and siblings' experiences, it seems to progressively dawn on us that logically you can't have that without subsequently acknowledging "This is how s/he ought to be treated."
Like our bodies, our sexuality, our capacity for abstract thought or pretty much any other aspect of our natures, empathy develops over the years of our childhood - your brother being one such example. The interesting thing is that with the Christian view of a fundamentally corrupt nature requiring regeneration or sanctification, which they claim is exemplified in young children, it seems to follow that even non-Christian households can often make a lot of positive changes to that 'corrupt nature' as the child grows.
The degree to which sin is restrained may vary, but as sin is a relational concept between man and God, so long as man is separate from God, everything he does is sinful.
I meant that what you had previously posted did not show anything about lack of empathy; the sister thing obviously does.
Presumably you would credit the progressively increasing 'restraint of sin' in many non-Christian households to God rather than to the family itself? But you can understand how this could be viewed as simply ignoring evidence which seems more consistent with my view, I assume? As they progress through normal human development, children's sense of empathy and their treatment of others grow progressively more nuanced. A loving, stable and structured environment is generally considered both the norm and the ideal.
As a counter-point regarding our separation from God, I myself was raised by my conservative protestant Christian mother 'til I was 9, and after living with my non-Christian father for a period I became a Christian when I was 12. Yet as an atheist in more recent years, I've looked back with shame at some of the things I said even to my closest friends as a teenager - usually not from malice, simply thinking I was being funny, but with a gross lack of empathy and understanding how they might take it.
Knight wrote:Mithrae wrote:Perhaps our understanding of the nature of humans is different, however. Do you believe that something can only be called 'part of our nature' if it's seen in
all humans and/or at
all levels of society?
It depends on what you mean. If you mean "human nature," the answer is obvious: of course. My nature can differ from yours, but insofar as we are both human, to say something is a part of human nature is to say we and other humans will have it in common.
'Human nature' is generally used in reference to psychological or behavioural characteristics of our species, so while it does work in the discussion I avoided that phrase. But by implication, you believe that either that even
thinking is not part of 'human nature,' or that people in a coma are not human? That either arms are not part of our natures, or that amputees are not human? I would guess that there's exceptions to pretty much every trait which the overwhelming majority of humans share, and those few which
all humans share - circulatory, respiratory and central nervous systems, not always functioning - are by no means unique to humans. Again, I was not intending to imply 'human nature,' neither for the psycho-behavioural implications nor for the uniquely-human implications; but in using the term to respond to my question, it seems you've made it meaningless. 'Part of our natures' would similarly be rendered all but meaningless by your reasoning.
Knight wrote:Mithrae wrote:Knight wrote:Mithrae wrote:. . . . Again, I specifically stated that this process of empathy begins with how we want to be treated, then extends to our family, then the community... and apparently we really haven't grasped it at the level of our species yet. . . .
But if we haven't "grasped it at the level of our species yet," that begs the question: how can you claim that it is part of our nature?
As above sexuality, communication and language, abstract thought and so on are all part of our natures too.
This doesn't suffice as an answer. At best, it just begs the question on a larger scale by including sexuality, communication, and abstract thought in the category of that which isn't grasped by our species and, therefore, seemingly cannot necessarily be regarded as a "part of our natures." At worst, it's disanalogous because our species has indeed grasped these things on a far broader level than morality.
Sometimes communication can be difficult, but in this case I'm not sure you're even trying to understand me. For starters, I was using the word
empathy, not morality. And if you're saying that sexuality or communication aren't part of our natures then there's really no point trying to discuss anything with you. Furthermore, my point specifically was that (particularly in the case of communication or language) at the species level the two are remarkably analogous. Ask the average Chinese citizen to discuss weather with the average American citizen and you'll see my point. But every Chinese person speaks to others, as does every American - and they all have empathy for others also. This was specifically my point, so I'm amazed that you haven't grasped it:
Again, I specifically stated that this process of empathy begins with how we want to be treated, then extends to our family, then the community... and apparently we really haven't grasped it at the level of our species yet.
Communication and language, empathy, sexuality and no doubt many other characteristics besides have all been traits of the overwhelming majority of humans, in every society, in all periods of history - and evidence suggests in other primate species also. If you want to dispute that these are aspects of our nature, I'd advise doing better than rendering any conception of our natures to be meaningless because of some few exceptions. By that reasoning, you were wrong to say that we have a morally corrupt nature.
Knight wrote:Mithrae wrote:I agree that we can't become a monkey and experience whether or not they feel compassion, if that's what you mean. For that matter, we can only use effect to cause reasoning to infer that other human beings have compassion also. Are you suggesting that we abandon the knowledge we've gained in that manner?
Yes. I would not call that knowledge.
Then your only reason for presuming our nature to be morally corrupt comes from the pages of a book? And your reason for presuming that this book is thousands of years old (let alone being God's own word!) comes from...?
Our only way of understanding our fellow humans' behaviour, as with monkeys, is by observation and analogy. Since you reject that form of understanding as knowledge, it would seem you can't even tell when your own mother is telling you the truth, yes?
I would respect your rigid scepticism, except that you seem to be putting blind faith in this bible of yours - handed to you by other humans, apparently from your childhood - as the basis for everything else you claim as 'knowledge.'
