Christian morality is random

[Scotracer]

A rather daunting thread title I admit, but I would like this argument to be addressed, if it can be. It is the culmination of my own pondering and a bit of outside debating with a friend.


If you are religious and believe god (or gods) give the moral standard, then you believe that it is objective as there is a moral absolute. I will in this instance be looking at the Christian god:

a) You say god says what is moral because he is always right
b) You say he is always right because he is omnipotent, omniscient and other omnis
c) You claim god is perfect

However, I will first consider the point that god cannot be accountable for his existence. Even though he is omnipotent, he couldn't will himself into existence as he'd have to exist to begin with. So, since he didn't do it, he cannot be accountable for his form or design. God just is. He came into existence (or always was there - whatever) in a form that he has no control over.

Then if asked the question "Could god commit sin?" the usual reply is that it is not in his nature/will. Well, since he is not accountable for his existence and since his existence has certain characteristics, he is not accountable for the way he is. Because if he was, he would be able to sin. He just is as he is. Therefore, his will/nature is random, by necessity. If it isn't random, what defines his will? Obviously he cannot be accountable for his own will/nature. If there is nothing accountable for it, it is random as I said.

Now that we've come to that conclusion that his will (and therefore his commandments) is random, how does that make anything he claims "moral"? Are they just moral because he says so? So since his will is random and his will had, by chance, come out as "Killing kittens with rusty chainsaws is just dandy" it would be moral? If so, then we can say his morality is random too.

If too you are claiming what he says is moral because he is omnipotent, then you are claiming that might makes right. And that's definitely not true.

Questions for debate:

1) Are there any flaws in my logic?
2) If what I have said is indeed the case, how does this change a Christians outlook on morality?
3) Would the idea of Infinite Regression back from Yahweh make this any more palletable?

[Bio-logical]

Saying that Christian morality is random is kind of a non-sequitor for this line of reasoning. The point is moot whether god can sin or not because God defines what sin is. This is like saying that a king is breaking the law - it is impossible to be the one who creates and destroys laws and have them still apply to you. Even if you create laws that bind yourself, you are just as capable of deleting said laws. God is above the level of sin, by definition, because he defines what sin is. The only way for God to be bound by any law would be for a greater god to apply it to him, thus creating a higher god that we would worship.

Your claim that morality is random due to this is no justified by the logic, but that does not make it incorrect. The better argument would be how there are things that are not only allowed, but mandated in the bible that we now find immoral, thus showing that we do not derive our morals from the bible but instead chronicle the morals of the time within it.

[McCulloch]

I would use the term arbitrary rather than random.

[Artheos]

What is 'sin'?

[micatala]

I would use the term arbitrary rather than random.

A very good suggestion.


In addition, it is worth pointing out that if we are to criticize theistic or Christian morality on the basis that it is based on God's nature and this nature is arbitrary, then the same can be said for any other logically derived moral code.

Any logical system must take some statements as axiomatic in order to avoid infinite regress. These axioms can be taken arbitrarily, if one wishes, as long as they are self-consistent. So, in some sense, ANY moral system that is logically derived is going to have some element of arbitrariness in it.

Now, we can all subjectively determine for ourselves which moral axioms we think are more reasonable, and if one wishes to criticize Christian morality on this basis, one can certainly do so. But I would challenge those who would do so to provide their own "moral assumptions" for consideration and ask whether these are inherently less arbitrary than a God-based system.

[Scotracer]

I would use the term arbitrary rather than random.

Quite possibly. It would seem however that if nothing can be accountable for their condition then they are indeed random?

Meriam-Webster:

1: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law <the manner of punishment is arbitrary>
2 a: not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority <an arbitrary government> b: marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power <protection from arbitrary arrest and detention>
3 a: based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something <an arbitrary standard> <take any arbitrary positive number> <arbitrary division of historical studies into watertight compartments — A. J. Toynbee> b: existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will <when a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary — Nehemiah Jordan>

If God's nature cannot be defined by himself doesn't that make it random, not arbitrary? He can't possibly select his nature, can he?

[InHocSignoVinces]

Indeed the very notion of 'Sin' is an unusual one. Is it lust, or simply an understandable sexual desire. God is apparently all- loving, and yet he has no problem in ordering Joshua to burn Jericho, simply for the reason that he is a jelous god and does not want false gods before him. Surely the children could be spared? Surely the people could be converted through fair trade and love? No. They all have to burn. Very loving...