posted
Tinros: I think its important to realize that if God is not perfect then he/she is not useful to us. If God is capable of mistakes why should we bother worshiping him for any reason other then fear of being squelched by him (or smitten, take your pick.)
If we knew he was capable of imperfect thinking then we could have little to no confidence in anything he/she said to us. Or rather, we would simply ignore the middle man and focus on our own intellectual prowess when figuring out the solutions to our problems.
I agree its foolish to argue, "God is perfect because He has said He is thus." So if God really said that there can be only 2 maybe 3 reasons for doing so.
1: He is perfect and perfect entities do not lie about their perfection.
2: He is in fact imperfect but would not have us know it. Why he/she would do that anybody can speculate.
3: He is, by our understanding of the word perfect though not so by his own understanding of the concept.
----
Or perhaps God never actually said he was perfect, or indeed has never spoken at all, in which case you can join the KOM army of religious eradication.
So for me, if there is a God, he MUST be perfect otherwise I wouldn't have much to do with him outside of doing what it took to not have him mess with my life.
An imperfect God just is not useful IMO.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If we knew he was capable of imperfect thinking then we could have little to no confidence in anything he/she said to us.
I don't see why this is the case. Everyone I know is imperfect, and yet I generally have a great deal of confidence in what they say. I have nearly perfect confidence in my own estimations of reality, in order for me to function, and yet I am well aware of my lack of perfection.
quote:Or rather, we would simply ignore the middle man and focus on our own intellectual prowess when figuring out the solutions to our problems.
Why would this be a bad thing?
quote: So for me, if there is a God, he MUST be perfect otherwise I wouldn't have much to do with him outside of doing what it took to not have him mess with my life.
An imperfect God just is not useful IMO.
Useful or not, if there is a God, your desire for Him to be perfect has no bearing on whether or not He is. Assuming God exists, He may very well be quite imperfect, and prevent you from ever finding out.
In fact, I don't know how we could possibly determine whether or not God, if He exists, is or is not perfect. If it isn't clear to a lot of people that God exists period, it would follow that His attributes are occluded and mysterious, at best.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It might make more sense to phrase the question as "do perfect things exist, aside from ideals?" Obviously there are perfect things in a mathematical sense: a circle, for example, is perfectly circular. Circles are not part of nature, of course.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think its important to realize that if God is not perfect then he/she is not useful to us.
I could see why, from a certain way of looking at the world, having a non-perfect god would be uncomfortable, but I don't understand such a deity not being useful at all.
Let's say we're talking about an incredibly advanced alien race that has been passing itself off as God, guiding human development for benevolent purposes. Would that be useless?
They know so much more than we that from our perspective, they are never wrong.
None of the brilliant teachers I've had in my life have been perfect, but I found them incredibly useful and have a great deal of confidence in the things that they've taught me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Will B: Circles are not part of nature, of course.
Just to pick nits both ways (equal opportunity and all that) insofar as man is a part of nature and man is capable of making a perfect circle, perfect circles exist in nature.
Also, I'm not exactly sure that there isn't something orbiting something else in a perfectly circular orbit... though I admit it's unlikely, it's not theoretcially impossible as a circle is merely a special case of an ellipse and orbits are elliptical.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never considered the perfection issue, because I don't find it a sticking point. Here's my best pass at it. It's not a rigorous proof, but then we can't really do rigorous proofs one way or another on such issues.
What is the basis of right and wrong, or value judgments? They can't be derived from nature. Some will say, taking this action will benefit the community, therefore it will benefit you; therefore it's right. This begs the question 2 ways.
One is that it's false: that which benefits the community does not always benefit me. Genghis Khan went through Asia wiping out entire villages; this didn't harm him. Instead, it made him powerful and enabled him to spread his genes (through rape I assume) far and wide. There's a mostly-dead prehistoric human habit of invading another village, killing all the children, the men, and the old women, and taking the fertile women as sex slaves. Harming the community helps the perpetrators sometimes.
(You could say they are morally harmed because what they're doing is wrong; but that presupposes values, the existence of which we're trying to prove. Not valid.)
The other reason the argument fails is that "benefit the community" thing. How did we decide that longer life, greater wealth, etc., are a "benefit"? By presupposing values: these are what people *should* have. Proving values by assuming them is a circular, and thus invalid, argument.
If they don't exist in nature, where are they?
Perhaps they're just personal preferences; there is no actual right and wrong. It's a consistent position, but not one I can hold, and not one anyone else can either. Someone who argues there is no right and no wrong, well, just wait till the subject changes and he'll start telling you that something he disagrees with is really wrong. "We shouldn't impose our personal morality on others," he may say, "because all morality is just personal," but then he'll go on to explain that the war in Iraq is immoral. Or opposition to the war in Iraq. Or something.
This does not prove it wrong. Like the "reality doesn't exist; we're all brains in a vat somewhere being stimulated to think it does," it's something that can't be disproved. We might *all* be wrong about morality. And everything else, for that matter. I'm not sure this can be disproved, but since I can't and nobody really believes it, I'll just assume it's false and go on.
So, again, where does morality come from?
Preference or usefulness exists in the relationship between the perceiver and the perceived object. I value my computer (in a usefulness sense); that value exists in how I relate to the computer. A dog can't use a computer, so that value doesn't exist in that relationship.
What about right-and-wrong values?
Perhaps it's just us: the only moral values are the ones we assign. I consider murdering the innocent as evil; the Nazis considered it good; someone else may consider it neutral.
Now suppose we're all equally right: it's like whether we like the taste of broccoli. Then we're back to "values are just in your head," as spoken of above.
If we're not all equally right, then there is some external standard -- it's not just us.
If the standard is always right, that's perfection. If it's sometimes wrong, what that means is it fails relative to some other standard that's more correct. So dump your original standard and go with standard #2 instead. Is it perfect? If not, dump it and go with the perfect one instead -- the one you're *really* judging by when you evaluate a moral standard. If there is no such standard, go back to the "morality is just personal preference" thing above.
So we have a perfect standard (which the Chinese called the Dao).
Moral standards exist in the relationship between a perceiver and a perceived thing. If there's no perceiver, there's no standard. If it's an imperfect being, it has imperfect standards. To perceive something perfectly, you have to be a perfect perceiver. I assume that's what Tinros meant by "perfection."
Best I can do without being a philosopher. How can you tell if it's valid? This part I *am* sure of: logic. Whether it feels right shouldn't be a guide. Things that don't feel right, happen.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or perhaps God never actually said he was perfect, or indeed has never spoken at all, in which case you can join the KOM army of religious eradication.
Because, of course, there's no such thing as a middle ground. You've either gotta believe or you're a godless anti-Christ. Just bear that in mind you heathens.
posted
Let me put it this way: I believe in the possibility of millions of millions of imperfect deities/spirits. Why follow them? Because they are more powerful than us. They aren't all-powerful, they aren't all-knowing. They have faults.
The reason there are so many different moral standards is that these deities/spirits have different standards, different things required of their followers. We can choose, based on our natural inclinations towards good or evil, as we percieve it, which god/goddess/spirit we follow.
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.
While that's a nice quote, it's not true. Some people see pre/extra-marital sex, homosexuality, alcohol consumption, disbelief in God, and plenty more that aren't coming to mind as evil. Others don't merely excuse them, they just don't find them remotely evil.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jim, did you jump from guys like Anselm and Aquinas up to Lewis? There's well over a millennium of philosophy in the middle there. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: Some people see pre/extra-marital sex, homosexuality, alcohol consumption, disbelief in God, and plenty more that aren't coming to mind as evil. Others don't merely excuse them, they just don't find them remotely evil.
However, the vast majority of people at any given point in history would agree that gaining pleasure at the cost of doing harm to the self and others and general faithlessness *are* evil.
What is in dispute are whether pre/extra-marital sex, homosexuality, alcohol consumption, and disbelief in God do, in fact, meet those descriptions. The people who *do* classify those things as evil do so based on a claim that they cause harm. The people who don't classify them as evil, argue that there's nothing inherently harmful in them and that the harm, like any other harm done by man, is the fault of the person doing the harm-- not unlike saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."
But basic moral principles are the same-- "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" descends to us from a myriad of cultures and in just about as many forms as there are ancient languages.
Edit to add: Twinky, I go with what I know best
But yeah, there were a few guys in between... Hobbes, Pascal, the aforementioned Decartes, Kierkegaard, Robspierre, and a few random German dudes whose names are either too long to remember (Wittgenstein) or too short to be important (Kant) .
posted
Tinros, when you say that those gods have faults -- according to what standard do they have faults? When you say that they are imperfect, what standard of perfection are they falling short of?
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The only standard that matters: The standard that Tinros, or any reasonable human, applies to beings that demand worship. Can we have done with this non-issue?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: If God is not perfect, than we cannot trust any religious text that says He/She is- which is nearly every mainstream religious text out there.
I am not convinced this is true, actually. Consider the Bible; there's lots of bits about the power, ruthlessness, power, favoritism, power, and sometimes forgiveness of its god, but I think you'll struggle to find any place that argues for actual perfection. Plenty of places where the god will say "I'm bigger than you", or words to that effect, to some hapless prophet; but this does not imply perfection. Now, the structure of Christian theology does assume perfection in a lot of places, but that's not strictly speaking a religious text.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you wanted to have done with it, why are we discussing things?
Edit: Jesus says "Be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect."
I'm not sure I know what he meant by this, but there's a lot of promises of "being made perfect" in the Christian bible and it's pretty hard to imagine being brought to that state (perfection) by another imperfect being.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Matthew 5:48-"Be perfect, therefore, as your Father in Heaven is perfect."
Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.
2 Samuel 22:31 "As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him."
Hebrews 7:28 For the law appoints as high priests men who are weak; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.
All the above from the NIV bible. Again, once one part of any religious text claiming to be completely true is proven false, the entire document is thrown into question.
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, once one part of any religious text claiming to be completely true is proven false, the entire document is thrown into question.
Here I think it bears noting that The Bible, nowhere, claims complete truth for itself as it exists today. In fact, it would be remarkable if it did do so, seeing as no part of the New Testament (at least) was written with the express intent of being included with any other part of it. (I imagine there are parts of the OT for which this would hold true as well.)
Therefore, one could find a "fatal flaw" in, say, 1st Corinthians, and it might very well have no bearing on the truth of the book of Matthew (or vice versa). It could be said to speak to the wisdom, or lack thereof, of certain Biblical compilers, but that's another subject altogether.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, then let me clarify: I see the Bible as a collection of books, not a single Book. There are parts that are relevent to other books, and parts that are not. However, I think if we took out every book of the Bible that had a flase statement or a contradiction, there would be no Bible left to speak of.
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I thought Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Number, and Deuteronomy were all written by the same author, as a set? I could be wrong, I just remember being taught that...
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The meaning of "perfection" is a "non-issue" in discussing the statement "I don't believe in perfection"? What an amazing claim!
--
But Tinros -- since this was your question and your discussion -- are you interested in discussing whether the existence of perfect beings is necessary or possible? In your last post on this issue, you restated your belief:
quote:Let me put it this way: I believe in the possibility of millions of millions of imperfect deities/spirits. Why follow them? Because they are more powerful than us. They aren't all-powerful, they aren't all-knowing. They have faults.
The reason there are so many different moral standards is that these deities/spirits have different standards, different things required of their followers. We can choose, based on our natural inclinations towards good or evil, as we percieve it, which god/goddess/spirit we follow.
Since your response to my post (if that's what it was) was not to address the reasons for believing/disbelieving in perfection, but simply to restate your belief, I conclude that you don't want to address the reasons, but you do want to share your belief. Fine by me, if that's the case.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.
While that's a nice quote, it's not true. Some people see pre/extra-marital sex, homosexuality, alcohol consumption, disbelief in God, and plenty more that aren't coming to mind as evil. Others don't merely excuse them, they just don't find them remotely evil.
This is true of religious people as well.
KarlEd, I agree that there is a middle ground. I also think there is a "ground" that is sort of adjacent to but not really in between those points of view.
Regarding Scripture: The difference between "true" and "factual" is an important one. Something that is inspired doesn't mean that the execution of that inspiration is pure. And Scripture, in my opinion, needs a great deal of interpretation and knowledge of context to understand even what was meant at the time(s) it was written.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: However, the vast majority of people at any given point in history would agree that gaining pleasure at the cost of doing harm to the self and others and general faithlessness *are* evil.
What is in dispute are whether pre/extra-marital sex, homosexuality, alcohol consumption, and disbelief in God do, in fact, meet those descriptions.
I don't think there's a meaningful difference in saying that people have different moral standards and saying that people don't agree on which things are harmful, which is the base criterion of whether something is moral or not. Further, your quote that states, "Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils," is clearly false. Men do differ about what things they call evil.
quote:This is true of religious people as well.
I wasn't trying to restrict disagreement to only being between religious and non-religious. Clearly, there's plenty of disagreement to go around in the world. Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
I wasn't trying to restrict disagreement to only being between religious and non-religious. Clearly, there's plenty of disagreement to go around in the world.
I meant to add to what you were saying - not dispute it. I should have been more clear about that.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will B: I mean imperfect as in the Judeo-Christian view of "perfect": All-powerful, omnipotent, omniscient, able to define laws for EVERYONE, not just followers, able to say that their truth is the only truth.
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Find me the Superman whose motto is "Lies, Oppression, and Steal What You Can!" then.
As KOM notes, it wouldn't suprise me if there were people who lived by such a motto. But what you're saying right here is very different from your previous assertion. Right now you seem to be saying that there are similarities between various moral codes. That's very different than your prior statements of there aren't different moral standards and that men don't differ in what they call evil.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
edit to add the main point: This all pre-supposes, of course, that the value of a religious text is based on it's value as a plain and simple description of events, completely without metaphor or any other literary substance.
So when a text serves as a guide to something very important (such how Christians should live their lives), but involves metaphor, self-contradiction is fine?
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: [Re: Aquinas]
Basically, he refers back to is "ways of knowing God exists", wherein he said that God exists because there must be a necessary being. Briefly, he divides things in to two classes-- contingent and necessary beings. Contingent beings are brought into actuality by something else. Necessary beings are not, but are actual in all times, places and (we would say now) quantum states . If everything were a contingent being, then, in an infinite regression, at some point nothing would exist. Once nothing existed, there would be nothing to make things actual and nothing would continue to exist... that is to say, nothing would ever exist.
So, argues Aquinas, if God is a necessary being... in fact that being from which all other beings derive their existence... then God must be more actual than all other beings... and this, definitionally to Aquinas, makes God perfect.
Or, as he puts it:
quote:Now God is the first principle, not material, but in the order of efficient cause, which must be most perfect. For just as matter, as such, is merely potential, an agent, as such, is in the state of actuality. Hence, the first active principle must needs be most actual, and therefore most perfect; for a thing is perfect in proportion to its state of actuality, because we call that perfect which lacks nothing of the mode of its perfection.
Just seemed appropriate info for this topic.
Wow, that argument leaks like a sieve. What exactly is the stuff of the "mode of its perfection", and how is it true that an entity with sufficient power to create the universe possesses it - all of it?
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Or perhaps God never actually said he was perfect, or indeed has never spoken at all, in which case you can join the KOM army of religious eradication.
Because, of course, there's no such thing as a middle ground. You've either gotta believe or you're a godless anti-Christ. Just bear that in mind you heathens.
[Edit: To BlackBlade] I'm no-where near a theological common ground and believe society will be better off without religion, but that doesn't land me in an "army of religious eradication". If you take offence at an atheist's ideals, please remember that your religion states that s/he is doomed to eternal damnation and a world of pain after death, that s/he is morally poorer than the proponents of Christianity, that s/he is "lost".
quote:Originally posted by Tinros:
The reason there are so many different moral standards is that these deities/spirits have different standards, different things required of their followers. We can choose, based on our natural inclinations towards good or evil, as we percieve it, which god/goddess/spirit we follow.
Are you withdrawing your faith in Christianity and placing it with other polytheistic religions such as Hinduism? I don't mean that sarcastically; I just don't see how your line of reasoning in your OP would take you to the conclusion that a myriad of gods and spirits exist.
Hi, I'm KarlEd. Apparently you are unaware that I'm one of the godless heathens who is also not part of the Army of Religious Eradication, and what you quoted from me was sarcasm. I don't generally rely on my past history to be understood, however, so that's why I included the little rolly eyed guy at the bottom. He's kinda saying "Note: The above is sarcasm". Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I know Karl. Sorry; I was speaking to BlackBlade, and meant to include your response as a way of seconding it. Reading over it again I see I gave the wrong impression. Sorry I wasn't clear.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's good, 'cause if my words weren't sarcasm they'd be pretty scary. I'd hate to think someone thought I was serious.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Forgive me all, but I am tired and clearly not making my points. I think it best if I just let it go at this point.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Or perhaps God never actually said he was perfect, or indeed has never spoken at all, in which case you can join the KOM army of religious eradication.
Because, of course, there's no such thing as a middle ground. You've either gotta believe or you're a godless anti-Christ. Just bear that in mind you heathens.
My apologies Karl, I was being facetious but I didn't explicitly say so.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, Tinros, suppose that a god falls short of that ideal of perfection, morally. He says torturing kittens to death, and mass murder, are cool, and you say no. Is it just a matter of taste? If not, the standard that's right is, of course, the standard that's right. Then we're back into the question of whose standard it is.
But I get the sense you're not really interested (from the fact that you haven't expressed any interest). Unless you say otherwise, I'm just going to drop it.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will, that argument makes no sense whatsoever. I really wish you'd start reading what I write: we choose which God we follow based on what they say is right, and what we say is right. If the two parties agree, then we follow that god. This is from a POLYTHEISTIC worldview.
Posts: 1591 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tinros: Will, that argument makes no sense whatsoever. I really wish you'd start reading what I write: we choose which God we follow based on what they say is right, and what we say is right. If the two parties agree, then we follow that god. This is from a POLYTHEISTIC worldview.
Or we could be relating to different aspects/facets of one God.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
* because it is easier to persuade people toward a given end if it can be attributed to a common authority.
* because not only do we get the benefits of whatever choice we've made, but we can feel the additional sense of having fulfilled a larger purpose.
* because we can avoid responsibility for negative effects of our actions if we can attribute them to a "higher authority".
* because we can use threats of divine disapproval to coerce others into our worldview.
There must be other benefits to the appeal to authority that I'm not thinking of off the top of my head. NOTE: I'm not saying everyone who appeals to divine authority as a basis for their worldview has the motives, but they do seem like more than sufficient benefits to encourage the creation of deity in certain philosophies if one doesn't in fact exist there already.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
One and four are only "benefits" if you want to choose a world view for other people.
Three is a cop out.
I'm okay with two - as being part of something larger is a huge chunk of my world view.
NOTE: I agree that a lot of people do exactly as you say and for the reasons you list. And it is an easy trap to fall into. I just don't think we should.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree that a lot of people do exactly as you say and for the reasons you list. And it is an easy trap to fall into. I just don't think we should.
I wasn't addressing should; I was describing to a certain extent the way I think things are or at least were before evolving to the complex theologies we see today.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is an interesting book called (I believe) The Great Transformation. I pick it up on and off. It examines the tension between the ways of thinking about religion - guide to living, explaining/controlling the world, etc., through looking at large trends in religion during the axial age.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I'd hate to think someone thought I was serious.
