Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Without god there is no absolute morality or ethic that is lodged somewhere in the cosmos; god is the concept that allows one to make these moral systems absolute and have a reality apart from mind with the possibility of mind acquiring them. There is no hidden pickle jar somewhere with the right or wrong written down and placed in it; no nebula has a billboard on it with the cosmological requirement evolved out of reason lodged in nature or derived from a big bang that threw the alphabet together to reveal the will of nature-nature has no system of morality or ethics or meaning apart from mind; nature don't care what happens, or how, or what the meaning of life is and such. If our ethics are purely from reason or/and emotion, and that could be so, then our ethics and such are mental constructions, and merely rest on the police, social convention, who writes up the story called history, or what the tribe likes, etc. What is moral now, could be otherwise later, reason is a method, and it don't care how it is used to make something moral or ethical. A rational structure could be built to justify anything, just as a rational structure can be built to prove the existence of god or to disprove that existence. One would hope that a rational system of ethics would be constructed rationally well rather than rationally bad at the time of its construction, within the social context where it is needed, but as a rational system it is always subject to change. The human mind can not institute some absolute system within a constantly changing context; that is why we now have "positive" law (as well as positive everything else).
I answered the question a long time ago so, yeah, yeah, its answered early on (I guess no one reads my posts except me), so now I thought we were just running our minds-many pardons (I actually think mine was the most intelligent, be that as it may). Actually the question is misleading and written poorly. One could gather that the questioner either wants to imply that all that is christian could be thought up through reason, therefore, christianity is nothing but another made up particular rational stream like its cousin atheism, and; therefore, really isn't a transcendent "thing" at all. In which case, the question would be just another theologically ignorant one from a theologically ignorant person thinking he can debunk something through such a nit wit reduction, and he is unethical as he is hiding behind such seriousness instead of a direct assault. Or the question is a sincere request (from the data bar, I doubt it) for a trancendent moral issue that is not available to mind either externally or internally without revelation. In which case, the matching of a man "made up" moral issue, to one that is had by revelation is an accident, and the revealed one is still revealed, ie the ten commandments. Without this law one does not know one is immoral (in sin), even if one has similar man made laws. So a single moral issue, not had through reason, but must be revealed, is that you are a sinner (in your essence); not just someone who is in infraction of the law.
I thought I would comment on my comment, as as I went to WalMart to get a tomato for my BLT and some weed killer; the impatient poster who wanted a quickie answer to the question (and by predicating it with profanity, evidently he did not think much of the question either) kept returning to my thoughts while at the store, I decided that this is such a poor question and yet an intriguing one at the same time-it was then that I noticed a paradox, and to think it was there all the time, and really, with my original post on this thread, I did answer this, but at the same time I did not, as I did not reflect on the paradox that is in the question, and it is at the paradox where the interest lays. One has to remember that gentlemen never think as they have better things to do, so one has to answer questions so that the questioner does not have to put fourth any effort in thought; today everyone is a gentleman, including the ladies.
If this is a christian thread, let us assume the god (if it is a philosophical thread, then we must pretend there is a god) decides something is immoral (or moral, if you think the glass is half full). So let us assume he (use she or it instead of my "he" if you must have inclusive language while in your insecurity) has decided to tell the herd what that is. Since this is a reference to the christian concept, one will have to pretend that man (again use humankind, people mass, the maddening crowd, herd, etc, here if you are sensitive) was created. As a created being then, he will need reason (or what is called reason)-and for philosophical reasons that will weigh down the patience of the gentlemen, so I will forgo those for now-in order to dominate nature (reason is latent in nature and since the mind does not have direct access to it, it must construct concepts through interpretations, and to do that it uses the reason it has in conjunction with the "hidden" reason in nature to do its ideas of reality-oops, I gave the short version). So man is created with reason. God then will have to put his moral prescriptions in rational form so that the herd will understand them. Well man has the rational (sentences are rational constructions as well as systems) so, theoretically man could derive any prescription from reason prior to the prescription being given by the god, as reason is the method for understanding and for "reality" construction-neat paradox, I thank the original questioner for such a dumb question! I think a better question, or perhaps one that requires the expansion of thought somewhat (perhaps not here on the data forum deal) would be, "Are the moral systems constructed by man, that are similar to those given by god, the same systems, or is there a qualitative distinction between them, even if worded identically?" and further, "If these similar systems are distinct, how is one to know or understand that distinction and is justification attributable in both systems?". Because reason is needed for all system constructions and understandings, even poor ol' god must put them in rational form if men, herd, people, etc, are to understand them, I don't think the question of reason, as a primary focus, has much bearing on the matter, but reason as method to construct the answers does.
Definitely do not read my posts, as I do not want to waste the time of anybody-I for one never read the vast majority of the others either, as there is no thought in them. But you must have read my last post to say that you never read them!
Definitely do not read my posts, as I do not want to waste the time of anybody-I for one never read the vast majority of the others either, as there is no thought in them. But you must have read my last post to say that you never read them!
Actually I just read the first line, then it all became a blur...I try, but I find your style of writing not worth the effort.
Definitely do not read my posts, as I do not want to waste the time of anybody-I for one never read the vast majority of the others either, as there is no thought in them. But you must have read my last post to say that you never read them!
I write so that the rabble will not read; an ol' Greek idea-who needs rabble commentary or readership? One who reads and thinks philosophy, and disdains reductionism (a rarity here as most seem to have figured out the entire cosmos in a singular partial life span, and want it summed up in a sentence, a simple one at that), will be familiar with very long paragraphs, very long sentences (if this is a christian thread, a thinking christian is also familiar with this as well, say Barth's dogmatics {a paragraph may go on a few pages and believe me the print is small}, and much, much detail-my poor grammar is a crude reduction compared to those true thinkers. Lazy pates want "see Dick run; run, run, run". Wisdom usually has more to do with, than with syntax. But thanks for the advice one and all, your concern touches me deeply.
Would you be so kind as to remind me what the answer was or at least point to it so I can go back and read it again?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
