Is God guided by rule-based thinking??

[Radrook]

Making decisions based on rules has the advantage of concerving thinking time. But in human circles, such rule-based thinking can lead to injustice. When are we as morally obligated to overide Christians overide rule-based thinking?

Also, can rule based thinking lead God to commit an injustice?

Is rule based thinking then inherently evil?

 

[Tricky]

Making decisions based on rules has the advantage of concerving thinking time. But in human circles, such rule-based thinking can lead to injustice. When are we as morally obligated to overide Christians overide rule-based thinking?

Also, can rule based thinking lead God to commit an injustice?

Is rule based thinking then inherently evil?

I don't believe in absolutes. I don't think there should be absolute rules and I don't believe in absolute good & evil. Rules should be useful guidelines. They should not be made to be inflexible. For whatever rule you can propose, I can suggest an exception.

Supposedly God, a perfect being, would know all the rules, including all the contingencies and exceptions. But of course, mere humans could never know all this, so a perceived injustice would simply be a case of humans "not knowing the rules".

So it would be safe to say that humans should not have absolute rules, since they are uncertain about the absolutes.

 

[Radrook]

Re: Re: Is God guided by rule-based thinking??

I don't believe in absolutes. I don't think there should be absolute rules and I don't believe in absolute good & evil. Rules should be useful guidelines. They should not be made to be inflexible. For whatever rule you can propose, I can suggest an exception.

Supposedly God, a perfect being, would know all the rules, including all the contingencies and exceptions. But of course, mere humans could never know all this, so a perceived injustice would simply be a case of humans "not knowing the rules."

So it would be safe to say that humans should not have absolute rules, since they are uncertain about the absolutes.

The reason I posted this question is because many Christians seem to function under the burden of inflexible rules. For example, in the thread about suicide, you probably noticed how some said that it is wrong regardless of circumstances.

I have also come across such an approach in terms of salvation. For example, if at the time of death you die without having gotten to know Jesus, you lose out on eternal life. There are no and ifs or buts about it.

Your goose is cooked.

Never mind why you never were able to learn about salvation. Never mind about the social environment you were raised in. Never mind even if you are deaf and blind.
Your goose is definitely in the broiler.

To me that doesn't sound like justice.
To me that sounds like an unreasoning, mechanical, machine which ravenously engorges everyone and everything into its cavernous gaping jaws because well, you didn't follow the rules. In truth, it reminds me of the Pharisees whom Jesus said were placing burdens on the people that they themselves would not dare to carry.

 

[Iacchus]

I don't believe in absolutes. I don't think there should be absolute rules and I don't believe in absolute good & evil. Rules should be useful guidelines. They should not be made to be inflexible. For whatever rule you can propose, I can suggest an exception.

Is existence absolute? Or, are we pretty much making the whole thing up as we go? I would be inclined to believe it was absolute. Of course how can we really be sure of anything, conisidering the subjective nature of human beings? But then again if we can agree on that much, that our subjectivity is absolute, then we have just established the basis for everything else we know. Which, of course is relative to that which is absolute.

 

[Bubbles]

Full disclosure: I am a moderate to liberal Christian

I would answer the question by the example of Newtonian physics and relativity (Physics isn't my area of expertise, so I hope I'm not screwing it up).

My belief is that there is an absolute goodness. The rules are attempts to apply that goodness to specific situations.

The analogy comes in here: under certain constraints Newtonian physics works great. It is not, however, absolute. Under some conditions it is innacurate. I have said in other threads that GENERALLY suicide is wrong. GENERALLY (within a a significant number of 'ifs'), Newtonian physics is right. However, just as Newtonian physics is not absolute, neither are the rules by which we attempt to apply and express the absolute goodness.

A great many Christians do believe that the rules ARE absolute. I think they confuse the objective and our subjective experience of the objective. I think that they show this mistake in a number of areas.

 

[Bubbles]

Re: Re: Is God guided by rule-based thinking??

I don't believe in absolutes. I don't think there should be absolute rules and I don't believe in absolute good & evil. Rules should be useful guidelines. They should not be made to be inflexible. For whatever rule you can propose, I can suggest an exception.

Do you see the problem with your argument? If you can suggest an exception to a rule, then you are proposing something by which the rule be judged. What is that something? Is it another rule? If so, it must be a higher rule if it has precedence. Does that something have exceptions? If not, then is't it the absolute? If so, then don't you just keep climbing until you reach the top?

Now, it is fair to argue that the objective truth is not entrely knowable to us (We express infinite goodness by finite rules as we have finite minds). That is fair. If anything, however, I think your logic supports belief in the absolute, though not in any particular claim as to what it is.

 

[Tricky]

Full disclosure: I am a moderate to liberal Christian

I would answer the question by the example of Newtonian physics and relativity (Physics isn't my area of expertise, so I hope I'm not screwing it up).

My belief is that there is an absolute goodness. The rules are attempts to apply that goodness to specific situations.

The analogy comes in here: under certain constraints Newtonian physics works great. It is not, however, absolute. Under some conditions it is innacurate. I have said in other threads that GENERALLY suicide is wrong. GENERALLY (within a a significant number of 'ifs'), Newtonian physics is right. However, just as Newtonian physics is not absolute, neither are the rules by which we attempt to apply and express the absolute goodness.

A great many Christians do believe that the rules ARE absolute. I think they confuse the objective and our subjective experience of the objective. I think that they show this mistake in a number of areas.

Full disclosure: I am a moderate to liberal atheist.

And I agree with you almost completely. The only part I contest is the existance of "absolute goodness". I believe that such a thing would be considered a concept, or limit, like infinity, which has meaning, but does not exist in reality.

 

[Tricky]

Do you see the problem with your argument? If you can suggest an exception to a rule, then you are proposing something by which the rule be judged. What is that something? Is it another rule? If so, it must be a higher rule if it has precedence. Does that something have exceptions? If not, then is't it the absolute? If so, then don't you just keep climbing until you reach the top?

Exactly my point. (see previous post). In order for there to be "rules" there must be something/someone that knows all the rules, and there are an infinite number of them. Again, this concept of infinite knowledge has, in my mind, no place in reality. It is an unreachable goal. You can never reach the top.

Now, it is fair to argue that the objective truth is not entrely knowable to us (We express infinite goodness by finite rules as we have finite minds). That is fair. If anything, however, I think your logic supports belief in the absolute, though not in any particular claim as to what it is.

I think my logic supports belief in the absolute as a limit but not as a thing which can truly exist.

 

[Bubbles]

I have wondered if ideas such as free will and objective goodness can be reconciled to atheism. As I am not an atheist, I haven't thought too much about it. Perhaps this is a metter for a new thread (or, more likely, an old thread for me to find and read).

I would argue that there are infinite rules only in the sense that there are infinite applications of the absolute principle. Infinite mind would not need to know inifinite rules, but rather it would know (or be) the principle. Even finite minds would not grow by memorizing more rules, but by understanding the principle. Growth would not be a movement to greater and greater multiplicity, but to greater and greater simplicity.

I do not know how it can be said that something is a limit if it does not exist. Absolute zero as a temperature is unreachable. Does that make it any less real? If no one has seen the top of the mountain, does it follow that no one can? If no one can, does it follow that there is no top?

 

[Tricky]

I have wondered if ideas such as free will and objective goodness can be reconciled to atheism. As I am not an atheist, I haven't thought too much about it. Perhaps this is a metter for a new thread (or, more likely, an old thread for me to find and read).

Certainly they can be reconciled. There is a surprising variability in the things atheists believe. But it really all comes down to definitions. I can easily define objective goodness as "that which is to the benefit of mankind" (being a shameless specist ) But as always, the specifics are impossible to nail down. I can easily envision that a plague is "for the good of mankind" because it prevents overpopulation and provides selective pressure for disease resistance. But I can easily see an exception to that rule if a plague kills the one person capable of designing a fusion reactor that would solve our energy problems.

I would argue that there are infinite rules only in the sense that there are infinite applications of the absolute principle. Infinite mind would not need to know inifinite rules, but rather it would know (or be) the principle. Even finite minds would not grow by memorizing more rules, but by understanding the principle. Growth would not be a movement to greater and greater multiplicity, but to greater and greater simplicity.

Here we disagree. I see the progress of the world going in the opposite direction from simplicity. Every question we answer asks many more new questions. Absolute principles become cluttered with exceptions. Yes, of course we can generalize that we "want to do good", the question of "what is good" becomes ever more complex. I think one example of this is our global warming problem. Surely it is good to provide means for more humans to be comfortable, is it not? But what if it shortens our stay on earth? Where is the greater good? These sorts of questions can be argued ad infinitum. In the end, it comes down to, "what does any individual consider good?" There are as many answers to this question as there are people.

Personally, I favor a longer, less wasteful existance for our species. Some (not all) Christians argue that all of this was put here for us to use and we're going to be raptured soon anyway so there is no need to conserve. What does God think? I don't believe anybody knows for sure, so the question is moot. We are going to have to make our choices without God's input.

I do not know how it can be said that something is a limit if it does not exist. Absolute zero as a temperature is unreachable. Does that make it any less real? If no one has seen the top of the mountain, does it follow that no one can? If no one can, does it follow that there is no top?

Absolute zero is not real, in that it cannot exist in the universe. It is a concept only. Neither can you reach the top of an infinitely tall mountain. Thus it follows, if God is infinite wisdom, then by definition, God does not exist in reality, but only as an idea.

Still, we all manage to struggle by with our admittedly finite wisdom. We define "good" in ways that make sense to us. Some of us claim that our definition is divinely inspired, but oddly, all those who claim that do not reach the same conclusions. To me, that sounds anything but divinely inspired.

 

[Bubbles]

I was lazy when I said atheist earlier. I meant materialist. I would assume that most atheists are materialists, but I do not know that.

But to say that people have different experiences of a thing does not prove that the thing does not exist. Get a crowd of people to draw a picture of you, if you would like an illustration.

The real question I have is to ask what you mean by 'concept'. Perhaps we define the term differently. It seems to me that you are trying to find a position between the one that asserts an objective reality to goodness and one that asserts that morality is a purely subjective thing (calling it cultural norms would fit here as well). I'm not sure that middle option exists.

 

[Tricky]

I was lazy when I said atheist earlier. I meant materialist. I would assume that most atheists are materialists, but I do not know that.

Most atheists are materialists, but there are some materialists that are not atheists, Deists being a good example. At least they are almost materialists. But I do not quibble about your choice of words.

But to say that people have different experiences of a thing does not prove that the thing does not exist. Get a crowd of people to draw a picture of you, if you would like an illustration.

Ask the same crowd to draw a picture of a unicorn. I'll bet there is more consistancy there than there would be in a picture of me. But which one is real?

But I have numerous traits that would identify me. There are pictures of me. I have fingerprints. I could be picked out of a police lineup (let's hope that never happens ). The same can not be said of God. He has no distinguishing characteristics.

I am reminded of one of my favorite jokes:

Mom: What are you drawing honey?
Kid: A picture of God.
Mom: That's nice honey, but no one knows what God looks like.
Kid: They will when I'm finished.

The real question I have is to ask what you mean by 'concept'. Perhaps we define the term differently. It seems to me that you are trying to find a position between the one that asserts an objective reality to goodness and one that asserts that morality is a purely subjective thing (calling it cultural norms would fit here as well). I'm not sure that middle option exists.

I'm sorry my explanation of "concept" was so poor. I guess I'll have to fall back on a dictionary definition

1 : something conceived in the mind : THOUGHT, NOTION
2 : an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances

In the case of "goodness" it is an ideal, yet you must admit that no human can ever realize that ideal, or even define it. So it exists as a thought, but not a real thing.

And yes, I would say that morality is purely a subjective thing. I would say that the fact that people can morally justify mass murder would support that position. Cultural norms are merely the majority saying "we don't accept your idea of morality". Personally, I don't accept Ayn Rand's version of morality, but many others do.

In my mind, morality is derived from what is good for the species. We may disagree on specifics, but there are some pretty broad areas where the majority of people agree. That is "cultural norm" morality. However, the majority opinion changes. Slavery used to be considered moral. Now it is not (by the majority). Was it ever moral? Depends on your viewpoint, and indeed, on your definition of "slavery".

 

[Bubbles]

I had misunderstood your view. Of course, it turns out that, instead of being one I partially disagree with it is one that I wholly disagree with. . .

I still think that you blur the destinction between the objective and subjective knowledge of the objective. A bunch of people drawing you would produce very different pictures. You, so far as we know, exist. A bunch of people drawing a unicorn would produce wildly different pictures. Unicorns, so far as we know, do not exist. The agreement among different moral systems no more proves the existence of objective goodness (and by this I do mean something real (though not physical)) than the agreement with the pictures proves the unicorn. However, the disagreement between moral systems no more disproves objective goodness than does the disagreements in drawings of you disprove your existence.

It amuses me that, to produce a caricature, you are arguing that you know the nature of something that doesn't exist while I argue that I'm not sure that I know anything about something that does exist! Life is full of ironies for the stupid!

 

[Tricky]

I had misunderstood your view. Of course, it turns out that, instead of being one I partially disagree with it is one that I wholly disagree with. . .

Well, c'est la vie.

I still think that you blur the destinction between the objective and subjective knowledge of the objective. A bunch of people drawing you would produce very different pictures. You, so far as we know, exist. A bunch of people drawing a unicorn would produce wildly different pictures. Unicorns, so far as we know, do not exist.

I disagree. If you took a number of people who looked at pictures of unicorns, regardless of how badly the unicorns were drawn, they would be able to say "that is a unicorn". If you took a bunch of people who knew me and had them look at a picture of me badly drawn, few if any of them would say "that's Tricky". A unicorn has definite characteristics. It is a horse with a horn. Tricky has no outstanding characteristics, other than his appalling ugliness, but I am unconvinced that most unskilled artists could capture that ugliness in a recognizable manner.

Now, suppose you asked a number of people to draw a picture of God. What do you suppose they would draw? I'm sure there would be a lot of old men with beards hanging around on clouds. You'd probably get a number of people drawing crosses, maybe a few drawing radiance-type things, and probably some others drawing hearts. (God is love, ya know.) There would be no consistancy at all.

Now take a number of people not aware of what they are drawing and have them look at the pictures. How many do you think would identify them as "God". I'm betting you'd get the highest percentage on the guy in the clouds, would you not agree? And yet, I'm sure you don't envision god as "a guy in the clouds". What would you draw if you were asked to draw God?

The agreement among different moral systems no more proves the existence of objective goodness (and by this I do mean something real (though not physical)) than the agreement with the pictures proves the unicorn. However, the disagreement between moral systems no more disproves objective goodness than does the disagreements in drawings of you disprove your existence.

I can give definate, verifiable, correlatable, repeatable evidence of my existance. You can not give any such evidence of objective goodness. All that exists is opinions. I have my own. You have yours. What is the truth? None of us are capable of saying. You may insist that this truth exists in spite of its evanescence, but I am skeptical.

It amuses me that, to produce a caricature, you are arguing that you know the nature of something that doesn't exist while I argue that I'm not sure that I know anything about something that does exist! Life is full of ironies for the stupid!

I'm not sure what you mean. I, and many others, know the description of a mythological creature. It could also be said that many people agree on the description of God, and many do not. Like art, there are a number of "schools".

But the ability to parrot back something that has been taught to you does not make something real. In contrast, I can give you evidence of me. I'd love to meet you somewhere for a drink, if it could be arranged. You can invite God too. If you can convince him to buy, then you have a new convert.

 

[Bubbles]

This is fun (the comment at the end of my last post was strictly making fun of me).

It seems to me that we are arguing about a pretty old issue where some very fine minds have already fought. As near as I can tell, Plato and I agree. As near as I can tell, the Sophists and you agree. I don't know enough modern philosophy to give more current names

Personally, I'm convinced that every drawing and picture of me fails to capture my appearance. I can't be THAT ugly, can I? But then, I'm a master of self-delusion (or at least that's what I tell myself).

Would you agree that most people speak as if an objective goodness existed? Now, that does not prove that it does, of course. When people say, for example, that segregation is wrong, they do not merely speak as if they disapprove of it or that it isn't usefull to society. Rather, they speak as if there is a standard, quite apart from what anyone thinks, by which the thing is to be judged, and that they are against it because it fails that test. Now, it could be argued that people think this way (if they do, in fact) because it gives them transcendant approval for their wishes (see the religious right). Personally, I'm more than happy to stand in disagreement with the mass of humanity most of the time. But hey, even a blind squirrell finds a nut on occasion!

I think, from what you have said, that you do not believe anything exists that does not physically exist. It is an assumption. It may be true. Either way, it can't be argued with. We can discuss the implications of the beliefs each of us have and whether we are logically consistent.

I do not claim that any moral system has objective reality (save, of course, that if you write it down, it has a physical existence), only that there is an transcendent goodness of which each is a sort of 'picture' (inherently inadequate and, at least potentially, false

 

[Tricky]

This is fun (the comment at the end of my last post was strictly making fun of me).

Yes, it's always fun to debate people who don't become insulting. And yes, I figured your comment was self-depricating, like mine. We actually tend to agree on a lot.

It seems to me that we are arguing about a pretty old issue where some very fine minds have already fought. As near as I can tell, Plato and I agree. As near as I can tell, the Sophists and you agree. I don't know enough modern philosophy to give more current names

You have more education in philosophy than I. I only have BS philosophy (and I don't mean "Bachelor of Science").

Would you agree that most people speak as if an objective goodness existed? Now, that does not prove that it does, of course. When people say, for example, that segregation is wrong, they do not merely speak as if they disapprove of it or that it isn't usefull to society. Rather, they speak as if there is a standard, quite apart from what anyone thinks, by which the thing is to be judged, and that they are against it because it fails that test.

Yes, they say that (and so do I), but when pressed, most will admit that it is not perfectly objective. If you gave them a situation where segregation was right, like perhaps two mutually hateful groups would spend all their time trying to kill each other if they were put together, then they might agree that segragation, at least temporary, was a necessary evil. Hey, they segregate Bettas in fish shops, don't they?

So I stand by my point that you can visualize and ideal, but never achieve it, because you will always be able to find an exception.

Now, it could be argued that people think this way (if they do, in fact) because it gives them transcendant approval for their wishes (see the religious right). Personally, I'm more than happy to stand in disagreement with the mass of humanity most of the time. But hey, even a blind squirrel finds a nut on occasion!

Me too. I get in more trouble that way. You might be interested in a thread I started about a family argument on religion.

And I must say that I am against that horrible practice you fanatical believers have of blinding squirrels.

I think, from what you have said, that you do not believe anything exists that does not physically exist. It is an assumption. It may be true. Either way, it can't be argued with. We can discuss the implications of the beliefs each of us have and whether we are logically consistent.

I am a materialist, yes. It is an assumption, but it is an assumption based on much experience. I have yet to find strong evidence for a single thing that does not have a material basis. Even your thoughts and emotions are stored in your very physical brain. But I am open to the possibility that I am wrong.

I do not claim that any moral system has objective reality (save, of course, that if you write it down, it has a physical existence), only that there is an transcendent goodness of which each is a sort of 'picture' (inherently inadequate and, at least potentially, false

As I pointed out, it has a physical existence in your brain, even if you don't write it down. But I cannot see the point of hypothesizing an ideal when you agree it can never be reached? What is the pragmatic difference between an ideal that can never be reached, and no ideal? It wouldn't change your behavior to know that your morals are relative, would it?

I think that believing in an "ideal" is bad, because it tends to polarize people and lead them into false dichotomies of good and bad. It's like the "what would Jesus do?" craze. The answer almost always comes out to be, "whatever fits into my moral view of the world." If you don't agree, then you don't love Jesus.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Re: Re: Is God guided by rule-based thinking??

I don't believe in absolutes. I don't think there should be absolute rules and I don't believe in absolute good & evil. Rules should be useful guidelines. They should not be made to be inflexible. For whatever rule you can propose, I can suggest an exception.

So given the rule "For whatever rule you can propose, I can suggest an exception", you can suggest an exception?

 

[Tricky]

Re: Re: Re: Is God guided by rule-based thinking??

So given the rule "For whatever rule you can propose, I can suggest an exception", you can suggest an exception?

Of course.

I can't suggest an exception to a rule that is gibberish.

 

[Art Vandelay]

So then the rule "For whatever rule you can propose, I can suggest an exception" is not in fact true. And if you respond that you meant to say "For whatever nongibberish rule you can propose, I can suggest an exception", then I will ask whether that rule is gibberish, and if not, then whether it has an exception. The claim that there are no absolutes strikes me as self-contradictory, because the claim that there are no absolutes is itself an absolute.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The claim that there are no absolutes strikes me as self-contradictory, because the claim that there are no absolutes is itself an absolute.

The alternative would be that there are absolutes..

Any suggestions?