His actual nature, were He to be, is not to reveal His existence, is to create as if He didn't. What else does that, and not a bunch of old manuscripts, say about His nature?
That He can't be found by accident?
Or design.
One tentative explanation that once made some kind of sense is that it leads to the Body of Christ (ie the Church) being integral to the strategy for salvation. In terms of effectiveness, that seems pretty limiting. Maybe He thinks the necessity of the Church's involvement is that important.
The body of Christ is, ultimately, all humanity. "As in Adam all died, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." The church has many roles, but the more it believes that it is already God, the more evil it is, because it acts always to protect itself. All the scandals we see, all the failings in love, are because the churches now on earth believe that they are already God.
His actual nature, were He to be, is not to reveal His existence, is to create as if He didn't. What else does that, and not a bunch of old manuscripts, say about His nature?
That He can't be found by accident?
Or design.
One tentative explanation that once made some kind of sense is that it leads to the Body of Christ (ie the Church) being integral to the strategy for salvation. In terms of effectiveness, that seems pretty limiting. Maybe He thinks the necessity of the Church's involvement is that important.
The Church does. And it was initially remarkably effective locally. It took the destruction of Jerusalem to move it to Rome.
The best solution I can come up with to the weak problem is that intervention would make it less real and more a holodeck with the safeties all on. Which is fine, but isn't real.
What’s less real about it? Why should “real” require pain and suffering?
If it were possible to exist in a constant “holodeck with the safeties on” situation then I’d jump at the chance.
The best solution I can come up with to the weak problem is that intervention would make it less real and more a holodeck with the safeties all on. Which is fine, but isn't real.
What’s less real about it? Why should “real” require pain and suffering?
If it were possible to exist in a constant “holodeck with the safeties on” situation then I’d jump at the chance.
Life/evolution isn't invulnerable. Including to itself.
If it doesn't we then get hooked on the Euthyphro dilemma: does God command the ethical framework because it's good (but then what makes it good?) or is it only good because it's commanded by God (in which case God is an arbitrary dictator).
The traditional theistic answer (in those traditions that do philosophy) is that created goodness is a reflection of God's nature. In traditions influenced by Plato it's an actual participation in God's nature; in others it's an imitation. As Lamb Chopped has already said.
I note that the classical theistic perspective is that the Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma.
If only I said something to that effect in my post.
Is an ethical framework required of God? Clearly God expects humanity to function under a specific, proscribed framework, but does it apply to him?
If it doesn't we then get hooked on the Euthyphro dilemma:
So the question posed by The_Riv was "Does it [an ethical framework] apply to God" and the answer you gave was "If it doesn't, we then get hooked...", which infers that, in order for us to avoid getting hooked, an ethical framework *does* apply to God.
This is such a big subject and I wrestle with it constantly. Sorry if I'm coming in partway through others thoughts with a ramble. I think I’m coming at this from a similar place from @GammaGamaliel in that we have personal experience of suffering. I think we all suffer in ways that are part of being human, the whole cycle of life, death and all that comes with that. Some people have lives that appear to have more suffering in them than others and how to explain that? I don’t think we can. All we can do is form a loving community around those people, and I know I have been remiss on more than one occasion with my own actions, or lack thereof.
There are some types of suffering which are caused by the ill actions of others, war and famine for example. They are things that some people accept as part of life, particularly when they are not personally affected. That’s not a dig at anyone here, it’s just an observation of how communities and societies behave. My personal view of being a Christian is to push back when we see injustice, poor government policy is to participate in whatever way we can to make things better. Even if we can’t fully succeed, we can at least try to improve the situation for others.
For me one big this is the unknowable nature of God. I think I have come to reject how God behaves in the Old Testament and other than providing context for the and society into which Jesus was born, I am not sure I see much use for it in teaching Christianity. The Old Testament provides lots of awful examples of how people behave to one another, and I note that many Christians seems to grasp onto Old Testament reasons to support their own unloving behaviours, rather than looking to Jesus and how he behaved with people. For me King David and his behaviours are one reason as a woman to think, well if he’s God’s man, then bler, you can keep him.
In terms of our own circumstances with a very sick child over many years, I think over time we became ground down by our own worries and the trauma of others. For that reason, one of my own biblical heroes is the woman who was cured of her bleeding by Jesus. We are told that she had sought to be cured for many years and having done 20 years with our own kid’s issues, I don’t think we can overstate how persistent she was. The most intensive part of our kid’s treatment was 7 years and that just about killed us, emotionally, financially and spiritually and when I was really low, I’d look at that woman and think, Just keep going. If she could do it, you can too!
I used to tease our Oncologist, because some Doctors are very remote, which drove me a bit crazy at times. I understand the need for that professional distance, working in that field would kill you otherwise. But I told him about the parable of the woman who kept hassling the judge to get the outcome she wanted. I told him, that I was like that woman and I wouldn’t take no for an answer. He told me at one point that there was not a lot more to offer our son, the cupboard was pretty close to empty, I told him to look harder, and there was something else. It was terrible, but it worked. The way that we look at success is sometimes not success, and our young person may still have a shortened lifespan. They are grateful for the life they have but they worry about displeasing God, “maybe God’s plan for me was that I would not live”, heartbreaking. Do any of us know the answer to that? No. I only tell him that God doesn’t desire anyone to perish. Normally we talk about that in a spiritual sense, but I tell him that God knows the outcome of every event. He doesn’t sit there picking off people for his own amusement, that at one time yes, he would certainly have died. Now that he has a life we and God want him to have the best one possible. Not in a sense of being rich or successful, but in what he can achieve with the life he has. Maybe he can work for better support for kids like him through advocacy or public speaking. It’s all an open book and yet to be explored. Maybe his life will be something else, I don’t know. I often think of the way in Narnia Aslan would say no one will be told any story other than their own and I have to be content with that.
Obviously, I would have preferred that my kid didn’t have cancer, I’d prefer that the kids we knew who have died, were still here. I don’t know how their families have continued to function and I know that some have not, I know of 3 or 4 marriage breakdowns. I know in a human sense the kids died because current therapies were not able to treat their disease. I know Drs sometimes express it as their disease was not responsive to the treatments that are available, personally I hate that because it makes the patient feel as though they are at fault, when of course they aren’t. Perhaps Doctors feel better saying it that way, to help deal with the grief they must feel, when they know a patient is terminal, there must be a sense of failure there.
Sorry, this is totally rambly an probably off topic, but I can only work within the context with which I’m familiar. So, having rejected the OT God, how do I feel about Jesus? Well, it’s complicated. In some sense I take comfort in the story of Lazarus. It’s not expressed in this way, but I can imagine Mary and Martha saying WTF? Where were you?, which I think is the ultimate question when we are dealing with suffering and God’s seeming silence in horrible situations. Jesus’ response was that he wept, and sometimes that’s all we have, not just our own tears, but that Jesus wept and perhaps wished he’d made a choice to come sooner, though the NT doesn’t tell us that. Nowadays my prayer is just, God, in this moment of suffering help them to cope, to be wise and to persist even when it’s all too hard. That’s all I have.
I still struggle with the idea that an Omnipotent God can be defeated by one single rogue cell that goes on to kill a person, not just the person who dies, but the whole community around them that is forever changed. At this point in time, I don’t think I will ever make peace with that, but I keep on pondering and hoping for the best. Not everyone can do that, and it’s a position I completely understand
I don’t think we’re supposed to make peace with that, and i hope your child isn’t struggling anymore with the horrid idea that he/she might have somehow thwarted God’s plans by living. There isn’t a chance in hell God would feel that way. Jesus isn’t like that at all, and would have harsh words for anyone who taught such a thing.
Thanks @Lamb Chopped . I think as he moves further away from treatment that it plays less on his mind. He also has had some good psychosocial support from a local cancer charity and through the local hospital. I think because there were so many attempts at cure (4) he began to think that if it wasn't working, it was because that wasn't God's plan for him. I don't think anyone ever told him that explicitly, it was just that his young brain thought that God should be fixing it. Part of working through why God does or doesn't act in a way we want him to, are we loved or are we not? It was a very hard time and we could barely cope with these thoughts being articulated on top of our own misery
Is an ethical framework required of God? Clearly God expects humanity to function under a specific, proscribed framework, but does it apply to him?
If it doesn't we then get hooked on the Euthyphro dilemma: does God command the ethical framework because it's good (but then what makes it good?) or is it only good because it's commanded by God (in which case God is an arbitrary dictator).
The traditional theistic answer (in those traditions that do philosophy) is that created goodness is a reflection of God's nature. In traditions influenced by Plato it's an actual participation in God's nature; in others it's an imitation. As Lamb Chopped has already said.
The idea that morality is no more than a set of rules commanded by God goes back no further than the late Middle Ages / early Modern period - not coincidentally I suspect like the divine right of kings.
As for where that information is found, the answer is a lot of philosophers and theologians trying to think logically through what goodness entails.
Nowhere in the above do you state that the Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma. You kind-of imply it, by relating the reasoning without the conclusion: "The traditional theistic answer (in those traditions that do philosophy) is that created goodness is a reflection of God's nature."
But the specific problem is that you prefix this by inferring that God *does* abide by an ethical framework, whereas the point is that "God neither conforms to nor invents the moral order."
Nowhere in the above do you state that the Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma.
I do not use the precise words 'false dilemma'.
You kind-of imply it, by relating the reasoning without the conclusion: "The traditional theistic answer (in those traditions that do philosophy) is that created goodness is a reflection of God's nature."
The only way I can parse this is as an ungracious and weaselly acknowledgement that I do state it.
But the specific problem is that you prefix this by inferring that God *does* abide by an ethical framework, whereas the point is that "God neither conforms to nor invents the moral order."
The very next sentence of the quote is:
"Rather His very nature is the standard for value."
You quoted it last time.
God acts according to the standard of value, which is God's nature.
But the specific problem is that you prefix this by inferring that God *does* abide by an ethical framework, whereas the point is that "God neither conforms to nor invents the moral order."
The very next sentence of the quote is:
"Rather His very nature is the standard for value."
You quoted it last time.
God acts according to the standard of value, which is God's nature.
If God does not conform to the moral order, but acts according to His own nature, that means that He is not a moral agent.
We don't know how or when God acts. All we know is what people ascribe to God. They might be right, they might be wrong.
As Aquinas finally realised about God-talk, "All is straw."
We don't know how or when God acts. All we know is what people ascribe to God. They might be right, they might be wrong.
As Aquinas finally realised about God-talk, "All is straw."
It has ever been thus. But I'd include that we don't know if god acts, which would seem to mean that being right or wrong about god never enters the room.
It's what I pray for too. I don't know what to ask for so often; things on earth are so complicated, and every answer hurts someone else, it seems. So I'm glad Jesus threw that petition in there, it handles it for me.
We don't know how or when God acts. All we know is what people ascribe to God. They might be right, they might be wrong.
As Aquinas finally realised about God-talk, "All is straw."
It has ever been thus. But I'd include that we don't know if god acts, which would seem to mean that being right or wrong about god never enters the room.
Which is why I would count my self as an agnostic who hopes there is truth in the basic claims shared by religions but who cannot bring myself to state with any conviction that there is.
We don't know how or when God acts. All we know is what people ascribe to God. They might be right, they might be wrong.
As Aquinas finally realised about God-talk, "All is straw."
It has ever been thus. But I'd include that we don't know if god acts, which would seem to mean that being right or wrong about god never enters the room.
Which is why I would count my self as an agnostic who hopes there is truth in the basic claims shared by religions but who cannot bring myself to state with any conviction that there is.
I was moved by that. But. What basic claims shared by religions? That there is a spirit world with moral authority? Which explains the natural golden rule enjoined even by the minority irreligious?
We don't know how or when God acts. All we know is what people ascribe to God. They might be right, they might be wrong.
As Aquinas finally realised about God-talk, "All is straw."
It has ever been thus. But I'd include that we don't know if god acts, which would seem to mean that being right or wrong about god never enters the room.
Which is why I would count my self as an agnostic who hopes there is truth in the basic claims shared by religions but who cannot bring myself to state with any conviction that there is.
I was moved by that. But. What basic claims shared by religions? That there is a spirit world with moral authority? Which explains the natural golden rule enjoined even by the minority irreligious?
That life continues after death. That there is intrinsic merit in doing good rather than evil, so it isn't just about reward and payback. That there is value in everyone no matter who. That we are all capable of redemption from even our worst selves. That there is ultimately purpose to it all.
I am a natural optimist, so it would be good to know there is some ultimate reason for my optimism.
2/3rds of those are shared by enlightened people regardless of religion or no. And the ultimate reason for your optimism is you. Is the perfectly adequate natural explanation. Which also fully explains the 1/3rd supernatural beliefs.
2/3rds of those are shared by enlightened people regardless of religion or no. And the ultimate reason for your optimism is you. Is the perfectly adequate natural explanation. Which also fully explains the 1/3rd supernatural beliefs.
Yes. For me the mystery is in "the problem of good" rather than "the problem of evil." Where are self sacrifice and altruism rooted when nature seems to be red in tooth and claw.
Answered decades ago by Dawkins and the like. We aren't the only species that is self sacrificial, red in tooth, altruistic, and red in claw. It's all completely natural. There is no mystery whatsoever that requires a supernatural explanation.
Answered decades ago by Dawkins and the like. We aren't the only species that is self sacrificial, red in tooth, altruistic, and red in claw. It's all completely natural. There is no mystery whatsoever that requires a supernatural explanation.
And tectonic and weather events are entirely natural too, so is natural decay and disease. It all depends on how anthropocentric your world is when you ascribe moral worth to them.
Answered decades ago by Dawkins and the like. We aren't the only species that is self sacrificial, red in tooth, altruistic, and red in claw. It's all completely natural. There is no mystery whatsoever that requires a supernatural explanation.
And tectonic and weather events are entirely natural too, so is natural decay and disease. It all depends on how anthropocentric your world is when you ascribe moral worth to them.
Sorry? My world is completely anthropocentric, as I'm anthropoid and the morality I choose is based on the belief that you're worth it. How do we get from that to the supernatural?
Answered decades ago by Dawkins and the like. We aren't the only species that is self sacrificial, red in tooth, altruistic, and red in claw. It's all completely natural. There is no mystery whatsoever that requires a supernatural explanation.
And tectonic and weather events are entirely natural too, so is natural decay and disease. It all depends on how anthropocentric your world is when you ascribe moral worth to them.
Sorry? My world is completely anthropocentric, as I'm anthropoid and the morality I choose is based on the belief that you're worth it. How do we get from that to the supernatural?
I wouldn't want to make that link. In my view anything supernatural is totally other (if it exists) and not amenable to reason.
Most of the planet's current problems have come from an anthropocentric world view. It's the modern version of the medieval earth-centric universe.
Answered decades ago by Dawkins and the like. We aren't the only species that is self sacrificial, red in tooth, altruistic, and red in claw. It's all completely natural. There is no mystery whatsoever that requires a supernatural explanation.
And tectonic and weather events are entirely natural too, so is natural decay and disease. It all depends on how anthropocentric your world is when you ascribe moral worth to them.
Sorry? My world is completely anthropocentric, as I'm anthropoid and the morality I choose is based on the belief that you're worth it. How do we get from that to the supernatural?
I wouldn't want to make that link. In my view anything supernatural is totally other (if it exists) and not amenable to reason.
Most of the planet's current problems have come from an anthropocentric world view. It's the modern version of the medieval earth-centric universe.
I'm sure unenlightened anthropocentric world views are to blame for at least as much misery as enlightened anthropocentric world views are for happiness.
I don't really understand why 'good' nor 'evil' are problems. It seems to be basic observation to see that pretty much everyone is a mix of both in different amounts.
But the specific problem is that you prefix this by inferring that God *does* abide by an ethical framework, whereas the point is that "God neither conforms to nor invents the moral order."
The very next sentence of the quote is:
"Rather His very nature is the standard for value."
God acts according to the standard of value, which is God's nature.
If God does not conform to the moral order, but acts according to His own nature, that means that He is not a moral agent.
God does not conform to the moral order in the sense that God has to reshape (form) what God would have done anyway to fit (conform) into a moral order.
The view that you can't be a moral agent if you act according to your nature is I think quite wrong.
Virtue ethics makes a distinction between akratic behaviour (the agent knows they ought to resist temptation but in spite of themselves doesn't), enkratic behaviour (the agent resists temptation because they know what the right thing to do is), and virtuous behaviour (the agent does what they want to do because that is what they want to do). So an enkratic agent gives to charity because they know giving to charity is the right thing; a virtuous moral agent gives to charity because in addition to knowing what morality requires they feel sympathy for those to whom they give and desire their good. That is, their reasons for acting are not merely that morality requires them to do so but are the reasons why morality requires it.
A virtuous moral agent is therefore one who acts out of their whole nature not merely their reason and willpower.
God is not enkratic: obeying the moral law through discipline rather than through inclination. Rather, God is perfectly virtuous, and virtue in others is imitation of God.
Accounts of real people's suffering should always be relevant to any consideration of theodicy - and can motivate people to study theodicy in the first place - they want an answer to the pain and find the explanations they've been given insufficient.
As I related on another thread, suffering can and does lead to people losing their faith. Their suffering exceeds the capability of their experience and understanding of faith to cope. But as noted by this chap, "theodicy cannot comfort those who undergo severe suffering, because the God of theodicies appears to remain aloof to that suffering."
A theodicy is a justification of why God allows evil and suffering. A more recent development are "anti-theodicies", which are various refutations of this approach, on essentially ethical grounds. (D Z Phillips now seems to be considered an anti-theodicist.)
Theodicy is not possible because of meaningless suffering. And if there is transcendence, we won't need it. If there were a creator's signature, then everything, including perichoretic suffering, would have meaning. But there is no maker's mark. But that won't stop the absurd practice of theology.
Theodicy is not possible because of meaningless suffering. And if there is transcendence, we won't need it. If there were a creator's signature, then everything, including perichoretic suffering, would have meaning. But there is no maker's mark. But that won't stop the absurd practice of theology.
Theodicy is not possible because of meaningless suffering. And if there is transcendence, we won't need it. If there were a creator's signature, then everything, including perichoretic suffering, would have meaning. But there is no maker's mark. But that won't stop the absurd practice of theology.
Is this not an example of theology?
No. Theology is what you do once you've made up your mind, despite no warrant whatsoever, that there is divinity behind religious belief.
Theodicy is not possible because of meaningless suffering. And if there is transcendence, we won't need it. If there were a creator's signature, then everything, including perichoretic suffering, would have meaning. But there is no maker's mark. But that won't stop the absurd practice of theology.
Is this not an example of theology?
No. Theology is what you do once you've made up your mind, despite no warrant whatsoever, that there is divinity behind religious belief.
Or you've made up your mind that there is no divinity. Theology all the way down.
Theodicy is not possible because of meaningless suffering. And if there is transcendence, we won't need it. If there were a creator's signature, then everything, including perichoretic suffering, would have meaning. But there is no maker's mark. But that won't stop the absurd practice of theology.
Is this not an example of theology?
No. Theology is what you do once you've made up your mind, despite no warrant whatsoever, that there is divinity behind religious belief.
Or you've made up your mind that there is no divinity. Theology all the way down.
Nope. They're not commutative. Nobody brought up rationally has to deconstruct what cannot be rationally constructed.
Theodicy is not possible because of meaningless suffering. And if there is transcendence, we won't need it. If there were a creator's signature, then everything, including perichoretic suffering, would have meaning. But there is no maker's mark. But that won't stop the absurd practice of theology.
Is this not an example of theology?
No. Theology is what you do once you've made up your mind, despite no warrant whatsoever, that there is divinity behind religious belief.
No, theology is thinking about God. Anyone can do it .... even Dawkins has a go.
Theodicy is not possible because of meaningless suffering. And if there is transcendence, we won't need it. If there were a creator's signature, then everything, including perichoretic suffering, would have meaning. But there is no maker's mark. But that won't stop the absurd practice of theology.
Is this not an example of theology?
No. Theology is what you do once you've made up your mind, despite no warrant whatsoever, that there is divinity behind religious belief.
No, theology is thinking about God. Anyone can do it .... even Dawkins has a go.
He does it very well, as do I. I can do theology all day long, make it coherent on the premiss of Love. Which trashes Loveless religion.
Theodicy is not possible because of meaningless suffering. And if there is transcendence, we won't need it. If there were a creator's signature, then everything, including perichoretic suffering, would have meaning. But there is no maker's mark. But that won't stop the absurd practice of theology.
Is this not an example of theology?
No. Theology is what you do once you've made up your mind, despite no warrant whatsoever, that there is divinity behind religious belief.
No, theology is thinking about God. Anyone can do it .... even Dawkins has a go.
Dawkins said "What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?".
Theodicy is not possible because of meaningless suffering. And if there is transcendence, we won't need it. If there were a creator's signature, then everything, including perichoretic suffering, would have meaning. But there is no maker's mark. But that won't stop the absurd practice of theology.
Is this not an example of theology?
No. Theology is what you do once you've made up your mind, despite no warrant whatsoever, that there is divinity behind religious belief.
No, theology is thinking about God. Anyone can do it .... even Dawkins has a go.
Dawkins said "What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?".
While making a career treating it as though it is.
You've got to laugh.
Theodicy is not possible because of meaningless suffering. And if there is transcendence, we won't need it. If there were a creator's signature, then everything, including perichoretic suffering, would have meaning. But there is no maker's mark. But that won't stop the absurd practice of theology.
Is this not an example of theology?
No. Theology is what you do once you've made up your mind, despite no warrant whatsoever, that there is divinity behind religious belief.
No, theology is thinking about God. Anyone can do it .... even Dawkins has a go.
Dawkins said "What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?".
While making a career treating it as though it is.
You've got to laugh.
Sorry? How does his career as a preeminent biologist depend on theology?
Comments
The Church does. And it was initially remarkably effective locally. It took the destruction of Jerusalem to move it to Rome.
What’s less real about it? Why should “real” require pain and suffering?
If it were possible to exist in a constant “holodeck with the safeties on” situation then I’d jump at the chance.
Life/evolution isn't invulnerable. Including to itself.
That’s great, but it’s also not saying anything helpful. Like a child asking why they have to do something, and the adult responds, “Because.”
Not satisfactory.
Oh wait I did.
There are some types of suffering which are caused by the ill actions of others, war and famine for example. They are things that some people accept as part of life, particularly when they are not personally affected. That’s not a dig at anyone here, it’s just an observation of how communities and societies behave. My personal view of being a Christian is to push back when we see injustice, poor government policy is to participate in whatever way we can to make things better. Even if we can’t fully succeed, we can at least try to improve the situation for others.
For me one big this is the unknowable nature of God. I think I have come to reject how God behaves in the Old Testament and other than providing context for the and society into which Jesus was born, I am not sure I see much use for it in teaching Christianity. The Old Testament provides lots of awful examples of how people behave to one another, and I note that many Christians seems to grasp onto Old Testament reasons to support their own unloving behaviours, rather than looking to Jesus and how he behaved with people. For me King David and his behaviours are one reason as a woman to think, well if he’s God’s man, then bler, you can keep him.
In terms of our own circumstances with a very sick child over many years, I think over time we became ground down by our own worries and the trauma of others. For that reason, one of my own biblical heroes is the woman who was cured of her bleeding by Jesus. We are told that she had sought to be cured for many years and having done 20 years with our own kid’s issues, I don’t think we can overstate how persistent she was. The most intensive part of our kid’s treatment was 7 years and that just about killed us, emotionally, financially and spiritually and when I was really low, I’d look at that woman and think, Just keep going. If she could do it, you can too!
I used to tease our Oncologist, because some Doctors are very remote, which drove me a bit crazy at times. I understand the need for that professional distance, working in that field would kill you otherwise. But I told him about the parable of the woman who kept hassling the judge to get the outcome she wanted. I told him, that I was like that woman and I wouldn’t take no for an answer. He told me at one point that there was not a lot more to offer our son, the cupboard was pretty close to empty, I told him to look harder, and there was something else. It was terrible, but it worked. The way that we look at success is sometimes not success, and our young person may still have a shortened lifespan. They are grateful for the life they have but they worry about displeasing God, “maybe God’s plan for me was that I would not live”, heartbreaking. Do any of us know the answer to that? No. I only tell him that God doesn’t desire anyone to perish. Normally we talk about that in a spiritual sense, but I tell him that God knows the outcome of every event. He doesn’t sit there picking off people for his own amusement, that at one time yes, he would certainly have died. Now that he has a life we and God want him to have the best one possible. Not in a sense of being rich or successful, but in what he can achieve with the life he has. Maybe he can work for better support for kids like him through advocacy or public speaking. It’s all an open book and yet to be explored. Maybe his life will be something else, I don’t know. I often think of the way in Narnia Aslan would say no one will be told any story other than their own and I have to be content with that.
Obviously, I would have preferred that my kid didn’t have cancer, I’d prefer that the kids we knew who have died, were still here. I don’t know how their families have continued to function and I know that some have not, I know of 3 or 4 marriage breakdowns. I know in a human sense the kids died because current therapies were not able to treat their disease. I know Drs sometimes express it as their disease was not responsive to the treatments that are available, personally I hate that because it makes the patient feel as though they are at fault, when of course they aren’t. Perhaps Doctors feel better saying it that way, to help deal with the grief they must feel, when they know a patient is terminal, there must be a sense of failure there.
Sorry, this is totally rambly an probably off topic, but I can only work within the context with which I’m familiar. So, having rejected the OT God, how do I feel about Jesus? Well, it’s complicated. In some sense I take comfort in the story of Lazarus. It’s not expressed in this way, but I can imagine Mary and Martha saying WTF? Where were you?, which I think is the ultimate question when we are dealing with suffering and God’s seeming silence in horrible situations. Jesus’ response was that he wept, and sometimes that’s all we have, not just our own tears, but that Jesus wept and perhaps wished he’d made a choice to come sooner, though the NT doesn’t tell us that. Nowadays my prayer is just, God, in this moment of suffering help them to cope, to be wise and to persist even when it’s all too hard. That’s all I have.
I still struggle with the idea that an Omnipotent God can be defeated by one single rogue cell that goes on to kill a person, not just the person who dies, but the whole community around them that is forever changed. At this point in time, I don’t think I will ever make peace with that, but I keep on pondering and hoping for the best. Not everyone can do that, and it’s a position I completely understand
This sort of thing is why politicians are forced to speak in soundbites.
Nowhere in the above do you state that the Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma. You kind-of imply it, by relating the reasoning without the conclusion: "The traditional theistic answer (in those traditions that do philosophy) is that created goodness is a reflection of God's nature."
But the specific problem is that you prefix this by inferring that God *does* abide by an ethical framework, whereas the point is that "God neither conforms to nor invents the moral order."
The only way I can parse this is as an ungracious and weaselly acknowledgement that I do state it.
The very next sentence of the quote is:
"Rather His very nature is the standard for value."
You quoted it last time.
God acts according to the standard of value, which is God's nature.
As Aquinas finally realised about God-talk, "All is straw."
Just read Love whenever you read God, the LORD, Lord, the Almighty etc, etc. What doesn't work, utterly reject.
It has ever been thus. But I'd include that we don't know if god acts, which would seem to mean that being right or wrong about god never enters the room.
Although I concede, and fear, that I may not find the answer entirely comfortable; but still I can attempt to hope.
Which is why I would count my self as an agnostic who hopes there is truth in the basic claims shared by religions but who cannot bring myself to state with any conviction that there is.
I was moved by that. But. What basic claims shared by religions? That there is a spirit world with moral authority? Which explains the natural golden rule enjoined even by the minority irreligious?
That life continues after death. That there is intrinsic merit in doing good rather than evil, so it isn't just about reward and payback. That there is value in everyone no matter who. That we are all capable of redemption from even our worst selves. That there is ultimately purpose to it all.
I am a natural optimist, so it would be good to know there is some ultimate reason for my optimism.
Yes. For me the mystery is in "the problem of good" rather than "the problem of evil." Where are self sacrifice and altruism rooted when nature seems to be red in tooth and claw.
And tectonic and weather events are entirely natural too, so is natural decay and disease. It all depends on how anthropocentric your world is when you ascribe moral worth to them.
Sorry? My world is completely anthropocentric, as I'm anthropoid and the morality I choose is based on the belief that you're worth it. How do we get from that to the supernatural?
I wouldn't want to make that link. In my view anything supernatural is totally other (if it exists) and not amenable to reason.
Most of the planet's current problems have come from an anthropocentric world view. It's the modern version of the medieval earth-centric universe.
I'm sure unenlightened anthropocentric world views are to blame for at least as much misery as enlightened anthropocentric world views are for happiness.
The view that you can't be a moral agent if you act according to your nature is I think quite wrong.
Virtue ethics makes a distinction between akratic behaviour (the agent knows they ought to resist temptation but in spite of themselves doesn't), enkratic behaviour (the agent resists temptation because they know what the right thing to do is), and virtuous behaviour (the agent does what they want to do because that is what they want to do). So an enkratic agent gives to charity because they know giving to charity is the right thing; a virtuous moral agent gives to charity because in addition to knowing what morality requires they feel sympathy for those to whom they give and desire their good. That is, their reasons for acting are not merely that morality requires them to do so but are the reasons why morality requires it.
A virtuous moral agent is therefore one who acts out of their whole nature not merely their reason and willpower.
God is not enkratic: obeying the moral law through discipline rather than through inclination. Rather, God is perfectly virtuous, and virtue in others is imitation of God.
As I related on another thread, suffering can and does lead to people losing their faith. Their suffering exceeds the capability of their experience and understanding of faith to cope. But as noted by this chap, "theodicy cannot comfort those who undergo severe suffering, because the God of theodicies appears to remain aloof to that suffering."
A theodicy is a justification of why God allows evil and suffering. A more recent development are "anti-theodicies", which are various refutations of this approach, on essentially ethical grounds. (D Z Phillips now seems to be considered an anti-theodicist.)
Is this not an example of theology?
No. Theology is what you do once you've made up your mind, despite no warrant whatsoever, that there is divinity behind religious belief.
Or you've made up your mind that there is no divinity. Theology all the way down.
Nope. They're not commutative. Nobody brought up rationally has to deconstruct what cannot be rationally constructed.
No, theology is thinking about God. Anyone can do it .... even Dawkins has a go.
He does it very well, as do I. I can do theology all day long, make it coherent on the premiss of Love. Which trashes Loveless religion.
Dawkins said "What makes you think that 'theology' is a subject at all?".
While making a career treating it as though it is.
You've got to laugh.
Sorry? How does his career as a preeminent biologist depend on theology?
He was a GLE at 16, sure.
Is that it?