A Comment on Christopher Hitchens

4,487 Views | 78 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by dermdoc
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Silent For Too Long said:


While I strongly share your sentiment here the vast majority of believers who do believe in hell also believe that God is just and fair and that every soul, regardless of where it was born or raised, will be given a fair chance. So, to my point, they still believe in what they perceive to be a benevolent God.
Which to my point has nothing to do with reality. And that is after all what we are talking about. Objective reality.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Silent For Too Long said:

Aggrad08 said:

I don't know. It's a matter of viewing morality as something with intrinsically obvious realities to it that can be ascertained by any rational and compassionate entity. Or at least some aspects of morality. Let's say, for instance, that the strong preying on the weak is something ultrauniversal that would be true in any "world" in the same way have one of something and then having another of that same something would always yield two of those somethings.

It seems to have a pretty big gap in coherent logic. I see what you are getting at, but I don't think this is a very meaningful rebuttle to the dilemma, rather a mere speculation. But I don't see morality as comparable to say that law of non-contradiction, which you could possibly argue as ultrauniversal as you put it. Which is to say is so obvious that we simply cannot fathom it working another way. Even there I'm not sure, but I am sure morality is very nuanced and often times anything but painfully obvious, let alone such that we couldn't even imagine it differently.


Quote:

Well, I would argue that even in this life that we are the tools at the ultimate arbiter's disposal. The good men and women of congress don't actually enforce laws either, that doesn't mean that aren't the ones who design and pass them to be enforced by others.
The men and women of congress rather clearly command the people who do and correct them when they fail to do so. Thats not something you see of any god.

Quote:


Of course though, ultimately God's task within this paradigm is to enforce morality on the grand scale, where this life is just a small piece of the ultimate puzzle.
And yet the very heart of Christianity is to reject this idea of a just god wholesale. The scales are not balanced, never balanced. If one thing is certain in Christianity, one way or another you are not judged on the weight of your deeds (morally speaking). For some other religions this argument can be made.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aggrad08 said:


Which to my point has nothing to do with reality. And that is after all what we are talking about. Objective reality.
While agree with you here I'm not sure if either one of us can claim the stance of objective reality. It's a perception of reality that strongly appeals to both of us.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Even there I'm not sure, but I am sure morality is very nuanced and often times anything but painfully obvious, let alone such that we couldn't even imagine it differently.
Just because we can't fathom it doesn't mean it's not ascertainable by a divine intellect.

The whole thing that kicked off this thread is the Hitchens and other atheist stance that certain things about morals and ethics are so obvious we don't require any God to know them. Do you not take this stance?

Quote:

congress
True, but again the rebuttal to this is morality was written on all are hearts, a stance that atheists and agnostics generally agree with albeit through naturalistic means.

Quote:

christianity
Isn't one of the most often debated topics on this board among believers how much works and faith interplay with each other?

Either way, within the abrahamic religions we are commanded to be righteous, by God. While the penalty and instruments of relief that penalty are debated, the commandment and standard of righteousness remains, and God is held to be the enforcer, judge and jury of that standard.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Silent For Too Long said:

Aggrad08 said:


Which to my point has nothing to do with reality. And that is after all what we are talking about. Objective reality.
While agree with you here I'm not sure if either one of us can claim the stance of objective reality. It's a perception of reality that strongly appeals to both of us.
That's both true and substantiates my point. Remember that I bring up the dilemma in response to the vapid arguments in favor of objective morality which bemoan the lack thereof in secular thought.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:


Just because we can't fathom it doesn't mean it's not ascertainable by a divine intellect.
Sure, but it seems to me it's usually a good clue someone is talking nonsense when all we have left is divine mystery.

Quote:

The whole thing that kicked off this thread is the Hitchens and other atheist stance that certain things about morals and ethics are so obvious we don't require any God to know them. Do you not take this stance?
It depends on the moral precept. For the big items I agree, murder, rape, slavery, cruel punishment, bearing false witness, theft. These are all self defeating to a society. For finer points, say the morality of a white lie, the benefits of utilitarianism, consequentialism, virtue ethics ect. and the various ways these lines of thought might guide your opinions on less obvious matters (say the justifiableness of a given war, or collateral damage) I not only disagree that they are obvious, I'm not sure we have the answers at all.

Quote:


True, but again the rebuttal to this is morality was written on all are hearts, a stance that atheists and agnostics generally agree with albeit through naturalistic means.
That's not a punishment for sin, but rather a mitigation of the number of sins committed.



Quote:

Isn't one of the most often debated topics on this board among believers how much works and faith interplay with each other?
Yes, and from those frequent debates I think you've become more than familiar with the fact that it's a question of whether it's more or less than zero. Not one among them would argue that it's about balancing the rights and wrongs done. It's trivial to dismiss such a notion as having anything to do with Christianity.


Quote:

Either way, within the abrahamic religions we are commanded to be righteous, by God. While the penalty and instruments of relief that penalty are debated, the commandment and standard of righteousness remains, and God is held to be the enforcer, judge and jury of that standard.
Yet within the Christian context god does not ever balance the scales. In fact the common Christian interpretation is that one single act is worthy of eternal damnation. And that you are made just not by making up for it with good works, but by vicarious redemption and faith. An idea of divine justice equalizing rights and wrongs is foreign to Christianity. You'd need to appeal to another faith tradition. I'd agree a better argument can be made within Judaism or even islam. Even still, a priority is put in faith above works in many ways.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Your last paragraph is generally very nice but I bet it makes some folks uncomfortable.
Sapper Redux
How long do you want to ignore this user?
k2aggie07 said:

Your last paragraph is generally very nice but I bet it makes some folks uncomfortable.


It's not a logical philosophy. It makes your deity look petty and vindictive.
Zobel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well, it's not what I believe, so it has nothing to do with my God.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Agree.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.