(06-20-2011 11:59 AM)I45owl Wrote: (06-20-2011 11:18 AM)DrTorch Wrote: (06-20-2011 11:07 AM)I45owl Wrote: So, you would follow even a pernicious and evil god? Simply because it exists with no standards whatsoever?
How would you define pernicious and evil? What yardstick outside of the Creator of the universe could you possibly employ?
We can start by questioning whether his intent in creating you as an individual is to create someone that has no inherent sense of self-worth. The Muslim conception of god does not withstand this criterion, IMHO. You can extend it with Rand's philosophy... I don't think the Christian god stands up well as a moral being in that regard.
Ok, this is an interesting point. Three responses:
1. I find it interesting, perhaps a bit ironic, that "self-worth" is a piece of your morality, b/c historically, it is the Judeo-Christian tradition that developed individual self-worth. Prior to that, self-worth was limited to royalty, who almost inevitably separated themselves from the masses by connecting themselves to dieties.
In other words, the value of an individual, or the value of each human individual comes soley from the Judeo-Christian God who creatated them, and values His own creation, to the point where He claims to love them, and
willingly suffer for them.
You don't find that in Buddhism, Hinduism, animism, Islam, etc. I think the Christian God stands up very well.
2. It is a morality that needs restraints. Surely it's clear that a person can value themselves too much. The Greeks saw this, w/ their countless plays about hubris. We see it today, in the arts and with pop-celebrities.
I say this b/c it would seem that self-worth is not itself a complete yardstick for morality...even it needs boundaries and clarification to be useful.
which leads to
3.
Accuracy in estimating self-worth is an important piece of morality. And yet what religion establishes that? It's the Judeo-Christian tradition (Rom 12:3, Psalm 8, Job 38, 39)
Furthermore, it is accuracy of estimating self-worth that we see coming from God. When He describes Himself, He is being accurate. He is expressing an element of morality that you recognize.
Quote: (06-20-2011 11:18 AM)DrTorch Wrote: In the end, that's what it's all about. His creation, His rules. Whatever your opinion of him (and I can't help but think of Pink Floyd's 'Sheep') you don't really have any choice in the matter but to accept His ways.
Why not? According to your own dogma, Satan did have just such a choice.
According to my dogma, Satan doesn't accept them willingly, but he will accept them, even as they are forced upon him.
Quote: (06-20-2011 11:18 AM)DrTorch Wrote: The fact that we see any goodness, have any pleasure, suggests highly that God is good. A truly evil (as we currently define it) being would just create throngs of torture rooms (I would think).
These are all things that are easy to create as part of a deception. But, it seems you have acknowledged at least the possibility that either such a being could conceivably be either evil or indifferent to man's plight (which I think is the position that at least some deists held).
I think you're right about various beliefs among deists. I'm no expert on historical writings, but I never thought Paine was even close to Christian. If he was a "deist" I think that might have been a political term to cover his atheism.
Ethan Allen was an arrogant bloke, who really was more interested in his own glory. Certainly that doesn't fit well w/ Chrsitianity.
But IMO Jefferson and Franklin don't fit the mold of a deist the way it's currently defined. I get the impression they were much closer to Christianity than the others. Maybe outside of what would be considered "orthodox" but they had a higher belief in and respect for Christianity than many. (And I've forgotten how that fits into this thread)
Quote:By way of analogy, does government involvement in making cell phone chargers use the USB standard then prove the proposition that government is not at least pre-disposed to do evil? There is at least a spectrum of government that is overtly evil (communism et al) and those that are merely partially evil (western governments), but I don't think this proves that there exists a singularly good government.
I'm not sure your analogy fully holds. Governments, and their members/leaders, are not omnipotent. They have no creation that they Lord over. They are finite humans, and they
need to interact with other people, and in that instance they need to offer some "good" to them, even to accomplish their very selfish aims.
Would an evil god bother giving good to anyone else? Would he play around offering creatures some good as part of a deception, only to dash the expectations of the creatures by turning on them and breaking their promise? Maybe. Maybe that's what evil does when it gets bored of perpetual torture rooms, but I don't think our world fits. I'm not sure an evil god would allow for so much good to persist for so long, and yet have people's hopes tempered by the evidence of evil.
In the end, I don't see the problem of evil like Epicurius did. I don't accept his proposition that doing nothing about it (at least for now) makes God evil. That's his assumption, and I challenge it for the same reasons that Ninerfan stated. And, the Bible offers pretty good explanations of evil and suffering (actually liked my pastors 5/29/2011 message on this
http://www.reallifenow.org/messages.html)
Meanwhile, I think that the existance of good in the world indicates that we have a God who is good. An evil god wouldn't allow it, and an indifferent god wouldn't bother with it.
