... should be the rule, right?
I was thinking about some online conversations I've had recently with atheists and mulling over the "This moral rule is stupid!" kind of responses. The logical model there is that He makes the Universe, but you make the rules. Hmm.
If God created all of this, doesn't He also get to make the moral code?
Imagine going to a dinner party at someone else's house. You know they put on a great spread and the company is always sparkling. You, however, don't want to wear pants. Why should you? They're just markers of imperialism and colonialism and white supremacy. Plus, they're uncomfortable, particularly since you've put on a lot of weight recently.
"Why should I have to wear pants?" you ask in a fit of pique. "It's irrational. Indigenous people who lived in harmony with nature and peace with each other, who practiced organic, sustainable farming, they didn't wear pants. Pants are a symbol of patriarchal, Eurocentric oppression!"
In reality, you just don't want to have to do something that is even vaguely uncomfortable or difficult. Never mind the sumptuous food and excellent wine being offered or the stellar guest list, you're being asked to do something relatively minor. No way, Jose! Also, no way, Renee!
Hey, fight the patriarchy in all things, man.
In this case, the party is not enough. In the broader sense, to borrow from Ian Fleming, the world is not enough.
 |
| God may have created the Tarantula Nebula, but there's no way He's going to tell you what to do! |
7 comments:
"If God created all of this, doesn't He also get to make the moral code?"
Yes, but I'd like you to consider an analogy here:
In my laboratory, I have a minerals bioleaching pilot plant. This centers around a 55-gallon drum full of iron/manganese ore, being fed by water from a 30-gallon tank full of rotting cattails. The purpose of this is to selectively dissolve manganese from the ore, and once the manganese is gone to switch to dissolving iron, so that I can recover and purify the two metals separately.
In this tank, there are literally on the order of a quadrillion living organisms, of various species. All of them have things to do in order to accomplish what I want (dissolve metals), or to provide the numerous support services for other organisms who are doing what I want.
I am giving their existence meaning and purpose, and even a moral code of sorts. I set up this system specifically so that if they do what I want, they will have the food and energy they need to prosper, and if they do not do what I want, they will be at a severe disadvantage and are likely to die out. And, if their activities do not affect the manganese leaching rate one way or another, I don't care what else they do.
The gulf between me and an individual microorganism in that tank is immense. They are physically incapable of comprehending what I want, or even what I am or what my relationship is to them. I can work with them, and get what I want from them, but having a personal relationship with them as individuals is completely out of the question. And if I were to try to even just look at one by putting one under an electron microscope, I would kill it instantly.
And yet, the gulf between me and these microorganisms is as nothing compared to the gulf between me and an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal God. Those are all infinite quantities, and as a finite being the gap between me and God is also infinite. I have less chance of understanding such a God, than a single bacterial cell in my leaching tank has of comprehending me. Imagining that such a God would be concerned with my existence and behavior in anything but the broadest and most general terms, makes no sense.
So when the Church pretends to know, in detail, what it is that God wants us to do, and tries to enforce it on all of us, why on earth should I believe that they have any more comprehension of God's real goals than one of my little bacteria has of my goals? Or that God speaks to them any more than I speak to my bacteria?
That 'one' cannot encompass 'infinity' does not imply that 'infinity' cannot encompass 'one'.
There are at least three reasons that "having a personal relationship with them [the quadrillion living organisms] as individuals is completely out of the question" --
1) they are not persons, at all;
2) you are incapable of having personal relationships with more than a handful of persons at a time;
3) as you, and they, are time-bound, their fleeting existence does not offer enough time to form a personal relationship with any one of them, even were they persons.
==And yet, the gulf between me and these microorganisms is as nothing compared to the gulf between me and an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal God.==
Really? On what ground do you base that assertion?
You are a person, as is God (leaving aside the technicality that God is a plurality of persons); the microorganisms are not persons. You are a rational being, as is God; the microorganisms are not rational beings. You are a self, as is God; the microorganisms are not selves. You are a free-will, as is God; the microorganisms are not free-wills.
It seems to me that you are far more like God than that those microorganisms are like you.
==So when the Church pretends to know, in detail, what it is that God wants us to do ...==
"Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." -- Acts 17:11 (NIV)
Question -- honestly (there's the rub) -- what "the Church" says. Hell! Question what the Scriptures say. But, know that ground on which you question, to say nothing of dispute, is also open to question. Which is to say, we/I are free to determine that your questioning (and disputing) is intellectually dishonest, and thus to dismiss it; for it is utterly impossible to argue with intellectually dishonest persons.
"On what ground do you base that assertion?"
On the grounds that infinity, by definition, is larger than any finite number. And that Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnipresence, and Eternity are all infinite quantities. As a finite being, I can't even properly feel what infinity actually is. Understanding what having actual infinite attributes would do to a conscious entity, and how it would affect its goals and interests, would be even beyond that.
You are not a number, nor is God.
That finite you cannot encompass "infinite" God does not mean that God cannot encompass you, nor that he cannot intelligibly communicate with you.
That you cannot communicate with those microorganisms, who are not persons, does not mean that you cannot communicate with a child, who is a person. There is a vast difference between the minds of children and of adults, and a child's understanding of adults, and of adulthood and the concerns of adults, is, well, childish, and not infrequently incorrect. And yet, meaningful communication between the two is possible.
Your assertion was --
==And yet, the gulf between me and these microorganisms is as nothing compared to the gulf between me and an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and eternal God.==
Once again -- having been shown, once again, that your premises do not apply -- on what ground do you base that assertion?
==So when the Church pretends to know, in detail, what it is that God wants us to do, and tries to enforce it on all of us, why on earth should I believe that they have any more comprehension of God's real goals than one of my little bacteria has of my goals? Or that God speaks to them any more than I speak to my bacteria?==
You are implicitly appealing to a transcendent and objective standard of morality ... specifically, you are appealing to what "the Church pretends to know, in detail, what it is that God wants us to do" ... and yet there can be no such thing as morality if atheism were the truth about the nature of reality.
I'm not particularly talking about morality. I'm talking about pretending to have knowledge of the nature and desires of God that they do not in fact have.
The Nicene Creed is supposed to be a summary of what Christians should believe, but it barely even mentions morality aside from one line about "remission of sins". It is entirely intended to be taken on faith, because there is no way of testing anything in it.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is something like 900 pages long, and it barely mentions morality until about 2/3 of the way in. And then only stays on that topic for a couple of chapters before wandering off into other topics. Most of it is rituals and miscellaneous beliefs about the presumed nature of God and how He wants us to pray to Him, presented as fact but intended to be swallowed whole on faith.
Even the Bible itself doesn't spend that much time on morality. If you kept only the parts of the bible that give actual moral guidance, it would be reduced to a pamphlet.
Morality is practically a side issue for the churches I have experience with. It is largely buried under rituals, flowery language, and extravagant claims relating to God that come out of nowhere and ultimately have little or no clear purpose. What on earth is the justification for that?
Post a Comment