5. Faith, God, and Morality
Café One, Brisbane City
David: Good morning, Thomasina!
Thomasina: Hi there, David.
David: I’m just grabbing some breakfast. What have you been up to?
Thomasina: Well, I went overseas a couple of weeks ago.
David: Where to?
Thomasina: To Rome, actually. I had an audience with a couple of the priests there.
David: Oh, good. And what did you talk about together?
Thomasina: Well, I might be able to work at the Vatican within a year or two.
David (laughs): But why work with old, celibate men with phallus-shaped hats?
Thomasina (crossly): I know you’re being sarcastic, but the Vatican is the centre of the Catholic faith and most important to the believers of today.
David: So you’re still Christian?
Thomasina: Yes, I am.
David (sighs): I remember how often we used to argue about the existence of God.
Thomasina: But surely –
David (jokingly): Oh, don’t start.
Thomasina: How much time do you have?
David: I just don’t think we’ll get anywhere with this.
Thomasina: I never said I wanted to ‘get anywhere’ with this.
David: Alright. Let’s hear your reasons.
Thomasina: Well, one of the things I discussed with the priests was morality as proof of God’s existence.
David: Morality?
Thomasina: Yes. God is the Divine Lawgiver, and we draw our morality through the Ten Commandments and the grace of Jesus Christ. This is one way to recognize his existence. Without God, there is no such thing as objective morality. What is truly good is nothing more than the will of God.
David: I can’t see the connection. We can decide our own morality.
Thomasina: Being the supremely perfect being that He is, all our moral guidance comes from Him. In fact, God is morality. Even as you do a good deed, the Spirit of the Lord is speaking through you.
David: I don’t think so. It’s a bunch of hardwired neurons in my brain telling me to do what my conscience thinks is best.
Thomasina: Maybe, but your conscience is limited. God’s love, by definition, is infinite. It has an infinite possibility over which it disposes without being limited by it. That is why the Lord speaks through your limited conscience.
David: That is not a logical explanation of why God exists. All you’ve told me is that God exists because I feel some kind of goodwill or benevolence.
Thomasina: Yes, I am. Remember, pagan morality is not true morality: “For when the Gentiles which have not the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the Lord written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness”.
David: You seem to have made the quintessential mistake all Christians do – by elevating what is best about humanity into something that has supernatural properties. What’s good and evil about humanity are humanity’s alone; nothing more, nothing less.
Thomasina: Humans are inherently depraved, but the beauty and goodness of God intervenes to give us powers of goodness also, so that we may glimpse what heavenly delights are to come if we believe in Him.
David: Still, God does not exist through me. I decide my own morality.
Thomasina: But God, by definition, is Providence, or the Divine Will which shapes history and influences acts. So every act done in the world is a step towards the realization of such a Providence. Even as you decide your own morality, God is influencing you to do so.
David: I think you’ve lost me.
Thomasina: God, as the force of general Providence, can be heard only by the faithful. His gracious will is still apparent amongst non-believers, but they don’t listen. To me, I always see the presence of the Lord’s purpose, whether it’s a law of nature or something that affects an individual. For someone like you, you just haven’t heard the Lord’s voice yet. God is not just a proposition or a theory that can be proved or disproved, He is an Existence.
David: I think you’re just making excuses to defend the untenable position that God exists because he is the voice of objective morality. Just because you feel the presence doesn’t mean it is.
Thomasina: Remember, you’re just living without God. People can live without His love, but they can never live without His Judgement. St. Anselm once wrote: “And so, should any man or bad angel be unwilling to submit to the divine will and rule, yet he cannot escape from it; for when he would escape from under the will that commands, he does but rush under the will that punishes.”
David: Now you’re just resorting to the argumentum ad baculum, which is nothing more than an appeal to force – hardly a logical way to convince someone to act morally.
Thomasina: But the Church needed a claim of authority so that the will of God could be made known upon Earth. In other words, it was a neccessity that the apostles of the Church act with authority in regard to doctrine as well as morality so the existence and glory of God could be proclaimed. Right after the Resurrection, it was the apostles’ mission to carry the message. And without moral authority their voices would have no bearing. You’re a philosopher; haven’t you heard of meta-ethics before? It is the study of what makes an ethical theory an ethical theory. And God’s will is what makes an ethical theory a true ethical theory.
David: Look, I’m not going to give you an outline of the whole Euthyphro dilemma – I’m sure many have used that argument against theistic moralists. But what I want to say is that if something is good, it has to be inherently good in itself, not because of what some invisible policeman says.
Thomasina: I do agree with Plato on the Euthyphro dilemma. But such things are inherently good because good is an inseparable aspect of God. And even these moral imperatives are beneath God.
David: But that’s circular reasoning.
Thomasina: The human mind can only go so far to reason with the ineffable nature of God; the rest is up to faith.
David (sighs): Well, at least that’s not philosophically contradictory.
Thomasina: How about I approach this question from a slightly different angle: what do you find so unbelievable about a living, loving God? I say one of the reasons He exists is because there are objective morals. God is the foundation of all morality. Therefore, he exists.
David: You are presupposing this living, loving God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent – omnibenevolent as in being the foundation of good morality. Suppose he were: he would have created a world in which there was no unneccessary evil.
Thomasina: But now you’ve fallen into the trap all philosophers do: defining good and evil. And without God, it’s all subjective.
David: I never said God should have created a perfect world. I’m saying if he existed, he would have created a world with no unneccessary evil. Yet in the world there is clearly a tremendous, and pitiable volume of unneccessary, arbitrary and excess evil. All explanations so far have been unsatisfactory to explain this. I conclude then there is no God.
Thomasina: Regarding your position on evil: remember that if you’re talking about God, you must remember that His ways confuse us. This is when He shows us the true objective reality. He shows our reason to be inadequate in explaining his existence. He shows our morality to be inferior to his. He compels us to adjust to His ways. Because the nature of God is not only moral, it is Holy and Perfect. So God not only exists, He intervenes in human history in a calculated and moral way. We should listen to His morals, not the ones we make up.
David: I’m still not satisfied.
Thomasina: How so?
David: Well, Epicurus once said, “The blessed and immortal nature knows no trouble itself nor causes trouble to any other, so that it is never constrained by anger or favour. For all such things exist only in the weak.” He means that if a being of such grandeur and perfection exists, this being really couldn’t care about the trivalities of the human condition. So you can’t use morality to justify God’s existence anyway, because he probably wouldn’t care.
Thomasina: But that is the whole point! God is most certainly grand, yet He is so perfect He loves us fallen and sinful human beings enough to actively intervene in our history!
David: But even now your position is flimsy because your own theologians disagree with you. British priest Right Reverend Holloway himself argues that religion is not best for morality. To secular liberals like me his position is already very familiar and a welcome one. Moral debate does better without God because “sin” is disobedience to God. Real morality comes from personal decisions and interests. There’s a difference.
Thomasina: I stand by my position that sin is inextricably tied with morality – and because sin has to do with God, it follows that morality also has to do with God. And thus God’s existence can be explained through morality.
David (sighs): While I’m still not convinced, you’ve put forward some decent arguments. I’ve got to go to work now, I’ll call you tonight and we can continue this debate. Say, nine o’clock?
Thomasina: Sure, David. I’ll be waiting.
References:
Brunner, Emil (1947), The Divine Imperative, translated by Olive Wyon, Lutterworth Press, London (chapter 9)
Ferre, Nels F. S. (1951), The Christian Understanding of God, SCM Press Ltd., 56 Bloomsbury Street London (pg 27)
Romans, ii., 14 – 15
Grayling, A.C. (2002 edition), The Meaning of Things: Applying Philosophy to Life, Orion Books, London (pg 105)
Ferre, Nels F. S. (1951), The Christian Understanding of God, SCM Press Ltd., London (pg 144)
Murray, John Courtney (1964), The Problem of God: Yesterday and Today, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, Yale University (pg 77)
Baille, John (1939), Our Knowledge of God, Oxford University Press, London (pg 3)
St. Anselm, Cur deus homo, Bk. I, Chapter XV
Geldenhuys, J. Norval (1953), Supreme Authority, Marshall, Morgan and Scott Ltd., London (pg 77)
McCloskey, H. J. (1960), God and Evil, from The Philosophical Quarterly 10, no. 39 (pg 97 – 114)
Danielou, Jean (1957), God and Us, A. R. Mowbray and Co. Ltd., London (pg 105)
Blackburn, Simon (2001), Ethics: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, New York (pg 16)
Grayling, A.C. (2002 edition), The Meaning of Things: Applying Philosophy to Life, Orion Books, London (pg 105)
This was actually a draft of a research project I was to do for one of my university courses. The final copy is pretty much the same, except the names of David and Thomasina are highlighted, along with other parts of the dialogue. Also the names of the sources referenced are highlighted. I just couldn't be bothered using Blogger's inefficient blogging tool. =P
David: Good morning, Thomasina!
Thomasina: Hi there, David.
David: I’m just grabbing some breakfast. What have you been up to?
Thomasina: Well, I went overseas a couple of weeks ago.
David: Where to?
Thomasina: To Rome, actually. I had an audience with a couple of the priests there.
David: Oh, good. And what did you talk about together?
Thomasina: Well, I might be able to work at the Vatican within a year or two.
David (laughs): But why work with old, celibate men with phallus-shaped hats?
Thomasina (crossly): I know you’re being sarcastic, but the Vatican is the centre of the Catholic faith and most important to the believers of today.
David: So you’re still Christian?
Thomasina: Yes, I am.
David (sighs): I remember how often we used to argue about the existence of God.
Thomasina: But surely –
David (jokingly): Oh, don’t start.
Thomasina: How much time do you have?
David: I just don’t think we’ll get anywhere with this.
Thomasina: I never said I wanted to ‘get anywhere’ with this.
David: Alright. Let’s hear your reasons.
Thomasina: Well, one of the things I discussed with the priests was morality as proof of God’s existence.
David: Morality?
Thomasina: Yes. God is the Divine Lawgiver, and we draw our morality through the Ten Commandments and the grace of Jesus Christ. This is one way to recognize his existence. Without God, there is no such thing as objective morality. What is truly good is nothing more than the will of God.
David: I can’t see the connection. We can decide our own morality.
Thomasina: Being the supremely perfect being that He is, all our moral guidance comes from Him. In fact, God is morality. Even as you do a good deed, the Spirit of the Lord is speaking through you.
David: I don’t think so. It’s a bunch of hardwired neurons in my brain telling me to do what my conscience thinks is best.
Thomasina: Maybe, but your conscience is limited. God’s love, by definition, is infinite. It has an infinite possibility over which it disposes without being limited by it. That is why the Lord speaks through your limited conscience.
David: That is not a logical explanation of why God exists. All you’ve told me is that God exists because I feel some kind of goodwill or benevolence.
Thomasina: Yes, I am. Remember, pagan morality is not true morality: “For when the Gentiles which have not the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the Lord written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness”.
David: You seem to have made the quintessential mistake all Christians do – by elevating what is best about humanity into something that has supernatural properties. What’s good and evil about humanity are humanity’s alone; nothing more, nothing less.
Thomasina: Humans are inherently depraved, but the beauty and goodness of God intervenes to give us powers of goodness also, so that we may glimpse what heavenly delights are to come if we believe in Him.
David: Still, God does not exist through me. I decide my own morality.
Thomasina: But God, by definition, is Providence, or the Divine Will which shapes history and influences acts. So every act done in the world is a step towards the realization of such a Providence. Even as you decide your own morality, God is influencing you to do so.
David: I think you’ve lost me.
Thomasina: God, as the force of general Providence, can be heard only by the faithful. His gracious will is still apparent amongst non-believers, but they don’t listen. To me, I always see the presence of the Lord’s purpose, whether it’s a law of nature or something that affects an individual. For someone like you, you just haven’t heard the Lord’s voice yet. God is not just a proposition or a theory that can be proved or disproved, He is an Existence.
David: I think you’re just making excuses to defend the untenable position that God exists because he is the voice of objective morality. Just because you feel the presence doesn’t mean it is.
Thomasina: Remember, you’re just living without God. People can live without His love, but they can never live without His Judgement. St. Anselm once wrote: “And so, should any man or bad angel be unwilling to submit to the divine will and rule, yet he cannot escape from it; for when he would escape from under the will that commands, he does but rush under the will that punishes.”
David: Now you’re just resorting to the argumentum ad baculum, which is nothing more than an appeal to force – hardly a logical way to convince someone to act morally.
Thomasina: But the Church needed a claim of authority so that the will of God could be made known upon Earth. In other words, it was a neccessity that the apostles of the Church act with authority in regard to doctrine as well as morality so the existence and glory of God could be proclaimed. Right after the Resurrection, it was the apostles’ mission to carry the message. And without moral authority their voices would have no bearing. You’re a philosopher; haven’t you heard of meta-ethics before? It is the study of what makes an ethical theory an ethical theory. And God’s will is what makes an ethical theory a true ethical theory.
David: Look, I’m not going to give you an outline of the whole Euthyphro dilemma – I’m sure many have used that argument against theistic moralists. But what I want to say is that if something is good, it has to be inherently good in itself, not because of what some invisible policeman says.
Thomasina: I do agree with Plato on the Euthyphro dilemma. But such things are inherently good because good is an inseparable aspect of God. And even these moral imperatives are beneath God.
David: But that’s circular reasoning.
Thomasina: The human mind can only go so far to reason with the ineffable nature of God; the rest is up to faith.
David (sighs): Well, at least that’s not philosophically contradictory.
Thomasina: How about I approach this question from a slightly different angle: what do you find so unbelievable about a living, loving God? I say one of the reasons He exists is because there are objective morals. God is the foundation of all morality. Therefore, he exists.
David: You are presupposing this living, loving God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent – omnibenevolent as in being the foundation of good morality. Suppose he were: he would have created a world in which there was no unneccessary evil.
Thomasina: But now you’ve fallen into the trap all philosophers do: defining good and evil. And without God, it’s all subjective.
David: I never said God should have created a perfect world. I’m saying if he existed, he would have created a world with no unneccessary evil. Yet in the world there is clearly a tremendous, and pitiable volume of unneccessary, arbitrary and excess evil. All explanations so far have been unsatisfactory to explain this. I conclude then there is no God.
Thomasina: Regarding your position on evil: remember that if you’re talking about God, you must remember that His ways confuse us. This is when He shows us the true objective reality. He shows our reason to be inadequate in explaining his existence. He shows our morality to be inferior to his. He compels us to adjust to His ways. Because the nature of God is not only moral, it is Holy and Perfect. So God not only exists, He intervenes in human history in a calculated and moral way. We should listen to His morals, not the ones we make up.
David: I’m still not satisfied.
Thomasina: How so?
David: Well, Epicurus once said, “The blessed and immortal nature knows no trouble itself nor causes trouble to any other, so that it is never constrained by anger or favour. For all such things exist only in the weak.” He means that if a being of such grandeur and perfection exists, this being really couldn’t care about the trivalities of the human condition. So you can’t use morality to justify God’s existence anyway, because he probably wouldn’t care.
Thomasina: But that is the whole point! God is most certainly grand, yet He is so perfect He loves us fallen and sinful human beings enough to actively intervene in our history!
David: But even now your position is flimsy because your own theologians disagree with you. British priest Right Reverend Holloway himself argues that religion is not best for morality. To secular liberals like me his position is already very familiar and a welcome one. Moral debate does better without God because “sin” is disobedience to God. Real morality comes from personal decisions and interests. There’s a difference.
Thomasina: I stand by my position that sin is inextricably tied with morality – and because sin has to do with God, it follows that morality also has to do with God. And thus God’s existence can be explained through morality.
David (sighs): While I’m still not convinced, you’ve put forward some decent arguments. I’ve got to go to work now, I’ll call you tonight and we can continue this debate. Say, nine o’clock?
Thomasina: Sure, David. I’ll be waiting.
References:
Brunner, Emil (1947), The Divine Imperative, translated by Olive Wyon, Lutterworth Press, London (chapter 9)
Ferre, Nels F. S. (1951), The Christian Understanding of God, SCM Press Ltd., 56 Bloomsbury Street London (pg 27)
Romans, ii., 14 – 15
Grayling, A.C. (2002 edition), The Meaning of Things: Applying Philosophy to Life, Orion Books, London (pg 105)
Ferre, Nels F. S. (1951), The Christian Understanding of God, SCM Press Ltd., London (pg 144)
Murray, John Courtney (1964), The Problem of God: Yesterday and Today, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, Yale University (pg 77)
Baille, John (1939), Our Knowledge of God, Oxford University Press, London (pg 3)
St. Anselm, Cur deus homo, Bk. I, Chapter XV
Geldenhuys, J. Norval (1953), Supreme Authority, Marshall, Morgan and Scott Ltd., London (pg 77)
McCloskey, H. J. (1960), God and Evil, from The Philosophical Quarterly 10, no. 39 (pg 97 – 114)
Danielou, Jean (1957), God and Us, A. R. Mowbray and Co. Ltd., London (pg 105)
Blackburn, Simon (2001), Ethics: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, New York (pg 16)
Grayling, A.C. (2002 edition), The Meaning of Things: Applying Philosophy to Life, Orion Books, London (pg 105)
This was actually a draft of a research project I was to do for one of my university courses. The final copy is pretty much the same, except the names of David and Thomasina are highlighted, along with other parts of the dialogue. Also the names of the sources referenced are highlighted. I just couldn't be bothered using Blogger's inefficient blogging tool. =P
posted by Raymond at Saturday, August 05, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home