Rivers Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 Alma 42:13 Quote Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God. Is something good because God says it is? Or is something good whether God says it is or not? Alma 42:13 implies the latter. If so, is this something in which we can have common ground with atheists? Can we all agree on objective moral values whether or not we believe in God? Or is theism still necessary for a belief in an ultimate moral authority? 4
JAHS Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 4 minutes ago, Rivers said: Is something good because God says it is? Or is something good whether God says it is or not? Yes to both. Things that are good and true are just as eternal as the Gods are. 2
Popular Post Robert F. Smith Posted June 18, 2017 Popular Post Posted June 18, 2017 56 minutes ago, Rivers said: Alma 42:13 Is something good because God says it is? Or is something good whether God says it is or not? Alma 42:13 implies the latter. If so, is this something in which we can have common ground with atheists? Can we all agree on objective moral values whether or not we believe in God? Or is theism still necessary for a belief in an ultimate moral authority? In traditional Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology, something is good/moral only because God says it is. He is sovereign because he is the author of time & space, and of all law. He is the uncaused Cause, the Prime Mover standing outside time & space. He is the only Necessary Being, all else being Contingent on Him. The concept is totalist. Your interpretation of Alma 42:13 is correct. LDS theology posits a God who is part of time & space, who exists within and as a part of the natural order of things. We are coeternal with Him, and we are also Necessary Beings -- not Contingent. Since all is natural, there can be no supernatural (which is a violation of natural law). We only look to God as the supreme moral authority because He has mastered natural law, and because He is our Father. We cannot become like Him, unless we obey Him. In that sense, we have much in common with humanists and atheists, who deny the supernatural, and who deny the traditional Judeo-Christian-Muslim God. 5
Bobbieaware Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 1 hour ago, Rivers said: Alma 42:13 Is something good because God says it is? Or is something good whether God says it is or not? Alma 42:13 implies the latter. If so, is this something in which we can have common ground with atheists? Can we all agree on objective moral values whether or not we believe in God? Or is theism still necessary for a belief in an ultimate moral authority? Goodness cannot exist apart from God for God is the source and fount of all goodness. Therefore, apart from the existence of God, goodness cannot exist as an active reality or even exist as an abstract theory. The only reason why good is coeternal with God is because good. It is incorrect to suppose goodness can exist on its own apart from the existence of God.
mfbukowski Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 4 hours ago, Rivers said: Alma 42:13 Is something good because God says it is? Or is something good whether God says it is or not? Alma 42:13 implies the latter. If so, is this something in which we can have common ground with atheists? Can we all agree on objective moral values whether or not we believe in God? Or is theism still necessary for a belief in an ultimate moral authority? We define God based on our conceptions of goodness. If God is not good the whole system crashes. Remember the only conceptions we get of God come from human conceptions of God, perhaps as revealed, perhaps not, depending on how each of us feels about it independently. To make religion rational, God must be postulated to be good To think we can know anything about God independent of human conceptions- including what we call inspiration- is senseless. We cannot have objective knowledge of God "as he is" in this life, therefore all we know about God is a human construct- even if it is truly revealed. It is still revealed to men, and that makes it a human construct It is all up to testimony about whether or not the scriptures are true, for example, and so each of us decides what we believe about God for ourselves. And I have never heard of anyone defining God as being deliberately evil. So yes, an evil God is against our definition of God and so is self contradictory. So I suppose one could say then that He ceases to be God because he then is defined as evil, which = "Not God" God cannot be both God and not god.
mfbukowski Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: In traditional Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology, something is good/moral only because God says it is. He is sovereign because he is the author of time & space, and of all law. He is the uncaused Cause, the Prime Mover standing outside time & space. He is the only Necessary Being, all else being Contingent on Him. The concept is totalist. Your interpretation of Alma 42:13 is correct. LDS theology posits a God who is part of time & space, who exists within and as a part of the natural order of things. We are coeternal with Him, and we are also Necessary Beings -- not Contingent. Since all is natural, there can be no supernatural (which is a violation of natural law). We only look to God as the supreme moral authority because He has mastered natural law, and because He is our Father. We cannot become like Him, unless we obey Him. In that sense, we have much in common with humanists and atheists, who deny the supernatural, and who deny the traditional Judeo-Christian-Muslim God. Exactly! 2
mfbukowski Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 (edited) 17 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: Goodness cannot exist apart from God for God is the source and fount of all goodness. Therefore, apart from the existence of God, goodness cannot exist as an active reality or even exist as an abstract theory. The only reason why good is coeternal with God is because good. It is incorrect to suppose goodness can exist on its own apart from the existence of God. The word "good" and "God" are related. Because they are, we do not think of goodness in any other terms except as being from God. That is the way I would say what you have just said. It avoids the idea of Platonic Goodness as a metaphysical entity out there floating around somewhere independently. That Platonism and the idea of "Goodness" existing on its own as an entity comes from the Greek gods, where human ideals were personified. The Hebrews had no such concept and in fact would have considered that idolatry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_the_Good Notice this is called the "Euthyphro Dilemma". Why? Because E. was a Greek and thought like one, not a Hebrew Edited June 18, 2017 by mfbukowski 2
clarkgoble Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 I think the arguments that led the Greeks in various ways to a certain conception of the good aren't really tied to the old myths much. Rather they have a pretty strict logic of their own. We can (and typically do) reject that logic of course. The way I'd approach the question is to say we can't answer the question unless we're clear what we mean by good. Different meanings of good lead to different answers. If we adopt a kind of utilitarian calculus model of good then clearly it's unmoored to God. Likewise if we see the good arising out of the demands of independent ontological beings ala Levanas (a Jewish rabbi as well as a philosopher) then we also end up with it not determined by God. 1
Bobbieaware Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: The word "good" and "God" are related. Because they are, we do not think of goodness in any other terms except as being from God. That is the way I would say what you have just said. It avoids the idea of Platonic Goodness as a metaphysical entity out there floating around somewhere independently. That Platonism and the idea of "Goodness" existing on its own as an entity comes from the Greek gods, where human ideals were personified. The Hebrews had no such concept and in fact would have considered that idolatry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_the_Good Notice this is called the "Euthyphro Dilemma". Why? Because E. was a Greek and thought like one, not a Hebrew I agree. Goodness can only exist within the mind of an intelligent being. Goodness can only exist within a mind that can freely choose between good and evil. One of the theological principles that sets Mormonism apart is that the Father and his Son are both heroes of righteousness who fought deadly battles of very real potential jeopardy against anything and everything evil intelligences could throw at them and yet by the exercise of mighty, faith, hope, charity and courage they won victories for righteousness against seemingly impossible odds. The angels and exalted beings praise God the Father and Christ not because they have no choice but to be good, as is asserted in Platonism, but because, as free agents, they battled against evil in real life or death struggles and won complete victories. God is good because he wants to be good, not because he has no choice but to be good. Edited June 18, 2017 by Bobbieaware 2
mfbukowski Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 14 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: I think the arguments that led the Greeks in various ways to a certain conception of the good aren't really tied to the old myths much. Rather they have a pretty strict logic of their own. We can (and typically do) reject that logic of course. The way I'd approach the question is to say we can't answer the question unless we're clear what we mean by good. Different meanings of good lead to different answers. If we adopt a kind of utilitarian calculus model of good then clearly it's unmoored to God. Likewise if we see the good arising out of the demands of independent ontological beings ala Levanas (a Jewish rabbi as well as a philosopher) then we also end up with it not determined by God. Not familiar with him- you mean Levinas? I think it's pretty clear that the myths of the gods came first which was essentially a reification of various forces and tendencies and characteristics and that laid the groundwork for the idea that somehow these qualities were metaphysical entities. That was the first step in the wrong direction and seems to me quite primitive- giving names percepti9ons of "forces" in the universe which only "exist" as they apply to us. I am not sure that the universe cares much what we call it or think about it. Stuff happens and we make it into "causes" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greek_mythological_figures I think that later, Pythagoras and others, eventually Plato, following the idea that these were "entities" tried to abstract them into what Plato called "Forms" or "Ideas" etc while still keeping the metaphysical duality of their "existence", which I see as an unfounded assumption. Worshiping the characteristics of triangles as if they were part of nature is odd behavior if you ask me. Everyone knows what "good" means except philosophers it seems. Were it not for this notion created by the reification of language, the question would not even.... Ah yes... "Exist", yet another reification. I still defy anyone to define "existence" without a question-begging definition using words like "real" etc. It's that nasty old reification problem all the way down. I see no need for metaphysics in general. Good is what we approve of for our human uses. How can it be otherwise? How is one type of hammer "better" than a different type of hammer for a certain usage? Claw hammers are just not good for doing geology, and Smart cars are not good for hauling trailers, and murder is not good for a peaceful society. An air conditioner is no good if you live in an igloo. So now we put all these uses into one metaphysical entity called "Good" and compare it to God? Ridiculous! A Hebrew scholar I am not- but I can use a concordance. Note all these uses are very practical and not at all describing metaphysical entities, and actually presume we know what "goodness" means, like what a "good" cistern is, for example. Where it speaks of the Lord's "goodness" it is not defined in an abstract way as "utilitarian" goodness nor as an abstract entity or even defined at all. It is taken as common sense, no explanation of goodness needed. That God is good is axiomatic and not even questioned. Again, to me the question itself is straight out of that tendency of the Greeks to reify everything into some abstract dualistic entity. Quote Genesis 24:10 HEB: וַיֵּ֔לֶךְ וְכָל־ ט֥וּב אֲדֹנָ֖יו בְּיָד֑וֹNAS: out with a variety of good things of his master'sKJV: and departed; for all the goods of his masterINT: and set A variety of good of his master's his hand Genesis 45:18 HEB: לָכֶ֗ם אֶת־ טוּב֙ אֶ֣רֶץ מִצְרַ֔יִםNAS: to me, and I will give you the best of the landKJV: unto me: and I will give you the good of the landINT: to me will give the best of the land of Egypt Genesis 45:20 HEB: כְּלֵיכֶ֑ם כִּי־ ט֛וּב כָּל־ אֶ֥רֶץNAS: with your goods, for the best of allKJV: not your stuff; for the good of all the landINT: your goods for the best of all the land Genesis 45:23 HEB: חֲמֹרִ֔ים נֹשְׂאִ֖ים מִטּ֣וּב מִצְרָ֑יִם וְעֶ֣שֶׂרNAS: loaded with the best things of Egypt,KJV: laden with the good things of Egypt,INT: donkeys loaded the best of Egypt and ten Exodus 33:19 HEB: אַעֲבִ֤יר כָּל־ טוּבִי֙ עַל־ פָּנֶ֔יךָNAS: will make all My goodness passKJV: And he said, I will make all my goodnesspassINT: pass all my goodness and before Deuteronomy 6:11 HEB: מְלֵאִ֣ים כָּל־ טוּב֮ אֲשֶׁ֣ר לֹא־NAS: of all good things whichKJV: full of all good [things], which thou filledstINT: full of all good which did not Deuteronomy 28:47 HEB: אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ בְּשִׂמְחָ֖ה וּבְט֣וּב לֵבָ֑ב מֵרֹ֖בNAS: with joy and a glad heart,KJV: with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart,INT: your God joy glad heart the abundance 2 Kings 8:9 HEB: בְיָדוֹ֙ וְכָל־ ט֣וּב דַּמֶּ֔שֶׂק מַשָּׂ֖אNAS: even every kind of good thing of Damascus,KJV: with him, even of every good thing of Damascus,INT: his hand every of good of Damascus loads Ezra 9:12 HEB: וַאֲכַלְתֶּם֙ אֶת־ ט֣וּב הָאָ֔רֶץ וְהוֹרַשְׁתֶּ֥םNAS: and eat the good [things] of the landKJV: and eat the good of the land,INT: you may be strong and eat the good the land and leave Nehemiah 9:25 HEB: מְלֵֽאִים־ כָּל־ ט֠וּב בֹּר֨וֹת חֲצוּבִ֜יםNAS: full of every good thing, HewnKJV: full of all goods, wellsINT: full of every good cisterns Hewn Nehemiah 9:25 HEB: וַיַּשְׁמִ֔ינוּ וַיִּֽתְעַדְּנ֖וּ בְּטוּבְךָ֥ הַגָּדֽוֹל׃ NAS: of every good thing, Hewn cisterns,KJV: themselves in thy great goodness.INT: and grew and reveled thing your great Nehemiah 9:35 HEB: וְהֵ֣ם בְּמַלְכוּתָם֩ וּבְטוּבְךָ֨ הָרָ֜ב אֲשֶׁר־NAS: With Your great goodness whichKJV: and in thy great goodness that thou gavestINT: their own kingdom goodness your great which Nehemiah 9:36 HEB: פִּרְיָהּ֙ וְאֶת־ טוּבָ֔הּ הִנֵּ֛ה אֲנַ֥חְנוּNAS: of its fruit and its bounty, Behold,KJV: the fruit thereof and the good thereof, behold, we [are] servantsINT: to eat fruit bounty Behold we Job 20:21 HEB: לֹא־ יָחִ֥יל טוּבֽוֹ׃ NAS: Therefore his prosperity does not endure.KJV: therefore shall no man look for his goods.INT: does not endure his prosperity Job 21:16 HEB: לֹ֣א בְיָדָ֣ם טוּבָ֑ם עֲצַ֥ת רְ֝שָׁעִ֗יםNAS: Behold, their prosperity is not in their hand;KJV: Lo, their good [is] not in their hand:INT: not their hand their prosperity the counsel of the wicked Psalm 25:7 HEB: אַ֑תָּה לְמַ֖עַן טוּבְךָ֣ יְהוָֽה׃ NAS: remember me, For Your goodness' sake,KJV: remember thou me for thy goodness' sake, O LORD.INT: you sake your goodness' LORD Psalm 27:13 HEB: הֶ֭אֱמַנְתִּי לִרְא֥וֹת בְּֽטוּב־ יְהוָ֗ה בְּאֶ֣רֶץNAS: that I would see the goodness of the LORDKJV: to see the goodness of the LORDINT: had believed see the goodness of the LORD the land Psalm 31:19 HEB: מָ֤ה רַֽב־ טוּבְךָ֮ אֲשֶׁר־ צָפַ֪נְתָּNAS: great is Your goodness, WhichKJV: [Oh] how great [is] thy goodness, which thou hast laid upINT: How great is your goodness Which have stored Psalm 65:4 HEB: חֲצֵ֫רֶ֥יךָ נִ֭שְׂבְּעָה בְּט֣וּב בֵּיתֶ֑ךָ קְ֝דֹ֗שׁNAS: We will be satisfied with the goodness of Your house,KJV: we shall be satisfied with the goodness of thy house,INT: your courts will be satisfied the goodness of your house your holy Psalm 119:66 HEB: ט֤וּב טַ֣עַם וָדַ֣עַתNAS: Teach me good discernmentKJV: Teach me good judgment and knowledge:INT: good discernment and knowledge Psalm 128:5 HEB: מִצִּ֫יּ֥וֹן וּ֭רְאֵה בְּט֣וּב יְרוּשָׁלִָ֑ם כֹּ֝֗לNAS: And may you see the prosperity of JerusalemKJV: and thou shalt see the good of JerusalemINT: Zion see the prosperity of Jerusalem all Psalm 145:7 HEB: זֵ֣כֶר רַב־ טוּבְךָ֣ יַבִּ֑יעוּ וְצִדְקָתְךָ֥NAS: of Your abundant goodness And will shout joyfullyKJV: of thy great goodness, and shall singINT: the memory of your abundant goodnessshall eagerly of your righteousness Proverbs 11:10 HEB: בְּט֣וּב צַ֭דִּיקִים תַּעֲלֹ֣ץNAS: When it goes well with the righteous,KJV: When it goeth well with the righteous,INT: well the righteous rejoices Isaiah 1:19 HEB: תֹּאב֖וּ וּשְׁמַעְתֶּ֑ם ט֥וּב הָאָ֖רֶץ תֹּאכֵֽלוּ׃NAS: You will eat the best of the land;KJV: ye shall eat the good of the land:INT: ye be willing and obey the best of the land will eat Isaiah 63:7 HEB: יְהוָ֑ה וְרַב־ טוּב֙ לְבֵ֣ית יִשְׂרָאֵ֔לNAS: us, And the great goodness toward the houseKJV: on us, and the great goodness toward the houseINT: the LORD and the great goodness the house of Israel 32 Occurrences
clarkgoble Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 The problem is that we're still left asking what the good is and why on earth we'd want to be good (including God). That was the question Plato and the Greeks were struggling with.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 19 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: Goodness cannot exist apart from God for God is the source and fount of all goodness. Therefore, apart from the existence of God, goodness cannot exist as an active reality or even exist as an abstract theory. The only reason why good is coeternal with God is because good. It is incorrect to suppose goodness can exist on its own apart from the existence of God. That is not LDS theology, but it is good Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology.
mfbukowski Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 21 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said: I agree. Goodness can only exist within the mind of an intelligent being. Goodness can only exist within a mind that can freely choose between good and evil. One of the theological principles that sets Mormonism apart is that the Father and his Son are both heroes of righteousness who fought deadly battles of very real potential jeopardy against anything and everything evil intelligences could throw at them and yet by the exercise of mighty, faith, hope, charity and courage they won victories for righteousness against seemingly impossible odds. The angels and exalted beings praise God the Father and Christ not because they have no choice but to be good, as is asserted in Platonism, but because, as free agents, they battled against evil in real life or death struggles and won complete victories. God is good because he wants to be good, not because he has no choice but to be good. Exactly- thanks for that. And the way you wrote your post is perfect in both seeing it abstractly as a question of choice and freedom without an attempt to define "good" which is as undefinable as "truth" and seeing it also in an almost mythic sense of warrior Gods in a very real battle using weapons of faith hope and charity. The valid question is DO WE CHOOSE to pursue what we all know is "good" AND "true" without having to turn those values into entities. The Ideal Human is DEFINED as one who ALWAYS, without exception makes the right choice, even if at some times it appears to be the wrong choice, as in Eve and Adam's choice to "partake of the fruit" THAT is the choice to choose right, and is key in the equation. Without choice, there IS no "good" or "evil" because good and evil are defined by the choice itself. CHOICE creates good and evil, or else all of life is grey robotics- nothing better, nothing worse, programs working, things moving, not even "forward" or "Backward", just grey plodding soldiers without meaning carrying out their dim existence. Without choice we are all like concentration camp victims, slaves to our captors, but in this case, without even the ability to choose to die. That is what is represented in the story of the Plan as "Satan's Plan" where perfection is unavoidable and without choice, nullifying praise or blame goodness or evil. 1
CV75 Posted June 18, 2017 Posted June 18, 2017 20 hours ago, Rivers said: Alma 42:13 Is something good because God says it is? Or is something good whether God says it is or not? Alma 42:13 implies the latter. If so, is this something in which we can have common ground with atheists? Can we all agree on objective moral values whether or not we believe in God? Or is theism still necessary for a belief in an ultimate moral authority? I think the "work of justice" is God's work. As is the work of mercy. He got His ideas and all His work from His Father. Moral values come from people. They can get their ideas from their Father or from a false father who would destroy the works of justice, mercy, love, creation, etc. They may not comprehend or acknowledge the origin of their ideas that drive the moral values and systems they come up with. So theism is certainly not necessary for people to agree.
clarkgoble Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Not familiar with him- you mean Levinas? Yeah. Sorry. Perils of trying to type on a phone. Quote I think it's pretty clear that the myths of the gods came first which was essentially a reification of various forces and tendencies and characteristics and that laid the groundwork for the idea that somehow these qualities were metaphysical entities. Well historically they definitely came first and were allegorized away. However I think the logic of the One is fairly internal and not really that dependent upon that accidental historical fact. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. Of course you're right that this depends upon reifying the good as a cause of some sort. My point is more just that it's that logic of logical dependence that sets up the philosophical conundrum. I think it also important to distinguish Hebrew from Greek culture although after Alexander conquered Israel things did become quite mixed. That's why you see so much influence of Greek philosophy in the New Testament. But I think the fundamental problem is that the god of the philosophers simply isn't the god of the old testament. I think it's still valuable to question being itself. It's just that I don't quite buy it as a religious investigation. In that sense I think Mormons are closer to atheists. Edited June 19, 2017 by clarkgoble
Bobbieaware Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 3 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Exactly- thanks for that. And the way you wrote your post is perfect in both seeing it abstractly as a question of choice and freedom without an attempt to define "good" which is as undefinable as "truth" and seeing it also in an almost mythic sense of warrior Gods in a very real battle using weapons of faith hope and charity. The valid question is DO WE CHOOSE to pursue what we all know is "good" AND "true" without having to turn those values into entities. The Ideal Human is DEFINED as one who ALWAYS, without exception makes the right choice, even if at some times it appears to be the wrong choice, as in Eve and Adam's choice to "partake of the fruit" THAT is the choice to choose right, and is key in the equation. Without choice, there IS no "good" or "evil" because good and evil are defined by the choice itself. CHOICE creates good and evil, or else all of life is grey robotics- nothing better, nothing worse, programs working, things moving, not even "forward" or "Backward", just grey plodding soldiers without meaning carrying out their dim existence. Without choice we are all like concentration camp victims, slaves to our captors, but in this case, without even the ability to choose to die. That is what is represented in the story of the Plan as "Satan's Plan" where perfection is unavoidable and without choice, nullifying praise or blame goodness or evil. Beautifully put. And, of course, even if Satan's unworkable plan could somehow be implemented, it would only succeed in causing God to cease to be and all things, including God, to vanish into utter nothingness. Thankfully, the implementation of Satan's plan can only be considered theoretically because it ain't ever gonna happen.
mfbukowski Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 4 hours ago, clarkgoble said: The problem is that we're still left asking what the good is and why on earth we'd want to be good (including God). That was the question Plato and the Greeks were struggling with. Some of us have gotten beyond that
mfbukowski Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: That is not LDS theology, but it is good Judeo-Christian-Muslim theology. At first blush it appeared that we disagreed about this, but with closer reading, I realized we do not. I am not surprised we agree, as almost always. Bobbie made two different quotes which I first read as the same. Your comment was on her second response, and mine was on the first. 5 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: I agree. Goodness can only exist within the mind of an intelligent being. Goodness can only exist within a mind that can freely choose between good and evil. 23 hours ago, Bobbieaware said: Goodness cannot exist apart from God for God is the source and fount of all goodness. Therefore, apart from the existence of God, goodness cannot exist as an active reality or even exist as an abstract theory. Big difference here. Humans are intelligent Beings AND God is human. But all humans are not "God", So actually Bobbieaware, there could be a contradiction here If it is true that Goodness can only exist within the mind of an intelligent being, it can exist in the minds of regular humans like you and me. I agreed with that and I believe that is perfectly compatible with Mormon doctrine. If it is true that "Goodness cannot exist apart from God for God is the source... of all goodness" then that would IMPLY that goodness existing in a regular human could not be "Goodness" and therefore Bob is right that THAT is not LDS theology but is good Catholic or Muslim theology. But there is a resolution here which is what I have been proposing- that goodness is a question of choice and both regular humans and Exalted Humans both have the power of choice and therefore knowing both goodness and evil That's straight out of the theology of the "fortunate fall" aspect of LDS theology. So Bobbie could be right if she agrees with my interpretation But that is not surprising, 1
smac97 Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) On 6/17/2017 at 8:10 PM, Rivers said: Alma 42:13 Is something good because God says it is? Or is something good whether God says it is or not? God is perfect. He does not lie. So whatever He says is truth. "For God is not the author of confusion." I'll unpack that a bit: Perfection, as an attribute of God, includes total mastery of will/agency. Total mastery of will means total/perfect compliance with eternal laws. Total compliance with eternal laws puts the surety of God's unchanging/unending righteousness (and, hence, His status as "God") on par with those eternal laws. So 2 + 2 (on an interval scale) will always equal 4. Always. No question. No debate. No hypothetical scenario where 2 + 2 ≠ 4 (again, on an interval scale). God's righteousness, His devotion to truth, is likewise definite. Enduring. Everlasting. Quite a comforting thought, that. When God speaks, we can with certainty know that His words are "true." He is, after all, the "God of truth." I do not think His act of speaking X is the mechanism that makes X "true." Rather, God is simply stating an eternal truth. Truth is an eternal construct, and God is bound to it. Quote Alma 42:13 implies the latter. I don't think it does. Here is that verse: Quote Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God. Here are some thoughts I previously wrote on this topic back in November (in response to an inquiry about whether God could "fall" or "cease to be God"): Quote Both Mormon and Alma made rhetorical statements about conditions under which "{God} would cease to be God." However, both of them immediately clarify that these are purely rhetorical/hypothetical statements, not predictions or declarations that God might "cease to be God." See, e.g., Mormons 9:15, 19 (emphases added): 15 And now, O all ye that have imagined up unto yourselves a god who can do no miracles, I would ask of you, have all these things passed, of which I have spoken? Has the end come yet? Behold I say unto you, Nay; and God has not ceased to be a God of miracles. ... 19 And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles. And Alma 42 (emphasis added): 13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God. ... 22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God. 23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice. See also the numerous scriptures regarding the attributes of God, including: the Lord changes not: 3 Ne. 24:6 . (Moro. 8:18.) God is same yesterday, today, forever: Morm. 9:9 . no variableness or shadow of changing in God: Morm. 9:9–10 . God is same yesterday, today, forever: D&C 20:12 . God is infinite, eternal, unchangeable, from everlasting to everlasting: D&C 20:17 . So, to answer your question ("Could God fall?"), we have to look at the lexical limitations we face, such as what do we mean by "could." But at the end of it all, and based on the above scriptures, my answer is, essentially . . . God will never fall. So I think Alma 42:13 is making a rhetorical point to emphasize how God does not change ("But God ceaseth not to be God..."), not making a factual averment that God could actually "cease to be God." Quote If so, is this something in which we can have common ground with atheists? I don't think so. Atheists deny the existence of God. We affirm the existence of God. Quote Can we all agree on objective moral values whether or not we believe in God? I think we can, but I don't think atheists believe that. My belief is that we all have an innate moral code which derives from the Light ("Spirit") of Christ, as described in Moroni 7:16: Quote For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. Atheists, on the other hand, will attribute these supposed "objective moral values" to . . . well, I'm still not clear what, but definitely not to God. There are times when we confront something that may seem to speak directly to that "moral code," but also has some measure of ambiguity about it. For example, the morality of abortion, for many people, falls into this description. There are many otherwise good and decent people in this world who work hard, who are generally honest, who are kind to others, and yet fundamentally disagree with you and me about the morality of electively killing fetuses. It would therefore make a lot of sense for a person, facing such a contradictory set of moral codes (one which condemns abortion in all or virtually all circumstances, and one which allows/encourages/celebrates it), would seek guidance from a "higher" source of morality. That would be . . . God. I have previously taught courses on the law at a local university (I am a practicing attorney), including a course on legal research which includes an extensive review of basic legal vocabulary. One of the terms I test on is "malum in se," a Latin phrase "used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct." It is often juxtaposed against "malum prohibitum," which refers to "conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute."Every semester I provided the above definitions and then, without any further instruction or prompting from me, I asked the class to give me three or so examples of conduct that is, in their view, malum in se. Invariably, and I mean each and every semester, I received the same three responses: murder, rape and theft. The terms sometimes varied ("killing" instead of "murder," "sexual abuse" instead of "rape," "stealing" instead of "theft," etc.), but the same three concepts were always volunteered by students. I then asked my students to explain why these things are malum in se, and the response is generally "Well, they just are." My personal opinion, never shared in class (it's a state school, after all), is that the legal concept of malum in se is one of the purest evidences of God, and of the Light of Christ. Try as we might, secularists just cannot explain away the innate sense of "right" and "wrong" that exists in all but the most depraved of us. We know, in our heart of hearts, that certain things are "wrong" or "evil," such as murder, rape and theft. We also know, in equally unprovable and unarticulated terms, that certain things are "good" or "right," such as the feeling a parent has when tucking blankets around his sleeping child.Without God, "good" cannot exist. Just look at the definition of the term: "morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious." Good cannot be defined without morals, virtue, right and piety. These terms, without God, are left to the definitions of whomever has the most power. That is arbitrary. In contrast, looking to God as the arbiter of "right" and "wrong" is a great blessing to me. Quote Or is theism still necessary for a belief in an ultimate moral authority? Your question is interesting. What kind of "authority" can dictate morality? In the LDS paradigm, God, the omnipotent and benevolent creator of heaven and earth, readily fits the description of "ultimate moral authority." He knows everything. He is perfect. He never changes. In contrast, it would seem that for atheists, political/military power would be the alternative source of "ultimate moral authority." As Chairman Mao put it: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." This was, for Mao, a truism. And Mao was, notably, speaking of the basic principles underlying Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory/philosophy. And these theories/philosophies have, as one of their key tenets, an atheist worldview. Thanks, -Smac Edited June 19, 2017 by smac97
Glenn101 Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 16 minutes ago, smac97 said: Every semester I provided the above definitions and then, without any further instruction or prompting from me, I asked the class to give me three or so examples of conduct that is, in their view, malum in se. Invariably, and I mean each and every semester, I received the same three responses: murder, rape and theft. The terms sometimes varied ("killing" instead of "murder," "sexual abuse" instead of "rape," "stealing" instead of "theft," etc.), but the same three concepts were always volunteered by students. I then asked my students to explain why these things are malum in se, and the response is generally "Well, they just are." I have a question. Were any of your students atheists that you know of? If so, were there answers any different from those professing religion? How do you think those questions would be answered in different cultures around the world? I do believe that the light of Christ operates in the world, for those who are receptive. I also believe that there are those that ignore it and develop their own rules of morality. So to answer: On 6/17/2017 at 10:10 PM, Rivers said: Alma 42:13 implies the latter. If so, is this something in which we can have common ground with atheists? Can we all agree on objective moral values whether or not we believe in God? Or is theism still necessary for a belief in an ultimate moral authority? I do not believe that we really can come to agree on objective moral values. I think that the so called sexual revolution, polygamy, homosexual acts, etc. are example of areas where theists and atheists, and some in the middle, come to different conclusions. Glenn 1
mfbukowski Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 3 hours ago, clarkgoble said: Yeah. Sorry. Perils of trying to type on a phone. Well historically they definitely came first and were allegorized away. However I think the logic of the One is fairly internal and not really that dependent upon that accidental historical fact. Sorry if I wasn't clear on that. Of course you're right that this depends upon reifying the good as a cause of some sort. My point is more just that it's that logic of logical dependence that sets up the philosophical conundrum. I think it also important to distinguish Hebrew from Greek culture although after Alexander conquered Israel things did become quite mixed. That's why you see so much influence of Greek philosophy in the New Testament. But I think the fundamental problem is that the god of the philosophers simply isn't the god of the old testament. I think it's still valuable to question being itself. It's just that I don't quite buy it as a religious investigation. In that sense I think Mormons are closer to atheists. I'm going to go with Wittgenstein on this one. https://www.quora.com/Did-Wittgenstein-comment-on-Martin-Heideggers-Being-and-Time Quote Did Wittgenstein comment on Martin Heidegger's Being and Time? Promoted by The Great Courses Plus Learn philosophy from university philosophy professors for free. Enjoy video lectures on the history of philosophy, philosophers, and political theory for free. Free trial at www.thegreatcoursesplus.com 1 Answer Mike Richmond, MA Physics & Philosophy, University of Oxford Answered Sep 8, 2015 There is one known comment by Wittgenstein on Heidegger, from 1929: I can very well think what Heidegger meant about Being and Angst. Man has the drive to run up against the boundaries of language. Think, for instance, of the astonishment that anything exists [das etwas existiert]. This astonishment cannot be expressed in the form of a question, and there is also no answer to it. All that we can say can only,a priori, be nonsense. Nevertheless we run up against the boundaries of language. Kierkegaard also saw this running-up and similarly pointed it out (as running up against the paradox). This running up against the boundaries of language is Ethics. I hold it certainly to be very important that one makes an end to all the chatter about ethics – whether there can be knowledge in ethics, whether there are values [ob es Werte gebe , whether the Good can be defined, etc. In ethics one always makes the attempt to say something which cannot concern and never concerns the essence of the matter. It is a priori certain: whatever one may give as a definition of the Good – it is always only a misunderstanding to suppose that the expression corresponds to what one actually means (Moore). But the tendency to run up against shows something. The holy Augustine already knew this when he said: “What, you scoundrel, you would speak no nonsense? Go ahead and speak nonsense – it doesn’t matter!" Metaphysics gives me the willies. I am reading a great book written by a non-believer, Jaques Berlinerblau who sees secularism as a political position about freedom of religion instead of an argument between theists and atheists and he reprimands atheists for being "whiners" In other words secularism has nothing to do with atheism and it is possible to be a religious secularist. Imagine the power in seeing secularism as a religion compatible with Mormonism. Count me into that paradigm. THAT is the gospel I am preaching. Mormons are humanists, and materialists, taking humanism to the next level- exaltation itself. There is no other "human potential movement" more powerful than that! "Man is the measure of all things" except in this paradigm it is the Man of Holiness who is the measure of all things!
mfbukowski Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 33 minutes ago, smac97 said: Atheists, on the other hand, will attribute these supposed "objective moral values" to . . . well, I'm still not clear what, but definitely not to God. For atheists there ARE no objective moral values to "attribute" They believe that "Man is the measure of all things" On the other hand we believe the Man of Holiness is the measure of all things and we are his children. Closer than is obvious at first blush
smac97 Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 12 minutes ago, Glenn101 said: I have a question. Were any of your students atheists that you know of? I never made such an inquiry, but I'm reasonably confident some of them were. 12 minutes ago, Glenn101 said: If so, were there answers any different from those professing religion? Not to my recollection. The uniformity of the responses (that murder, rape and theft are innately wrong) was always striking to me. 12 minutes ago, Glenn101 said: How do you think those questions would be answered in different cultures around the world? With some perhaps, I think. The human ability to rationalize/distort never ceases to amaze me (I say this of myself as well). These topics can lend themselves to all sorts of rhetorical sleights of hand, equivocations, etc., but at the end of the day I think the vast majority of humanity would agree with these broad statements (that murder, rape and theft are innately wrong). 12 minutes ago, Glenn101 said: I do believe that the light of Christ operates in the world, for those who are receptive. I also believe that there are those that ignore it and develop their own rules of morality. I agree. 12 minutes ago, Glenn101 said: So to answer: I do not believe that we really can come to agree on objective moral values. I think that the so called sexual revolution, polygamy, homosexual acts, etc. are example of areas where theists and atheists, and some in the middle, come to different conclusions. Glenn Okay. Thanks, -Smac
mfbukowski Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 OK all I have a couple of projects to work on now and I will be taking a hiatus from the board until those projects are done. It's been a fun father's day. I will try to answer specific replies to my comments if the replies are relevant but no new pot stirring for a while. So don't go thinking you won any arguments if I don't respond.
clarkgoble Posted June 19, 2017 Posted June 19, 2017 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: I'm going to go with Wittgenstein on this one. https://www.quora.com/Did-Wittgenstein-comment-on-Martin-Heideggers-Being-and-Time Metaphysics gives me the willies. Shouldn't. Ultimately we all have ethical views even though we can't really fully justify them. In the same way we all have metaphysical ones. For about the same reasons.
Recommended Posts