Listen to this Audio Message...

[Guest]

Me: I agree... but I'm asking you for examples. Did God not leave us anything objective?
Emmet: Oh - so that wasn't a rhetorical question?

No, I'm quite interested in your response. My position is that objective principles such as love and selflessness are to be our primary focus in living to please God. I can hold such a position because I believe God communicated to us in a concrete (written) form. Your posistion is that laws are equal to principles. Since laws are specific and principles are general, I'm asking you how one finds these objective laws?

Your laws in the Torah conflict with the covenant Jesus made with his disciples. Likewise, Hindus believe you and I are both wrong and our "laws" are just illusions. Atheists live by naturalistic law and say Jews, Christians, and Hindus are all quite mistaken. Is your view somewhat pluralistic regarding the laws we are to follow?

[Guest]

Hi, JC,

Thank you for your response.

My position is that objective principles such as love and selflessness are to be our primary focus in living to please God. I can hold such a position because I believe God communicated to us in a concrete (written) form. Your posistion is that laws are equal to principles. Since laws are specific and principles are general, I'm asking you how one finds these objective laws?

Hmmm.... What are "objective principles"? Love? Mercy? Justice? How are we to articulate such principles from an objective standpoint? Ask five people on the street, and you'll get ten definitions. Specificity and generality do not mitigate the primary difficulty here.

One obtains the laws from the same place(s) one obtains the principles: education; observation; inclination; contemplation; and/or (if you are blessed) revelation.

Your laws in the Torah conflict with the covenant Jesus made with his disciples. Likewise, Hindus believe you and I are both wrong and our "laws" are just illusions. Atheists live by naturalistic law and say Jews, Christians, and Hindus are all quite mistaken. Is your view somewhat pluralistic regarding the laws we are to follow?

Yes, it is somewhat pluralistic, inasmuch as: (1) Torah does not require equal reponsibility of all persons; and (2) God appears not to have ensured that all humans have facile access to the Torah.

And, of course, not all persons in all cultures share the same principles, either.


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

Emmet, it's good to hear from you.

Hmmm.... What are "objective principles"? Love? Mercy? Justice?

That pretty much covers it.

How are we to articulate such principles from an objective standpoint?

I hold that they are intrinsicly objective. Let's take my ealier example. Ask a Christian, a practicing Jew, a Hindu and an Atheist if they feel the Sabbath is a law to be kept. You'll obviously receive very different responses and there will be no agreement. Now ask this same group if murdering an innocent person is wrong. More than likely, all four would answer, "Yes, of course murdering an innocent person is wrong." Why? Because murder violates the intrinsic principal of treating others the way we ask to be treated. Obviously, a great number of murders still take place, as evidenced by yesterday's VT shootings, but I believe one can choose to ignore his conscience (where God births these principals) for the sake of convenience. The shooter in yesterday's rampage was probably unable to do this and shot himself to "escape" what he'd done, just like the Columbine kids.

One obtains the laws from the same place(s) one obtains the principles: education; observation; inclination; contemplation; and/or (if you are blessed) revelation.

By what authority to you draw this conclusion? I assume it's your own education, observation, inclinations, etc. If so, your highest authority is a created being... namely, yourself and others. Why wouldn't these principals originate in the Creator, rather than the limited views of the created being who, by contrast, knows next to nothing. God answered Job in a similar way. That's the problem with this form of pluralism. It has no objective foundation, yet makes objective claims like the one you made above.

In other words, you believe principals are a result of leaning and culture. I believe principals are imprinted on us by a Creator and we can freely choose to obey or ignore those principals... regardless of where one is born or raised (Acts 17). We are both giving our opinions but our starting points demonstrate an extreme polarity. Yours starts with man, mine with God.

[Guest]

Hello, JC,

Thank you for your reply.

I hold that they are intrinsicly objective. Let's take my ealier example. Ask a Christian, a practicing Jew, a Hindu and an Atheist if they feel the Sabbath is a law to be kept. You'll obviously receive very different responses and there will be no agreement. Now ask this same group if murdering an innocent person is wrong. More than likely, all four would answer, "Yes, of course murdering an innocent person is wrong." Why? Because murder violates the intrinsic principal of treating others the way we ask to be treated.

And yet not even all cultures hold to this "intrinsic" principle. Perhaps you are familiar with Don Richardson's "Peace Child" narrative? If memory serves, there was a culture that exalted betrayal, murder, cannibalism.

But if we are going to ask whether such things are intrinsic or acculturated... well, there we face one of the classic philosophical conundrums. No human child is raised without contextual formation, which in the vast majority of cases includes human social conditioning - including the explicit and implicit teaching of that golden rule which you have termed as intrinsic.

kaufmannphillips: One obtains the laws from the same place(s) one obtains the principles: education; observation; inclination; contemplation; and/or (if you are blessed) revelation.

JC: By what authority to you draw this conclusion? I assume it's your own education, observation, inclinations, etc. If so, your highest authority is a created being... namely, yourself and others. ... That's the problem with this form of pluralism. It has no objective foundation, yet makes objective claims like the one you made above.

I wasn't making an appeal to authority. As for the "highest authority" of "a created being"... pray tell, what single thought do you have that swimmeth not in the matrix of your human mind? And what solitary thing do you perceive that passeth not through the filter of human perception? There is no way for us to escape the prison of the human self, and it serves that we should acknowledge this for better and for worse. I can know nothing better than a human can know something, and neither can you.

Let us say that Doug has had a vision from God, telling him there will be a volcanic eruption! OK. This does not mean that Doug knows God has told him there will be a volcanic eruption. All this means is that Doug has experienced a vision, and there are a number of possible reasons why a human being might experience such a thing - not all of which include God's actual participation.

Let us say that you believe in a highly convincing and emotionally satisfying book! OK. This does not mean that the book is necessarily true, because humans are quite commonly convinced and emotionally satisfied by things that are false.

Let us say that I believe in a system of conduct that I have practiced for a dozen years or more and found beneficial! OK. This does not mean that this system of conduct is true, because my appraisal of it as beneficial is subject to the potential for human bias.

So whatever you have to say, and whatever I have to say, it all passes through the eye of the human needle, and we should not pretend otherwise. Where, then, shall we find "objective foundation"? Surely not in any human mind, for every human thought is subjective. The most we can hope for is relative objectivity, and a greater consonance with that which is real, regardless of human perception or recognition.

Why wouldn't these principals originate in the Creator, rather than the limited views of the created being who, by contrast, knows next to nothing. God answered Job in a similar way.

One may just as well ask: Why wouldn't these principles originate in the reflections of the human mind? Anything that can be understood by a human, can be thought of by a human.

And where do you derive your stance that principles originate in a creator? Let's be honest, here. For the most part, you have inherited it, either at a caregiver's knee or from a tradition encountered later in life. What manner of ethical principles can we discern in feral children, and which of these unfortunate souls evidence even a rudimentary understanding of a creator? The less human tutelage they have received, the more feral children present as minimally remarkable animals. It is acculturation that invests each child with the accumulated wealth of human experience, including an appreciation for certain principles that their host culture has held dear.

So what is the "objective" observation? Human beings develop perspectives by way of their own personal experience and by assimilation of other human experience; this is easily and commonly observed, and no one would seriously contest this. But the issue of "intrinsic" principles embedded in the human psyche is another thing entirely. It is a difficult thing to test, because to do so would constitute child abuse - so profoundly do we recognize the necessity of social formation.

Now, as for Job - here we have a human tradition, as potentially subjective as any other. But if we shall say that the human be a fool, knowing next to nothing, how does this recommend to us the human acceptance of said tradition?


Shlamaa,
Emmet

[Guest]

And yet not even all cultures hold to this "intrinsic" principle. Perhaps you are familiar with Don Richardson's "Peace Child" narrative? If memory serves, there was a culture that exalted betrayal, murder, cannibalism.

Your memory is correct. The worshippers of Baal, along with many other ancient (and some less ancient) cultures have held similar views to the one articulated in "Peace Child." But what does this tell us? It could mean that my argument of intrinsic principals is simply not correct. It could also mean that they rejected all forms of light (true information) that God sent them and they became hardened to such an extent that virtue and honesty became repugnant to them. Playing the cultual "get out of jail free" card eschews personal responsibility. Anyone can claim the reason they abuse their children is because their own father abused them. I say they abuse their children because their hearts are evil, regardless of their upbringing.

Emmet, I have four older siblings (three brothers, one sister) and we all grew up in the same culture with the same parents. My brothers are not Christians, yet my sister and I are. I'm not even sure, to this day, if my own parents are Christians. My childhood indoctrination was opposite to what I currently believe and live by. You might argue that I learned Christian principals after reading some books on the subject. However, you've probably read many of those same books. I read the gospels and it changed my life. Bertrand Russell reads the same writings and says, "Rubbish!" What then does it boil down to if not one's upbringing and education? Show me a child from an abused home who shoots up his school and I'll show you a child who grew up in worse circumstances and gives his life to rescue his enemy from drowning.

I wasn't making an appeal to authority. As for the "highest authority" of "a created being"... pray tell, what single thought do you have that swimmeth not in the matrix of your human mind?

I believe our Creator gave us a mind to engage in thought and, therefore, we possess the ability to reject lies in favor of truth. But the truth itself can be discovered a number of ways. God is not limited in that respect. However, one can't say truth isn't truth simply because it's ascertained through using our minds.

And what solitary thing do you perceive that passeth not through the filter of human perception?

I perceive that killing you because you disagree with me would be an evil and hideous act before God. I also perceive that taking a bullet for you or any of your loved ones without a second thought might please God as well. Could these perceptions be filtered out? Let us hope not.

So whatever you have to say, and whatever I have to say, it all passes through the eye of the human needle, and we should not pretend otherwise. Where, then, shall we find "objective foundation"?

We have the light of conscience and the light of revelation. Both can be corrupted to suit one's evil desires and both can be adhered to in persuit of seeking truth and pleasing God. I could also ask why an electron orbits the nucleus of an atom. The answer... it just does it. That's how I feel about objective truths. They can be tampered with (like splitting the atom), but to do so would be disasterous.

One may just as well ask: Why wouldn't these principles originate in the reflections of the human mind?

They could, but possible doesn't equate to probable. Someone outside of the limitations of the physical world had to have given us rational minds. In other words, the fact that we even have a rational mind should tell us there's a rational creator. Reason and logic exist, whether or not we choose to engage in such things. If that's true, they must be objective and will not depend on culture, education or upbringing. Rather, logic and reason exist because those are laws that have been set in place.

I also see no reason why God would make the physical world act on a constant, and yet make moral choices completely subjective. If our choice to do good or evil simply boils down to culture and experience, then no one could be held responsible for evil acts... except the Creator. I'm not so arrogant as to posit such a notion about the one who made us.

[Guest]

Hello, JC,

Thank you for your response.

The worshippers of Baal, along with many other ancient (and some less ancient) cultures have held similar views to the one articulated in "Peace Child." But what does this tell us? It could mean that my argument of intrinsic principals is simply not correct. It could also mean that they rejected all forms of light (true information) that God sent them and they became hardened to such an extent that virtue and honesty became repugnant to them.

Before responding here - for the sake of clarity, could you flesh out what you mean by "intrinsic principles"? Intrinsic to what, exactly?

Playing the cultual "get out of jail free" card eschews personal responsibility. Anyone can claim the reason they abuse their children is because their own father abused them. I say they abuse their children because their hearts are evil, regardless of their upbringing.

I find the issue to be potentially more complex. Are such hearts necessarily evil, or may they be fundamentally damaged? The human psyche is not invincible, and even human choice is not illimited. Heaven knows that we are dust, and is justly merciful.

Emmet, I have four older siblings (three brothers, one sister) and we all grew up in the same culture with the same parents. My brothers are not Christians, yet my sister and I are. I'm not even sure, to this day, if my own parents are Christians. My childhood indoctrination was opposite to what I currently believe and live by. You might argue that I learned Christian principals after reading some books on the subject. However, you've probably read many of those same books. I read the gospels and it changed my life. Bertrand Russell reads the same writings and says, "Rubbish!" What then does it boil down to if not one's upbringing and education? Show me a child from an abused home who shoots up his school and I'll show you a child who grew up in worse circumstances and gives his life to rescue his enemy from drowning.

So if we are to take the subject group of the five siblings in your family, we may find that you have a relatively common pool of influences. We will also find, upon closer examination, that you have had a diversity of experiences: e.g., different teachers, different intimates, different exposure to media, even different individual experiences with your own parents. We may also find some manner of difference in body chemistry, especially since you are not all of the same gender.

How are we to determine, then, which differences in behavior/character are a product of external formation, and which are a matter of intrinsic inclination, and which are an outcome of culpable human choice? The matter is staggeringly complex, and serves as ample justification for why God is the arbiter of human souls, and we are not.

kaufmannphillips: I wasn't making an appeal to authority. As for the "highest authority" of "a created being"... pray tell, what single thought do you have that swimmeth not in the matrix of your human mind?

JC: I believe our Creator gave us a mind to engage in thought and, therefore, we possess the ability to reject lies in favor of truth. But the truth itself can be discovered a number of ways. God is not limited in that respect. However, one can't say truth isn't truth simply because it's ascertained through using our minds.

We possess some capacity for thought and discovery, yes. What we do not possess is is an infallible ability to discern truth.

So truth is truth regardless of whether or not our minds have apprehended it, but we cannot ascertain that our minds have rightly apprehended any truth, because our minds are subject to fallibility. And neither you nor I can know anything better than a human can know it - so human fallibility casts its shadow over even an appeal to (what is "known" about) the highest authority.

kaufmannphillips: And what solitary thing do you perceive that passeth not through the filter of human perception?

JC: I perceive that killing you because you disagree with me would be an evil and hideous act before God. I also perceive that taking a bullet for you or any of your loved ones without a second thought might please God as well. Could these perceptions be filtered out? Let us hope not.

Rather, let us hope that they be filtered as God sees fit. (Cf. Numbers 25:6-13)

kaufmannphillips: So whatever you have to say, and whatever I have to say, it all passes through the eye of the human needle, and we should not pretend otherwise. Where, then, shall we find "objective foundation"?

JC: We have the light of conscience and the light of revelation. Both can be corrupted to suit one's evil desires and both can be adhered to in persuit of seeking truth and pleasing God.

And despite intention or motivation, both can be misapprehended, thus betraying truth.

Humans are only capable of subjective knowledge - that is, they can only possess human knowledge. Thus, humans cannot be certain that their thoughts correspond to an objective foundation.

kaufmannphillips: One may just as well ask: Why wouldn't these principles originate in the reflections of the human mind?

JC: They could, but possible doesn't equate to probable. Someone outside of the limitations of the physical world had to have given us rational minds. In other words, the fact that we even have a rational mind should tell us there's a rational creator.

It is highly probable that the rational mind was a product of design, but even "highly probable" doesn't equate to "certain." Occasionally, random matters give the illusion of design.

Besides which, the design of the human mind does not validate every principle that swims within it as a faithful reflection of the genius of God. The human mind is capable of imagining much.

Reason and logic exist, whether or not we choose to engage in such things. If that's true, they must be objective and will not depend on culture, education or upbringing. Rather, logic and reason exist because those are laws that have been set in place.

And what guarantee have we that human logic or reason corresponds to objective reality? Human history has supplied plenty of "logical" and "reasonable" concepts that have been overturned or exposed as lacking.

I also see no reason why God would make the physical world act on a constant, and yet make moral choices completely subjective. If our choice to do good or evil simply boils down to culture and experience, then no one could be held responsible for evil acts... except the Creator. I'm not so arrogant as to posit such a notion about the one who made us.

I am not stating that God has no standards. But human knowledge and understanding is by definition subjective, and God weighs the character of our choices in light of the resources we have had available to us - both within ourselves and without, and both for better and for worse.


Shlamaa,
Emmet