The Argument from Moral Autonomy

[Ethos]

(1) If any being is a god, it must be a fitting object of worship.

(2) Worship is a kind of relationship between a worshipper and an object of worship. The relationship between man and god is infinitely asymmetrical.

(3) The believer must seek the god’s will and adapt his behaviour to that will. He must regard himself as being made to fulfill divine purposes, and that all events around him are the product, directly or indirectly, of the god’s will. (from 3)

(4) Worship requires the fundamental abandonment of one’s role as an autonomous moral agent. (from 2 and 3)

(5) Either a human being is (or should be) an autonomous moral agent, or he isn’t (or should not), therefore…

(5a) If he is, then he cannot worship. (from 4)

(5b) If he isn’t, then he could never justify worshipping.

(6) It follows from both that there are no circumstances under which anyone should worship. (from 5)

(7) No being could possibly be a fitting object of worship. (from 6)

(8) Therefore, there cannot be any being that is a god. (from 1 and 7)

In his analysis, Rachels answers to five possible objections. I have already answered most of them.

In reply to the argument that God is perfectly good, and so would never tell us to do anything but what is right, we must answer that we would have no way to judge such an assertion without moral autonomy, and we cannot be subject to God’s commands without losing our moral autonomy.

In reply to the assertion that our moral reasoning is sinful and corrupt, and that we need to obey God, we have to reply that the decision to obey God itself cannot be done without moral autonomy. As I describe in my article “Cutting Off One’s Head : The Theological Attack Against Cognition”, such arguments are always self-defeating.

It may not be the case that we do not have to worship God because of our status as moral agents, only love and respect God, but that worship would remain a possibility. The Argument, however, proves in (6) that worship is a logical impossibility. Given this, it must follow that there cannot be any object of worship.

What if God only tells us to do what we want to do, thus conserving our moral autonomy ? The key word here is “fundamental” in (4). Surrendering our will to God, whatever its decisions will be, still demands a fundamental abandonment of our moral autonomy. Even if God gives it back, this would still take place within a framework of submission.

I have not yet addressed one objections that he addresses, that God really tells us what to do through our conscience, and thereby preserves moral autonomy. But as Rachels judiciously replies, surely we can see this as nothing more than divine trickery and artifice. While we think we are autonomous, we are really being manipulated from within by a god, putting his hand inside us and moving us like a puppet. If our will is motivated by divine intervention, we can longer have any free will whatsoever.

Furthermore, if God is giving us a standard of good that lies beyond itself, then we could find that standard without God, making worship unnecessary.

I do not find these objections to be particularly severe. I do, however, foresee another objection which seems a bit more serious, and it lies in (3) and its passage from infinite asymmetry to man being an integral part of a god’s will. The theologian may reply with the Free Will Defense, and argue that we in fact have free will and that God wishes to impose no moral guidance on us.

To this we must answer that we do have free will, but this free will was created by God also, and its consequences are knowable by God. It is therefore under the purview of God’s will. And given the necessity of divine intervention for worship to be meaningful at all, (4) must obtain.

I will admit that the syllogism is complex and may contain more flaws than the ones Rachels and I found. But given the relatively poor strength of the objections we did find, and the coherency of the argument, I think it safe to think that the Argument from Moral Autonomy is a sound argument.


http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_moral_autonomy/

I find this particular selection a satisfying logical construct. I've posted the last half of the full page, detailing the synopsis of the argument from moral autonomy and responses to potential objections. There is quite a bit of groundwork in the initial half, as well as a link to the original assertion.

Ethos

[mataj]

It's not about proving here, it's about need of proof. IOW, if you don't need to disprove Loch Nech Monstery, why bother with God? You better try and answer that question.

[billygardener]

Why is G-d necessarily fitting of worship? Christopher Hitchens compares (the Judislamochristian concept of G-d to Kin Jong Il, saying that life would be/is like a police state.

[Ethos]

It's not about proving here, it's about need of proof. IOW, if you don't need to disprove Loch Nech Monstery, why bother with God? You better try and answer that question.

Belief in 'Nessie' doesn't result in consequences for non-believers.

[mataj]

Belief in 'Nessie' doesn't result in consequences for non-believers.Exactly. And since the consequences for non-believers is the main reason why religions were invented in the first place, peaceful resolution is usually impossible, and logical arguments useless.

Behind each and every religious conflict, there is a very real conflict of interests. Islamic fundamentalists fight for oil profits too.

[Ethos]

Exactly. And since the consequences for non-believers is the main reason why religions were invented in the first place, peaceful resolution is usually impossible, and logical arguments useless.


For the most part yes, and on this type of forum the chances of conversion (whether from theist to atheist or the other way around) are even smaller. But impossible or useless? I disagree. The free exchange of information is a process both sides benefit from whether there is common ground to meet on or not.

Ethos

[Cedars]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the moral autonomy argument presupposes that your free will cannot CHOOSE to do the will of another; it assumes that if it did, then it would not be autonomous. If this is the case, then not only is the premise (from which its foundation was built) in error but its conclusions would be based on this error as well. (Isn't the capability of choosing an aspect of autonomy?)

[Ethos]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the moral autonomy argument presupposes that your free will cannot CHOOSE to do the will of another; it assumes that if it did, then it would not be autonomous.

This is correct. You can choose to do the will of another, but you would be sacrificing your autonomy in the process.

Ethos

[Cedars]

This is correct. You can choose to do the will of another, but you would be sacrificing your autonomy in the process.

Ethos
If autonomous beings have the capacity to choose, wouldn't that very act of choosing be in accord with autonomy (no matter what the choice is)? In other words, conversely, wouldn't autonomy be negated if one did NOT have the possibility to choose to do the will of another?

[Ethos]

If autonomous beings have the capacity to choose, wouldn't that very act of choosing be in accord with autonomy (no matter what the choice is)? In other words, conversely, wouldn't autonomy be negated if one did NOT have the possibility to choose to do the will of another?

Choosing to do the will of another necessarily abdicates all future choices. Autonomy is abandoned in the process.

Ethos

[mataj]

For the most part yes, and on this type of forum the chances of conversion (whether from theist to atheist or the other way around) are even smaller. But impossible or useless? I disagree. The free exchange of information is a process both sides benefit from whether there is common ground to meet on or not.

EthosNope. Religious arguments can not be resolved by exchange of information. They can only be resolved by violence, there is no other way.

[Ethos]

Nope. Religious arguments can not be resolved by exchange of information. They can only be resolved by violence, there is no other way.

Personal experience proves otherwise.

[lawman]

Nope. Religious arguments can not be resolved by exchange of information. They can only be resolved by violence, there is no other way.
There is no such thing as an argument that can only be resolved by violence.

[mataj]

Personal experience proves otherwise.You were converting religious folks to atheism?

Looks like temporal iterests behind religius disagreements weren't strong enough in your case.

[Cedars]

Choosing to do the will of another necessarily abdicates all future choices. Autonomy is abandoned in the process.

Ethos
Choosing to do the will of another is an ongoing choice of one's own free will (and it can be rescinded at any time -- i.e., a person can still later decide they no longer wish to follow another's will). Choosing to follow another's will is, in itself, as free a choice as choosing to not follow another's will. As long as a person actually has the choice to follow or to not follow, it is still an autonomous choice. It is when one is unable to follow another's will, that one's autonomy has been denied because they were not allowed that choice. So it seems to me that NOT being allowed the choice to follow the will of another WOULD negate autonomy.

[Ethos]

Choosing to do the will of another is an ongoing choice of one's own free will (and it can be rescinded at any time -- i.e., a person can still later decide they no longer wish to follow another's will). Choosing to follow another's will is, in itself, as free a choice as choosing to not follow another's will. As long as a person actually has the choice to follow or to not follow, it is still an autonomous choice. It is when one is unable to follow another's will, that one's autonomy has been denied because they were not allowed that choice. So it seems to me that NOT being allowed the choice to follow the will of another WOULD negate autonomy.

Autonomy doesn't work that way. You can't give yourself to someone, yet maintain your own direction. It would be like cutting off your arm and giving it to me, then declaring you still have control over it.

Ethos

[Cedars]

Autonomy doesn't work that way. You can't give yourself to someone, yet maintain your own direction. It would be like cutting off your arm and giving it to me, then declaring you still have control over it.

Ethos
I'm not sure I'm following you. Does a woman lose her autonomy when she marries? Or does a man lose his autonomy when he marries? Doesn't a person "give oneself" to another in marriage?

[Ethos]

I'm not sure I'm following you. Does a woman lose her autonomy when she marries? Or does a man lose his autonomy when he marries? Doesn't a person "give oneself" to another in marriage?

That would depend on how an individual structures their life based on the relationship. Making decisions based on what you believe someone else wants is a form of co-dependency. The purpose of marriage is not to limit or reduce the individuality of another person, but to compliment inherent differences while also strengthening a union of similarities.

Which isn't to say the foundation of all marriages is so productive. In many cases (especially more male dominated societies), the woman does indeed lose a great deal of autonomy after her (often) arranged marriage is completed. Of course the woman didn't have much autonomy to begin with, but this is a moderate digression from the point.

Ethos

[Cedars]

That would depend on how an individual structures their life based on the relationship. Making decisions based on what you believe someone else wants is a form of co-dependency. The purpose of marriage is not to limit or reduce the individuality of another person, but to compliment inherent differences while also strengthening a union of similarities.

Which isn't to say the foundation of all marriages is so productive. In many cases (especially more male dominated societies), the woman does indeed lose a great deal of autonomy after her (often) arranged marriage is completed. Of course the woman didn't have much autonomy to begin with, but this is a moderate digression from the point.

Ethos
Ok, but I'm still struggling with this idea of moral autonomy which sounds to me like it thinks it offers "proof" that God doesn't exist because belief in God denies moral autonomy. And if this is what it is saying, then it is false for the same reason it is false when applying it to a marriage -- that is, it no more proves that a woman or a man does not exist when one loses oneself in fully giving to another; so why it should prove that God does not exist? What am I missing?

[Dangerrmouse]

You believe that marriage partners literally worship each other?

[Ethos]

Ok, but I'm still struggling with this idea of moral autonomy which sounds to me like it thinks it offers "proof" that God doesn't exist because belief in God denies moral autonomy. And if this is what it is saying, then it is false for the same reason it is false when applying it to a marriage -- that is, it no more proves that a woman or a man does not exist when one loses oneself in fully giving to another; so why it should prove that God does not exist? What am I missing?

I don't think one can adequately compare the relationship of marriage to the worship of a god. It may help to reiterate the original argument.


(1) If any being is a god, it must be a fitting object of worship.

(2) Worship is a kind of relationship between a worshipper and an object of worship. The relationship between man and god is infinitely asymmetrical.

(3) The believer must seek the god’s will and adapt his behaviour to that will. He must regard himself as being made to fulfill divine purposes, and that all events around him are the product, directly or indirectly, of the god’s will. (from 3)

(4) Worship requires the fundamental abandonment of one’s role as an autonomous moral agent. (from 2 and 3)

(5) Either a human being is (or should be) an autonomous moral agent, or he isn’t (or should not), therefore…

(5a) If he is, then he cannot worship. (from 4)

(5b) If he isn’t, then he could never justify worshipping.

(6) It follows from both that there are no circumstances under which anyone should worship. (from 5)

(7) No being could possibly be a fitting object of worship. (from 6)

(8) Therefore, there cannot be any being that is a god. (from 1 and 7


Basically the contradiction is in points 4 through 5b (in bold). It is inconsistent to simultaneously claim worship of a god and moral autonomy. Without moral autonomy, one cannot morally justify the worship of an entity.

It's a rather neat conflict of logic. You either do not worship god - in which case the concept of "god" is superfluous to begin with - or you worship god at the expense of moral autonomy, in which case you cannot sufficiently judge if that god is in fact worthy of worship.

Ethos

[Cedars]

I don't think one can adequately compare the relationship of marriage to the worship of a god. It may help to reiterate the original argument.



Basically the contradiction is in points 4 through 5b (in bold). It is inconsistent to simultaneously claim worship of a god and moral autonomy. Without moral autonomy, one cannot morally justify the worship of an entity.

It's a rather neat conflict of logic. You either do not worship god - in which case the concept of "god" is superfluous to begin with - or you worship god at the expense of moral autonomy, in which case you cannot sufficiently judge if that god is in fact worthy of worship.

Ethos
Let me try this another way. With respect to 4 and 5, the author states his conclusions like they are true, logical statements; but he has not explained his reasons HOW or WHY he arrived at those conclusions.

PS: And perhaps you should also define what you mean by autonomy. (I am meaning capable of determining one's or its own acts, or self-determining.)

[Ethos]

Let me try this another way. With respect to 4 and 5, the author states his conclusions like they are true, logical statements; but he has not explained his reasons HOW or WHY he arrived at those conclusions.

In regard to 5 - either a person is or isn't an autonomous moral agent - seems to be relatively self-explanatory and undeniable.

In regard to 4, this is exactly what we've been discussing for the last few days. The nature of autonomy precludes a dependence on another entity.

So yes, both of these are logical statements.

Ethos

[Cedars]

You believe that marriage partners literally worship each other?

Nope. Nor do I think that a husband or wife gives up his or her autonomy.

[Dangerrmouse]

Nope. Nor do I think that a husband or wife gives up his or her autonomy.

Then your deflection was entirely irrelevant to the question at hand.

[Cedars]

In regard to 5 - either a person is or isn't an autonomous moral agent - seems to be relatively self-explanatory and undeniable.

In regard to 4, this is exactly what we've been discussing for the last few days. The nature of autonomy precludes a dependence on another entity.

So yes, both of these are logical statements.

Ethos
Not as conclusive as you might believe. It seems to me there are varying degrees of being an autonomous moral agent. It is not black and white -- there are shades of gray. People can depend a little or a lot on another entity (be it another man or God). Who do you see as being an example of an autonomous entity and who do you not (and why)?

PS: And please define autonomy for your purposes.

[Cedars]

Then your deflection was entirely irrelevant to the question at hand.

It was not a deflection. It was an exploratory effort.

[Ethos]

Not as conclusive as you might believe. It seems to me there are varying degrees of being an autonomous moral agent. It is not black and white -- there are shades of gray. People can depend a little or a lot on another entity (be it another man or God). Who do you see as being an example of an autonomous entity and who do you not (and why)?

PS: And please define autonomy for your purposes.

I'll define autonomy with the general definition that applies - not just one of my own:


1. independence or freedom, as of the will or one's actions: the autonomy of the individual.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/autonomy

The "shades of gray" argument doesn't apply in this situation because while I agree a person can be partially dependent on another, the concept of worshipping a god does not allow for partiality. Just as someone can't "kind of believe in god", they cannot "sort of worship" that god. This is already declared in points 2 and 3:


(2) Worship is a kind of relationship between a worshipper and an object of worship. The relationship between man and god is infinitely asymmetrical.

(3) The believer must seek the god’s will and adapt his behaviour to that will. He must regard himself as being made to fulfill divine purposes, and that all events around him are the product, directly or indirectly, of the god’s will. (from 3)

It is inconsistent to say a person can worship god, and therefore subjugates their moral autonomy to that god, yet maintains just enough autonomy for themselves to be capable of making an indepedent moral judgement as to whether or not that god is worthy of the devotion to begin with.

Ethos

[Cedars]

Thank you, Ethos. I wanted to be sure I understood what you were saying. With respect to government, self-governing governments and its people are autonomous. If people can accept the law of government and do not lose their autonomy, then why is it assumed that one loses one's autonomy when one accepts the moral law of God? I do not mean to be obtuse, but this really makes no sense to me. If one follows the laws of government, one obeys those laws (and is still considered autonomous); it logically follows that if one follows the moral laws of God, then one obeys those laws, or commandments, including worship of God (and is still considered autonomous).

[Cedars]

delete

[Ethos]

Thank you, Ethos. I wanted to be sure I understood what you were saying. With respect to government, self-governing governments and its people are autonomous. If people can accept the law of government and do not lose their autonomy, then why is it assumed that one loses one's autonomy when one accepts the moral law of God? I do not mean to be obtuse, but this really makes no sense to me. If one follows the laws of government, one obeys those laws (and is still considered autonomous); it logically follows that if one follows the moral laws of God, then one obeys those laws, or commandments, including worship of God (and is still considered autonomous).

If a law of the government were to worship that government, I would argue the potential for moral autonomy is equally impossible.

The key difference between both your government and marriage analogies is neither takes into account the nature of worshipping a supernatural, omnipotent deity. The difference is so large, the three cannot be even remotely compared. As the argument below dictates:


(2) Worship is a kind of relationship between a worshipper and an object of worship. The relationship between man and god is infinitely asymmetrical.

Ethos

[Cedars]

And what is it about worship that you believe changes the equation?

[Sgt Schultz]

And what is it about worship that you believe changes the equation?

Suppose god appeared tomorrow to the world and suddenly said that it was ok to murder people. Since you believe in him would you change your view of murder because the deity you believe said it was ok? For the believers I know they insist that morality comes from god.

[Cedars]

Suppose god appeared tomorrow to the world and suddenly said that it was ok to murder people. Since you believe in him would you change your view of murder because the deity you believe said it was ok? For the believers I know they insist that morality comes from god.
That is a good question. My answer is no, I would not start murdering people because I would know that is not my God. I would still be autonomous, then -- I would still have to even recognize who my God is or isn't (or who is a false god). Belief in my God causes my faith and reason to grow, not to become robotic or lose my autonomy -- because my God gave me free will to choose.

[Sgt Schultz]

That is a good question. My answer is no, I would not start murdering people because I would know that is not my God. I would still be autonomous, then -- I would still have to even recognize who my God is or isn't (or who is a false god). Belief in my God causes my faith and reason to grow, not to become robotic or lose my autonomy -- because my God gave me free will to choose.

How do you know it isn't your god? How do you know that your god didn't just changed his mind and his rules?

[Cedars]

How do you know it isn't your god? How do you know that your god didn't just changed his mind and his rules?
Because my God does not change His mind or His rules.

[Sgt Schultz]

Because my God does not change His mind or His rules.

And you know this how?

[Cedars]

And you know this how?

I know this through my faith of who God is. Otherwise, it would be irrational to worship someone whom I did not even know.

[Sgt Schultz]

I know this through my faith of who God is. Otherwise, it would be irrational to worship someone whom I did not even know.

But the god of the bible has demonstrated cruelty and compassion. That would indicate that he can and does change his mind depending on the circumstances. He himself has murdered which goes against the commandments he handed down to Moses.

[Cedars]

But the god of the bible has demonstrated cruelty and compassion. That would indicate that he can and does change his mind depending on the circumstances. He himself has murdered which goes against the commandments he handed down to Moses.
God has never been cruel -- if you believe otherwise from the Bible, then you have misunderstood. Nor has God ever murdered.

[Sgt Schultz]

God has never been cruel -- if you believe otherwise from the Bible, then you have misunderstood. Nor has God ever murdered.

I would argue otherwise with the story of the flood alone.

[Cedars]

The flood was not murder. It was punishment and justice, which is also consistent with faith in my God. God is a loving God -- He also judges, punishes and delivers justice. In this He is not changeable -- from the times of the OT to the NT and even to today. So God would not appear tomorrow to the world and suddenly say that it was okay to murder people. It would be inconsistent and so I would know this was not of God.

[Ethos]

And what is it about worship that you believe changes the equation?

Worship is defined in the context below. I can only copy and paste a line so many times.

[Ethos]

The flood was not murder. It was punishment and justice, which is also consistent with faith in my God. God is a loving God -- He also judges, punishes and delivers justice. In this He is not changeable -- from the times of the OT to the NT and even to today. So God would not appear tomorrow to the world and suddenly say that it was okay to murder people. It would be inconsistent and so I would know this was not of God.

This is always a curious statement. The flood was punishment?

What about passover? Was each and every first born in Egypt an evil person, deserving of punishment and justice?

Ethos

[lawman]

It's a rather neat conflict of logic. You either do not worship god - in which case the concept of "god" is superfluous to begin with - or you worship god at the expense of moral autonomy, in which case you cannot sufficiently judge if that god is in fact worthy of worship.
It is a dilemma, as you describe, but I think perhaps it's better (more defensible?) to consider this merely an argument against worship, rather than against any deity's existence.

It's certainly legitimate to argue than insofar as any human is an autonomous moral agent, he/she ought not enter into such an asymmetrical relationship as "worship." However, point (1) nevertheless remains debatable, since it's certainly possible to posit a deity that doesn't demand worship.

[lawman]

Thank you, Ethos. I wanted to be sure I understood what you were saying. With respect to government, self-governing governments and its people are autonomous. If people can accept the law of government and do not lose their autonomy, then why is it assumed that one loses one's autonomy when one accepts the moral law of God? I do not mean to be obtuse, but this really makes no sense to me. If one follows the laws of government, one obeys those laws (and is still considered autonomous); it logically follows that if one follows the moral laws of God, then one obeys those laws, or commandments, including worship of God (and is still considered autonomous).
This is a flawed analogy. As a matter of principle, any legitimate government must be accountable to the governed; they have a say in determining what the laws will be. A ruler who demands unquestioning subservience and worship, OTOH, is by commonly accepted principles understood to be illegitimate, a tyrant.

[lawman]

The flood was not murder. It was punishment and justice, which is also consistent with faith in my God. God is a loving God -- He also judges, punishes and delivers justice. In this He is not changeable -- from the times of the OT to the NT and even to today. So God would not appear tomorrow to the world and suddenly say that it was okay to murder people. It would be inconsistent and so I would know this was not of God.
Actually, God changes his mind about things at several points in the Bible... which is perfectly consistent with the notion that he was an evolving creation of an evolving society.

Moreover, his notion of "justice" (not only in the flood, but long thereafter) clearly included inflicting punishment on people who were not actually wrongdoers, but merely associated with them, or even descendants of them -- a concept unquestionably at odds with any contemporary understanding of justice. (This is part of what led later theologians to come up with the notion of "original sin," impugning all of humanity for the sake of justifying God's actions.)

[Sgt Schultz]

The flood was not murder. It was punishment and justice, which is also consistent with faith in my God. God is a loving God -- He also judges, punishes and delivers justice. In this He is not changeable -- from the times of the OT to the NT and even to today. So God would not appear tomorrow to the world and suddenly say that it was okay to murder people. It would be inconsistent and so I would know this was not of God.

So every man, woman and child who was living at that time was guilty and deserved death as justice because god was angry?

[Ethos]

It is a dilemma, as you describe, but I think perhaps it's better (more defensible?) to consider this merely an argument against worship, rather than against any deity's existence.

It's certainly legitimate to argue than insofar as any human is an autonomous moral agent, he/she ought not enter into such an asymmetrical relationship as "worship." However, point (1) nevertheless remains debatable, since it's certainly possible to posit a deity that doesn't demand worship.

I suppose it may be possible, but without the dictate of worship, wouldn't such a being be little more than an intellectual exercise? I'm not sure you could accurately label it a "god" without the prospect of devotion from others.

Ethos

[NiteGuy]

I suppose it may be possible, but without the dictate of worship, wouldn't such a being be little more than an intellectual exercise? I'm not sure you could accurately label it a "god" without the prospect of devotion from others.

Well, you may be correct. Ethos. On the other hand, I seem to recall a sci-fi/fantasy story a number years ago, which took the story of Adam and Eve, and turned it on it's head.

The story goes as usual, Eve from Adam's rib, the naming of everything, the warning from God about the tree of life, Eve and Adams eating from it anyway, etc., etc.

However, once discovered and confronted by one of the angels, Adam and Eve throw him out of Eden on his halo, and God is forced to contend with his creations directly.

When God demands to know what they did, Adam tells him, quite forcefully, that they both ate from the tree. When God asks why they did this since he told them not to, the answer was:

"You told us we had dominion over everything. Except this tree? Ridiculous! Either we have dominion over everything, or we do not. So, kill us if you will, and be done with it. Create something more maleable, more to your liking, if that's what you're really after. Otherwise, leave us alone, or you'll get the same treatment as the servant you sent to try and itimidate us with. We will not bow, and we will not be intimidated."

God's reply was "At last! Across the universe, and over thousands of worlds, have I created others like you. But none, until now, until you, has there been one with the courage to demand to be treated as an equal in my presence. Finally, I have found my children...."

Seems that the author of the story (and I'll be hanged if I can remember the name of the author or the story) agrees with the moral authority argument, as presented in the original post.

[Groucho]

I like that story.

I have been told by some that I should obey a God who will be angry with me for not bowing before him and who will punish me accordingly, and my response is basically "Why should I submit to the will of such a tyrant?"

[Cedars]

Worship is defined in the context below. I can only copy and paste a line so many times.
[Emphasis mine.] That is the problem. You are only copying and pasting, without going deeper to answer the question of WHY you believe the assumption regarding worship to be correct. In other words, although you follow the belief that worship negates autonomy, you do not go any deeper into investigating why you believe the CHOICE of worship fails autonomy. A choice is a choice -- by the mere fact of choosing (even if it is to worship God), one is demonstrating one's autonomy. If you did not have the CHOICE of whether or not to worship, I might have agreed with you. But as it stands, one still has the CHOICE of whether or not one chooses to worship God.

[Cedars]

This is always a curious statement. The flood was punishment?

What about passover? Was each and every first born in Egypt an evil person, deserving of punishment and justice?

Ethos
The flood was a punishment, yes. And while I agree that not every single person was guilty of the knowledge that they were sinning in the case of the flood and in the case of the Passover, those persons not guilty of the knowledge would not have been judged guilty in life after death. Christians believe in life after death -- it is how we live out our lives on earth that we will be judged after our deaths here. We may suffer on earth, but we will not suffer with God in heaven. What we do here has impact on our eternal life. God knows who is guilty and who is not -- those persons not deemed guilty during the flood or the Passover would not be punished in the afterlife.

[Cedars]

This is a flawed analogy. As a matter of principle, any legitimate government must be accountable to the governed; they have a say in determining what the laws will be. A ruler who demands unquestioning subservience and worship, OTOH, is by commonly accepted principles understood to be illegitimate, a tyrant.
When comparing to God, each and every analogy will have some flaw. While I agree with your argument from a governmental standpoint, I offer you the same argument as Ethos: A choice is a choice -- by the mere fact of choosing (even if it is to worship God), one is demonstrating one's autonomy. If you did not have the CHOICE of whether or not to worship, I might have agreed with you. But as it stands, one still has the CHOICE of whether or not one chooses to worship God.

[Dangerrmouse]

The illusion of retaining choice is only maintained if the "worship" is not complete, since in order to retain autonomy one must of necessity not give it all to the object of worship.

[Cedars]

Actually, God changes his mind about things at several points in the Bible... which is perfectly consistent with the notion that he was an evolving creation of an evolving society.

Moreover, his notion of "justice" (not only in the flood, but long thereafter) clearly included inflicting punishment on people who were not actually wrongdoers, but merely associated with them, or even descendants of them -- a concept unquestionably at odds with any contemporary understanding of justice. (This is part of what led later theologians to come up with the notion of "original sin," impugning all of humanity for the sake of justifying God's actions.)
It is not God who changes His mind but the people who allow God to work in their lives. It is through the participation in doing God's will that man himself changes into a higher being (it is man who changes; not God). But without Christ who instituted the Church and the sacraments, this could not be ultimately accomplished (which is why Jesus sacrificed Himself and brought redemption for all). It is not the material world for which we were ultimately made. Instead, we were made to be with God (and ultimate justice is in eternal life, not the material world) -- but we have the free choice to accept or refuse God. If we accept God, we must convert ourselves to God. But again, this is free choice; and in exercising free choice, we are autonomous.

[Cedars]

So every man, woman and child who was living at that time was guilty and deserved death as justice because god was angry?

Angry is a description we use and apply to God to help our own understanding; but it is not really a trait of God. God is unchangeable; He does not "become" anything (including angry).

[Sgt Schultz]

Angry is a description we use and apply to God to help our own understanding; but it is not really a trait of God. God is unchangeable; He does not "become" anything (including angry).

It would seem that the bible contradicts your interpretation.


Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Genesis 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.


If god does not "become" anything then why would he repent? And that is just one example from the bible.

[Cedars]

I suppose it may be possible, but without the dictate of worship, wouldn't such a being be little more than an intellectual exercise? I'm not sure you could accurately label it a "god" without the prospect of devotion from others.

Ethos
To my mind, this whole issue of worship itself is an intellectual exercise. If the god is a pagan god and made by human hands, what will could this god have except in the imagination of the man or men who created it? When man creates a god, man also creates what the god's "will" is -- and in so doing works for his own ideal. That could be autonomous in itself (since he is really carrying out his own ideas anyway) unless others are forced to worship this other man or men's ideas. And if they are forced, are they really worshipping?

In the case of God (the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob -- a/k/a "I am"), it is still the choice of the believer (1) whether to follow God (which also includes whether that person follows God to his/her dying day or whether they stop believing before then); AND (2) how MUCH that person is willing to follow God. In any event, it is an ONGOING CHOICE to follow and convert oneself to God. Just because one recognizes that God's moral law is the perfect law does not mean that one abandons one's role as an autonomous agent; it just means that one recognizes what is perfect and one seeks that perfection.

[Cedars]

It would seem that the bible contradicts your interpretation.


Genesis 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Genesis 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.


If god does not "become" anything then why would he repent? And that is just one example from the bible.
You are taking a faith you do not believe in and using its scripture to suit your own purposes. The books of the Bible were written to aid the faithful. Its books were not written as a science manual for the purpose of converting atheists; and it certainly was never meant to be taken wholly literally. If it could have been taken literally, Jesus would not have needed to explain OT passages, nor would the apostles have needed the Holy Spirit to open their eyes with regard to scripture.

[Sgt Schultz]

You are taking a faith you do not believe in and using its scripture to suit your own purposes. The books of the Bible were written to aid the faithful. Its books were not written as a science manual for the purpose of converting atheists; and it certainly was never meant to be taken wholly literally. If it could have been taken literally, Jesus would not have needed to explain OT passages, nor would the apostles have needed the Holy Spirit to open their eyes with regard to scripture.

I'm taking what is written and trying to understand how someone who is "faithful" can interpret it some other way than what is written. Your reply to me before this was that god can't become anything. I point out a passage where your holy book says that god was angry and I'm the one who isn't reading it right?

[Cedars]

I'm taking what is written and trying to understand how someone who is "faithful" can interpret it some other way than what is written. Your reply to me before this was that god can't become anything. I point out a passage where your holy book says that god was angry and I'm the one who isn't reading it right?
What I am saying is that you are insisting on putting a literal face on the Bible and that if the Bible were so easy to interpret as you seem to think, then Jesus would not have needed to explain OT passages to the Jews nor would the apostles have needed the Holy Spirit to open their eyes to the scriptures (and in this case it would have been the OT as the NT would not have existed at this time). In other words, you are not an authority on scripture (and neither am I).

[Sgt Schultz]

What I am saying is that you are insisting on putting a literal face on the Bible and that if the Bible were so easy to interpret as you seem to think, then Jesus would not have needed to explain OT passages to the Jews nor would the apostles have needed the Holy Spirit to open their eyes to the scriptures (and in this case it would have been the OT as the NT would not have existed at this time). In other words, you are not an authority on scripture (and neither am I).

So that begs the question on how can you tell me I am wrong in my interpretation of the bible, or anyone else for that matter? If the bible is the word of god and is so open to interpretation it certainly isn't a good instruction manual.

[Ethos]

In the case of God (the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob -- a/k/a "I am"), it is still the choice of the believer (1) whether to follow God (which also includes whether that person follows God to his/her dying day or whether they stop believing before then); AND (2) how MUCH that person is willing to follow God. In any event, it is an ONGOING CHOICE to follow and convert oneself to God. Just because one recognizes that God's moral law is the perfect law does not mean that one abandons one's role as an autonomous agent; it just means that one recognizes what is perfect and one seeks that perfection.

Even an ongoing choice, if the direction is based on someone else's dictation, is not autonomous. A child who is given instructions by their mother, despite the fact he may follow those directions willingly, is not functioning autonomously. This speaks to the very definition of "autonomy", which demands independence or self-government, both of which are incompatible with following the will of another.

Now a person might choose to abandon their autonomy in order to follow the will of god, but by definition they simply cannot maintain both autonomy and worship of another entity.

Ethos

Ethos

[Cedars]

So that begs the question on how can you tell me I am wrong in my interpretation of the bible, or anyone else for that matter? If the bible is the word of god and is so open to interpretation it certainly isn't a good instruction manual.
It always comes back to this. It is the Church that Jesus appointed to be that authority to interpret scripture, not you or I. The Holy Spirit opened the eyes of the apostles to the scriptures. He founded His Church upon Peter and the other apostles (and then their successors, as the Church Christ founded would not perish with the apostles). The Book of Acts shows that one of the first things the apostles did was to name a successor to Judas (which successor was Matthias). It would certainly not have made sense for God to limit Himself to writing only; obviously, the Church had authority.
--"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Tim:3-15)


Eusebius of Caesarea

"At that time [A.D. 150] there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition" (Church History 4:21).

***

Irenaeus
"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

"That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them [heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the tradition of truth. . . . What if the apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the churches?" (ibid., 3:4:1).

...

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors to our own times—men who neither knew nor taught anything like these heretics rave about.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

"With this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree—that is, all the faithful in the whole world—and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:1–2).

***

Clement of Alexandria

"Well, they preserving the tradition of the blessed doctrine derived directly from the holy apostles, Peter, James, John, and Paul, the sons receiving it from the father (but few were like the fathers), came by God’s will to us also to deposit those ancestral and apostolic seeds. And well I know that they will exult; I do not mean delighted with this tribute, but solely on account of the preservation of the truth, according as they delivered it. For such a sketch as this, will, I think, be agreeable to a soul desirous of preserving from loss the blessed tradition" (Miscellanies 1:1 [A.D. 208]).

***

Origen


"Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).

[Cedars]

Even an ongoing choice, if the direction is based on someone else's dictation, is not autonomous. A child who is given instructions by their mother, despite the fact he may follow those directions willingly, is not functioning autonomously. This speaks to the very definition of "autonomy", which demands independence or self-government, both of which are incompatible with following the will of another.

Now a person might choose to abandon their autonomy in order to follow the will of god, but by definition they simply cannot maintain both autonomy and worship of another entity.

Ethos

Ethos
Ok, wait a minute -- you are saying that a child following the directions of his parents are not autonomous. Are you saying that it would have been autonomous if the child had NOT followed his parents? It seems to me that you are narrowly defining autonomy to be rebellion. Your definition seems to be that autonomy can never be that you AGREE with something (which is ridiculous because agreeing is just as autonomous as disagreeing).

[Sgt Schultz]

It always comes back to this. It is the Church that Jesus appointed to be that authority to interpret scripture, not you or I.

Sorry but the book is available for me to read so I will interpret it. How many translations has it gone through since it was first written? I highly doubt what is written now is anywhere near what was written or prescribed then.

[Cedars]

Sorry but the book is available for me to read so I will interpret it. How many translations has it gone through since it was first written? I highly doubt what is written now is anywhere near what was written or prescribed then.
The book is available for you to read; but the meaning is God's meaning, not yours -- no matter which interpretation you choose to place on it. That goes for any author -- every author intends his own meaning, not the reader's meaning. If you insist on placing your own interpretation on another's writings, you are not really trying to understand the author's meaning.

[heel31ok]

I like that story.

I have been told by some that I should obey a God who will be angry with me for not bowing before him and who will punish me accordingly, and my response is basically "Why should I submit to the will of such a tyrant?"

I have never heard where God gets angry and punishes for this reason. Maybe I missed that part.I think you should have more of a problem with those who told you that.

[heel31ok]

So every man, woman and child who was living at that time was guilty and deserved death as justice because god was angry?
They did not deserve death because God was angry, they deserved it because they had become wicked . It was their own actions.Every inclination of the thoughts of their hearts were evil at all times.In all this the Bible never says God was angry with the people.

[heel31ok]

This is always a curious statement. The flood was punishment?

What about passover? Was each and every first born in Egypt an evil person, deserving of punishment and justice?

Ethos

Yes.all are deserving of punishment and justice. That is why all were subject to it, Hebrew and Egyptian alike.

[heel31ok]

I'm taking what is written and trying to understand how someone who is "faithful" can interpret it some other way than what is written. Your reply to me before this was that god can't become anything. I point out a passage where your holy book says that god was angry and I'm the one who isn't reading it right?
I have gone back through your previous posts and still have not found where you point out God was angry.Where was that again?

[heel31ok]

What I am saying is that you are insisting on putting a literal face on the Bible and that if the Bible were so easy to interpret as you seem to think, then Jesus would not have needed to explain OT passages to the Jews nor would the apostles have needed the Holy Spirit to open their eyes to the scriptures (and in this case it would have been the OT as the NT would not have existed at this time). In other words, you are not an authority on scripture (and neither am I). Sorry but the Bible is easy to interpret the reason Jesus needed to explain is because of the misuse and adding on to the scriptures with the traditions of men. Also because of the blatant misuse of the position as leaders and the power it gave them. This is one reason why their is mistrust of the scriptures because of the way men have used them to control others by adding to them or denying the people access. I do not agree but I do understand why many do not trust the Bible. Now all this does not negate nor invalidate the Bible. It only invalidates and negates the testimony of those who would use the scriptures in this manner.

[lawman]

The flood was a punishment, yes. And while I agree that not every single person was guilty of the knowledge that they were sinning in the case of the flood and in the case of the Passover, those persons not guilty of the knowledge would not have been judged guilty in life after death. Christians believe in life after death... God knows who is guilty and who is not -- those persons not deemed guilty during the flood or the Passover would not be punished in the afterlife.
Piffle and codswallop. "Kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out?" I'm sorry, but as a matter of logic you cannot argue a justification for a belief system that only carries weight if one already happens to buy into the belief system.

Put in simpler terms: if one accepts for the sake of argument that a deity exists who caused the deaths of all those countless presumptively innocent people -- but rejects the notion that there exists some "afterlife" in which this deity will somehow balance the scales by employing the perfect, individualized moral judgment he couldn't be bothered with here on earth, and thus rejects the notion that this deity is deserving of anything resembling worship -- then your argument amounts to nothing.

[lawman]

It is not God who changes His mind but the people who allow God to work in their lives.
I can't help but admire your sense of conviction here, but you're taking great pains to finesse the plain meaning of quite a few passages in the Bible.

It is through the participation in doing God's will that man himself changes into a higher being (it is man who changes; not God). But without Christ who instituted the Church and the sacraments, this could not be ultimately accomplished (which is why Jesus sacrificed Himself and brought redemption for all). It is not the material world for which we were ultimately made. Instead, we were made to be with God (and ultimate justice is in eternal life, not the material world)...
Again, points for sincerity... but you do realize that what you're saying here quite literally means nothing to me? You're talking in terms that only have content to one who already shares in your belief system. From where I'm standing, God (as characterized in his own ghost-written bestseller) did and does change his mind quite frequently, and did and does perpetrate and command acts not justifiable under any recognizable moral calculus. (And that's putting it in the most diplomatic terms possible.)

Moreover, I have no clear concept of what a "higher being" is supposed to be, nor any evidence that any world exists other than the natural, material one. And according to overwhelming evidence, I was not "made" at all, but was the result of a contingent process of evolutionary biology -- and as such, any sense of purpose and/or justice I may find is my own construction, either independently or in cooperation with my fellow humans, and has meaning only within the parameters of actual physical life; it is not imposed from some external source, much less possessed of any claim to be "eternal."

That's moral autonomy.

So far your argument seems to be that I (or anyone) can "choose" to submit unquestioningly to God's will -- but then you add the caveats that God's will is not knowable through the Bible, which you insist is only a tool for those who already believe... which presumably means the only available option for anyone choosing "from scratch" is to submit to the authority of the human beings who happen to run the church you claim is invested with special knowledge of God's will, and worship and behave as directed by them. (Despite the fact that the Church itself is more than a little fallible and changeable, as its long and storied history amply demonstrates.)

That, I hope you see, would be a complete abdication of moral autonomy.

[lawman]

(Deleted -- duplicate post)

[Sgt Schultz]

I have gone back through your previous posts and still have not found where you point out God was angry.Where was that again?

I mentioned Genesis 6:6 and 6:7 but I can provide other examples:

How about Psalm 21:9: Thou shalt make them as a fiery oven in the time of thine anger: the LORD shall swallow them up in his wrath, and the fire shall devour them.

Isaiah 5:25 Therefore is the anger of the LORD kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

Just a few more examples.

[Ethos]

Yes.all are deserving of punishment and justice. That is why all were subject to it, Hebrew and Egyptian alike.

Exactly what can a baby accomplish to make them deserving of death as a punishment in god's eyes?

Ethos

[Ethos]

Ok, wait a minute -- you are saying that a child following the directions of his parents are not autonomous. Are you saying that it would have been autonomous if the child had NOT followed his parents? It seems to me that you are narrowly defining autonomy to be rebellion. Your definition seems to be that autonomy can never be that you AGREE with something (which is ridiculous because agreeing is just as autonomous as disagreeing).

Autonomy is a matter of independence. If we carry the parent/child analogy further, we can use an example of chores. Let us say a child is given the task of taking out the trash. If she takes the trash out because this is what her parents expect of her, she is not making an autonomous decision. Even if she chooses to do so without a direct command, it is her parents' mandate that controls that action.

As an adult we have the choice to take out the trash; or not. We choose to do so independently - not because someone is telling us to do it (generally), but because we understand that allowing trash to pile up for an extended period of time is unhealthy.

So one choice is made independently, based on internal reasoning, while another is made based on the demands of another person - not an independent decision, so not autonomous.

Ethos

[heel31ok]

I mentioned Genesis 6:6 and 6:7 but I can provide other examples:

How about Psalm 21:9: Thou shalt make them as a fiery oven in the time of thine anger: the LORD shall swallow them up in his wrath, and the fire shall devour them.

Isaiah 5:25 Therefore is the anger of the LORD kindled against his people, and he hath stretched forth his hand against them, and hath smitten them: and the hills did tremble, and their carcases were torn in the midst of the streets. For all this his anger is not turned away, but his hand is stretched out still.

Just a few more examples.

The Genesis references do not say God was angry .

Ps 21:9 is against enemies.

Is 5, you need to at least start at v20 to get some sort of context.If that bothers you so be it but there is no injustice.unless one participates in the things described.

I see no unwarranted or tyrannical anger in any of these passages.Even though you original reference was to the flood.

[heel31ok]

Exactly what can a baby accomplish to make them deserving of death as a punishment in god's eyes?

Ethos

God warned them they had a choice to at least save their children. But the point is God cut them off before they had a chance to grow up and continue the sins of the fathers. This is why he commanded total destruction of certain peoples, nip it in the bud.
There are things worse than death.

[heel31ok]

Autonomy is a matter of independence. If we carry the parent/child analogy further, we can use an example of chores. Let us say a child is given the task of taking out the trash. If she takes the trash out because this is what her parents expect of her, she is not making an autonomous decision. Even if she chooses to do so without a direct command, it is her parents' mandate that controls that action.

As an adult we have the choice to take out the trash; or not. We choose to do so independently - not because someone is telling us to do it (generally), but because we understand that allowing trash to pile up for an extended period of time is unhealthy.

So one choice is made independently, based on internal reasoning, while another is made based on the demands of another person - not an independent decision, so not autonomous.

EthosI am an adult but I do not have a choice about taking out the trash.A mandate controls my actions.;)


God gives all the choice but within some choices mandates do abide.But one still can choose not to do them. The degree of consequences have no bearing on free choice just on the choice made.Children still can and do choose not to do their chores but they suffer consequences.It is an independent decision though some are made out of the foreknowledge of consequences.consequences or rewards may motivate but they do not make the choice.

[Ethos]

God warned them they had a choice to at least save their children. But the point is God cut them off before they had a chance to grow up and continue the sins of the fathers. This is why he commanded total destruction of certain peoples, nip it in the bud.
There are things worse than death.

Yes there are, but that is beside the point. God intentionally killed people who had done no wrong. That doesn't seem to square with later incarnations of who and what god is.

Ethos

[Ethos]

I am an adult but I do not have a choice about taking out the trash.A mandate controls my actions.;)


In that case you are not autonomous either.


God gives all the choice but within some choices mandates do abide.But one still can choose not to do them. The degree of consequences have no bearing on free choice just on the choice made.Children still can and do choose not to do their chores but they suffer consequences.It is an independent decision though some are made out of the foreknowledge of consequences.consequences or rewards may motivate but they do not make the choice.

The exact function of choice doesn't matter. One can choose to take out the trash - or choose not to. It is the reasoning behind that choice that matters. If someone chooses to take out the trash because they are following the will of their parents, they are not independent. The same holds true for followers of god. They choose to follow the will of that god, but they sacrifice autonomy in order to do so.

Ethos

[serenity]

God warned them they had a choice to at least save their children. But the point is God cut them off before they had a chance to grow up and continue the sins of the fathers. This is why he commanded total destruction of certain peoples, nip it in the bud.


Yikes.

[Sgt Schultz]

God warned them they had a choice to at least save their children. But the point is God cut them off before they had a chance to grow up and continue the sins of the fathers. This is why he commanded total destruction of certain peoples, nip it in the bud.
There are things worse than death.

So god didn't give the children a chance since they might grow up and follow in their father's footsteps. So much for autonomy and free will eh?

[serenity]

Quote:
Originally Posted by heel31ok
God warned them they had a choice to at least save their children. But the point is God cut them off before they had a chance to grow up and continue the sins of the fathers. This is why he commanded total destruction of certain peoples, nip it in the bud.
There are things worse than death.



posted by ss
So god didn't give the children a chance since they might grow up and follow in their father's footsteps. So much for autonomy and free will eh?

Seriously. I mean, come on, this is horrible stuff.

[Cedars]

Sorry but the Bible is easy to interpret the reason Jesus needed to explain is because of the misuse and adding on to the scriptures with the traditions of men. Also because of the blatant misuse of the position as leaders and the power it gave them. This is one reason why their is mistrust of the scriptures because of the way men have used them to control others by adding to them or denying the people access. I do not agree but I do understand why many do not trust the Bible. Now all this does not negate nor invalidate the Bible. It only invalidates and negates the testimony of those who would use the scriptures in this manner.
I am not arguing that the Bible is negated or invalidated. What I am arguing is that if the Bible were as easy to interpret as you seem to think, then it stands to reason that everybody would interpret the Bible the same. But this is not the case since there are many conflicting interpretations -- many Christians who do not agree on what certain passages mean.

[Cedars]

Piffle and codswallop. "Kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out?" I'm sorry, but as a matter of logic you cannot argue a justification for a belief system that only carries weight if one already happens to buy into the belief system.

Put in simpler terms: if one accepts for the sake of argument that a deity exists who caused the deaths of all those countless presumptively innocent people -- but rejects the notion that there exists some "afterlife" in which this deity will somehow balance the scales by employing the perfect, individualized moral judgment he couldn't be bothered with here on earth, and thus rejects the notion that this deity is deserving of anything resembling worship -- then your argument amounts to nothing.
You are confusing issues. I was giving you a Christian understanding of God in response to complaints of God's judgment and punishment. It certainly was not meant as a reason for why you should believe in God; it was meant as a response to the argument that God changes. Man was judged in the past by God (as in the OT AND in the NT), just as man is presently judged and will be judged. The issue was not why you should believe in God but that God does not change.

[Cedars]

I can't help but admire your sense of conviction here, but you're taking great pains to finesse the plain meaning of quite a few passages in the Bible.


Again, points for sincerity... but you do realize that what you're saying here quite literally means nothing to me? You're talking in terms that only have content to one who already shares in your belief system. From where I'm standing, God (as characterized in his own ghost-written bestseller) did and does change his mind quite frequently, and did and does perpetrate and command acts not justifiable under any recognizable moral calculus. (And that's putting it in the most diplomatic terms possible.)
Scripture clearly indicates that God is different from man.
--"God is not a man, that he should lie, nor is the son of man, that he should be changed. Hath he said then, and will he not do? hath he spoken, and will he not fulfil?" (Numbers 23:19)
--"But the triumpher in Israel will not spare, and will not be moved to repentance: for he is not a man that he should repent." (1 Samuel 15:29)
--"For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, so are my ways exalted above your ways, and my thoughts above your thoughts. " (Isaiah 55:9)

Because God is so different from us, He uses language that we can understand. This language involves metaphors, which have similarities and dissimilarities in what is being compared. Scriptural language about God speaks of God as if He were human; but if one does not understand that God is NOT human, this can lead to error (and heresy) in interpreting scripture. You are taking a Christian text, namely, the Bible (written by Christians FOR Christians), and interpreting it to mean what was not intended by the author. If you insist on placing your own interpretation on another's writings, you are not really trying to understand the author's meaning.

With respect to the argument that God changes, I would point out that God's judgment and punishment in the OT means nothing to your argument, because the NT warns of judgment and punishment as well.

[Cedars]

Moreover, I have no clear concept of what a "higher being" is supposed to be, nor any evidence that any world exists other than the natural, material one. And according to overwhelming evidence, I was not "made" at all, but was the result of a contingent process of evolutionary biology -- and as such, any sense of purpose and/or justice I may find is my own construction, either independently or in cooperation with my fellow humans, and has meaning only within the parameters of actual physical life; it is not imposed from some external source, much less possessed of any claim to be "eternal."

That's moral autonomy.
You have come to your own conclusions, just as I have come to mine. I used to think similarly to what you do now, but my free thinking has since led me to theism. Just because you may have no clear concept of what a "higher being" is supposed to be nor any "evidence" that the supernatural world exists or even that you do not believe you were "made" at all does not mean that you are any more autonomous than I am. If you were right and I was wrong with respect to God's existence, then I would still be exercising my own autonomy except that I would be giving my morality the name of God (where you are giving it some other name or not bothering to name it at all). If you are wrong and I am right with respect to God's existence and morality, then whether you recognize God's morality or not, you are still subject to it even if you are ignorant of it (God's judgment would take that into consideration, but you will still be judged on the knowledge you do have regardless). So what would the moral autonomy argument really mean then, really? Nothing -- except your own feelings of superiority over us whom you consider lesser "autonomous" beings.

So far your argument seems to be that I (or anyone) can "choose" to submit unquestioningly to God's will -- but then you add the caveats that God's will is not knowable through the Bible, which you insist is only a tool for those who already believe... which presumably means the only available option for anyone choosing "from scratch" is to submit to the authority of the human beings who happen to run the church you claim is invested with special knowledge of God's will, and worship and behave as directed by them. (Despite the fact that the Church itself is more than a little fallible and changeable, as its long and storied history amply demonstrates.)

That, I hope you see, would be a complete abdication of moral autonomy.
I have not once asked you to submit unquestioningly to God's will -- for the reason that I know you must first believe in God. Again, you are confusing issues. If you want to question Christian understanding of God, then by all means do so. But please do not confuse Christian explanation of scriptural understanding with an argument for God's existence.

Nor have I said that God's will cannot be knowable through the Bible. What I said was that proof for atheists of God's existence should not be expected in the Bible as the Bible was written for believers, not nonbelievers. I also said that interpretations of scripture can be misinterpreted, even by Christians themselves, which is why Jesus gave teaching authority to His Church on earth. This does not mean that individual human members of the Church cannot sin (they, of course, can -- they're human) but that the teaching magisterium (through the gift of the Holy Spirit) would not err so that all Christians may know what is true. Neither does this mean that they have "special knowledge," as you say, but instead, that the Church (only in its official authority -- from the chair, so to speak) is prevented from teaching error (individuals can error but not in any official authority as teaching magisterium whereby all Christians are to believe). The authority of the Church is not just a belief of modern Catholics but of the earliest Christians as well.

Hermas

"Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty" (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).


[B]Ignatius of Antioch

"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).


Irenaeus

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]). {Emphasis added.}

[Cedars]

Autonomy is a matter of independence. If we carry the parent/child analogy further, we can use an example of chores. Let us say a child is given the task of taking out the trash. If she takes the trash out because this is what her parents expect of her, she is not making an autonomous decision. Even if she chooses to do so without a direct command, it is her parents' mandate that controls that action.

As an adult we have the choice to take out the trash; or not. We choose to do so independently - not because someone is telling us to do it (generally), but because we understand that allowing trash to pile up for an extended period of time is unhealthy.

So one choice is made independently, based on internal reasoning, while another is made based on the demands of another person - not an independent decision, so not autonomous.

Ethos
You say that autonomy is a matter of independence -- independence from what? There is no person on earth who is NOT influenced by someone. As an adult, you may take out the trash for the reason to not do so is unhealthy; but likewise, a child may take out the trash also because it's not healthy (but instead of realizing the trash piling is unhealthy, a child may know that disobeying his or her parents is unhealthy -- and I am not talking beatings here but instead the relationship between the parent and child). Many children instinctively want to please their parents, just as you as an adult might want to please your own sense of smell (or the City coming after you because you are creating a health hazard). If you're saying that these selfish reasons (one's own health or sense of smell, for instance) are better reasons than wanting to please another (a child's parents, say), or are better arguments for moral autonomy, then you are wasting your time because your moral autonomy argument is rendered meaningless. For what purpose, then, is the argument for moral autonomy? It is sounding, as I told lawman, like an argument for the nonbelievers' view of superiority over believers. Whatever floats your boat.

[heel31ok]

So god didn't give the children a chance since they might grow up and follow in their father's footsteps. So much for autonomy and free will eh?
No, I have to disagree with that statement.You are assuming God is not sure about what would happen.There is no "might" to consider. I understand that the idea of life being important but in the scheme of eternity this life on earth is not he most important thing.And it is not the most valuable thing. it is only so to those who think it is all they will have.


Freewill does not exclude consequences and consequences of sin do not limit themselves to the confines of the particular offender.The ones accountable for the destruction are those who brought it on themselves and their families.Yes I am saying it is their own fault.

[lawman]

You are confusing issues. I was giving you a Christian understanding of God in response to complaints of God's judgment and punishment. It certainly was not meant as a reason for why you should believe in God...
But that's what this whole thread is about: reasons one should (or shouldn't) believe in God. Discussions of things as seen from within "a Christian understanding" are completely missing the point.

[lawman]

You are taking a Christian text, namely, the Bible (written by Christians FOR Christians), and interpreting it to mean what was not intended by the author. If you insist on placing your own interpretation on another's writings, you are not really trying to understand the author's meaning.
Not at all. I've studied the Bible at some length, using the conventional tools for scholarly and historical analysis of any text. That process starts with the understanding that the authors were plural, and were human beings writing (or compiling and redacting) in a variety of specific historical contexts for specific political and/or theological purposes. In this as in any other textual analysis, "interpretation" of those complex factors is essential; indeed, it's the goal. One cannot know an author's thoughts or intentions except insofar as they've been expressed in the text, so it's impossible to read any text without interpreting it in some way; the goal is to make the process as well-informed as possible.

[lawman]

You have come to your own conclusions, just as I have come to mine... If you are wrong and I am right with respect to God's existence and morality, then whether you recognize God's morality or not, you are still subject to it even if you are ignorant of it... So what would the moral autonomy argument really mean then, really? Nothing -- except your own feelings of superiority over us whom you consider lesser "autonomous" beings.
Now you seem to be arguing for complete relativism, as if we were each drawing our separate conclusions in a vacuum, uninformed by any process of reason. That's not so, of course, and I'm not at all clear on where you're going with this.

I have not once asked you to submit unquestioningly to God's will -- for the reason that I know you must first believe in God. Again, you are confusing issues. If you want to question Christian understanding of God, then by all means do so. But please do not confuse Christian explanation of scriptural understanding with an argument for God's existence.
IOW, you seem to be saying that your remarks are meaningless except to someone who has already chosen to believe (and, in particular, to worship). But (again) the whole point of this thread is about reasons why one should (or shouldn't) make that choice -- i.e., "arguments for God's existence." If you're not interested in addressing that topic, why are you posting in this particular thread?

... I also said that interpretations of scripture can be misinterpreted, even by Christians themselves, which is why Jesus gave teaching authority to His Church on earth... the teaching magisterium (through the gift of the Holy Spirit) would not err so that all Christians may know what is true... the Church (only in its official authority -- from the chair, so to speak) is prevented from teaching error (individuals can error but not in any official authority as teaching magisterium whereby all Christians are to believe).
Do you truly believe this? That the official statements of the Catholic Church are inerrant (even more so than the Bible!), and that all other Christians (never mind nonbelievers) are apostates?

You state that you arrived at this position after having been a skeptic. Please, explain the process by which you did so. I literally cannot imagine in, but I confess I am genuinely curious. (And that process of becoming convinced would, moreover, be on-topic for the thread.)

[Sgt Schultz]

No, I have to disagree with that statement.You are assuming God is not sure about what would happen.There is no "might" to consider. I understand that the idea of life being important but in the scheme of eternity this life on earth is not he most important thing.And it is not the most valuable thing. it is only so to those who think it is all they will have.


Freewill does not exclude consequences and consequences of sin do not limit themselves to the confines of the particular offender.The ones accountable for the destruction are those who brought it on themselves and their families.Yes I am saying it is their own fault.

If the families are guilty and being judged by god through association that is beyond their control then those people have absolutely no freewill.

[Ethos]

You say that autonomy is a matter of independence -- independence from what? There is no person on earth who is NOT influenced by someone. As an adult, you may take out the trash for the reason to not do so is unhealthy; but likewise, a child may take out the trash also because it's not healthy (but instead of realizing the trash piling is unhealthy, a child may know that disobeying his or her parents is unhealthy -- and I am not talking beatings here but instead the relationship between the parent and child). Many children instinctively want to please their parents, just as you as an adult might want to please your own sense of smell (or the City coming after you because you are creating a health hazard). If you're saying that these selfish reasons (one's own health or sense of smell, for instance) are better reasons than wanting to please another (a child's parents, say), or are better arguments for moral autonomy, then you are wasting your time because your moral autonomy argument is rendered meaningless.

Independence in the sense that you are making a decision based on your own reasoning and not at the command of someone else. Wanting to please a parent is fine, but basing a decision on that instinct is not an example of an autonomous action. This has nothing to do with selfishness or what is "better", it is simply a definition of the term.



For what purpose, then, is the argument for moral autonomy? It is sounding, as I told lawman, like an argument for the nonbelievers' view of superiority over believers. Whatever floats your boat.

I'm not sure why you view it as a grab for superiority. It sounds as if you are letting the question bother you more than it should. Obviously the argument itself isn't going to convert anyone to atheism, but I do feel it is an interesting logical construct, and since this is a forum not meant to exclude non-theist philosophies, I thought it was proper to share the construct with others.

Ethos

[heel31ok]

If the families are guilty and being judged by god through association that is beyond their control then those people have absolutely no freewill.
Association in that they were all involved, not association being knowing someone else close to you who was involved.

[Dangerrmouse]

Assuming for the sake of argument that such an event took place, how could, say a child in the womb be "involved" as you put it?

[Sgt Schultz]

Association in that they were all involved, not association being knowing someone else close to you who was involved.

I don't buy that. A child of a few months, 1 year, 2 years, et cetera is guilty because they were involved in something wicked, something that so offended god that they were killed/destroyed?

[Cedars]

But that's what this whole thread is about: reasons one should (or shouldn't) believe in God. Discussions of things as seen from within "a Christian understanding" are completely missing the point.
Logic would demand that one must first believe that God exists and one must first know who God is before one can worship God or believe God is worthy of worship. I said you are confusing issues (or arguments): The issue raised was whether God changes, and the "proof" tendered was from the OT showing God's judgment and punishment; however, I pointed out that in the NT God STILL will judge and punish -- that has not changed; so how do you suppose that means God has changed as both the OT and NT speak of judgment and punishment? And how does this prove the existence or nonexistence of God (especially since you have failed to prove that God changes)?

[Cedars]

Not at all. I've studied the Bible at some length, using the conventional tools for scholarly and historical analysis of any text. That process starts with the understanding that the authors were plural, and were human beings writing (or compiling and redacting) in a variety of specific historical contexts for specific political and/or theological purposes. In this as in any other textual analysis, "interpretation" of those complex factors is essential; indeed, it's the goal. One cannot know an author's thoughts or intentions except insofar as they've been expressed in the text, so it's impossible to read any text without interpreting it in some way; the goal is to make the process as well-informed as possible.
Since you have studied the Bible, it should be obvious to you that it is directed to the faithful. In the NT it is clear that the four gospels were written as a record about the life of Christ and the letters were written to the different Churches, etc. That is not to say that reading scripture cannot convert anyone's heart to God; but it clearly was written for -- and to -- the faithful.

[lawman]

Logic would demand that one must first believe that God exists and one must first know who God is before one can worship God or believe God is worthy of worship. I said you are confusing issues (or arguments): The issue raised was whether God changes... And how does this prove the existence or nonexistence of God (especially since you have failed to prove that God changes)?
Look, I don't want to go off on a theological tangent here -- suffice it to say I think there's more than ample textual evidence that God changes his mind, his mood, and frankly his whole personality from time to time.

I actually agree that one must first accept that a deity exists before choosing to worship said deity. If you look upthread, you'll see that my first reaction to the OP was that it seemed a more convincing argument against worship than against existence per se. But how and whether God "changes" was always a side issue to that central point.

So let's clarify things thusly: AFAIC, the "Mundanity" thread is the once currently making the best argument against existence. This thread, OTOH, even allowing for existence, makes a pretty powerful case against worship. Anything about that you'd care to rebut?

[Cedars]

Now you seem to be arguing for complete relativism, as if we were each drawing our separate conclusions in a vacuum, uninformed by any process of reason. That's not so, of course, and I'm not at all clear on where you're going with this.
No, I am not arguing for relativism. What I am saying is that if you are right and God does not exist, then I am imagining God in my own mind; and in so imagining, I am still autonomous because I am actually (ultimately) doing my own will. So the autonomy argument in this case is moot. If I am correct that God exists and has a moral law that we must follow, then you are subject to it regardless of whether you recognize that or not. In either case, the moral autonomy argument is rendered meaningless.

IOW, you seem to be saying that your remarks are meaningless except to someone who has already chosen to believe (and, in particular, to worship). But (again) the whole point of this thread is about reasons why one should (or shouldn't) make that choice -- i.e., "arguments for God's existence." If you're not interested in addressing that topic, why are you posting in this particular thread?
Again, no (you are mistaken in your assumptions). Clearly, I would not be arguing that my argument was meaningless. What I am saying (or trying to) is that understanding a Christian view (regarding the Bible, for instance) is not really the same thing as an argument for belief in God – it may strengthen one’s belief but it is not an argument in itself, that stands by itself, as a proof for the existence of God -- but it could tip the scales, so to speak, in favor of belief if, say, that was what was blocking one’s acceptance of faith because one didn’t understand the view but now it no longer blocks once it is understood.

Do you truly believe this? That the official statements of the Catholic Church are inerrant (even more so than the Bible!), and that all other Christians (never mind nonbelievers) are apostates?
I did not say “all other Christians are apostates.” First of all, Eastern Orthodox Churches are not apostates; they are schismatics, not heretics. Secondly, modern Protestants do not know much of Church history beyond the Protestant Reformation; so they are not guilty, I don’t think, of heresy (however, I imagine that Martin Luther and other reformers ARE guilty of heresy). Sola scriptura is not supported by scripture. Church authority IS supported by scripture. It is clear in the NT that we Christians should all be as one; we cannot be One when we have conflicting beliefs. (“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” John 17:21) I believe the same thing that the early Christians believed, that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth – and that belief is supported by scripture itself. (“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” 1 Timothy 3:15) It is also supported by early Christians such as Hermas, Ignatius of Antioch ,and Irenaeus whose quotes I provided earlier. Historical and scriptural evidence support the Catholic view. That is one reason I am Catholic.

You state that you arrived at this position after having been a skeptic. Please, explain the process by which you did so. I literally cannot imagine in, but I confess I am genuinely curious. (And that process of becoming convinced would, moreover, be on-topic for the thread.)
My mother’s side is Protestant, and my father’s side is Maronite Catholic. I was baptized into the Maronite Catholic Church by a Roman Catholic priest because a Maronite Catholic priest was not available at that time. I attended Roman Catholic schools, and I was, of course, brought up as Catholic. I believed as a child; but once I reached adulthood, my belief did not last very long -- it slipped away really. It probably didn’t help that my Protestant relatives would challenge my Catholic faith (and not being a good Catholic anyway, I didn’t really know my own faith). And not that this was any fault of theirs, but it really started me wondering why ANY faith should be true, even Christianity itself, and then I wondered why I should even believe that God existed at all. There were later events in my life (which time and space on this thread will not allow) that started me to seriously reconsider, and I figured if God existed, I ought to at least make an honest effort to find out. I started becoming more and more curious and I read about different faiths. I am not going to go into details, because it would take a book, but I eventually started piecing together all the pieces of the puzzle I already had (and I was not convinced at this point that any “piece” of the puzzle I had was accurate anyway) – but I could only work with what I had. I frequently prayed, “God, if you really exist, please help my disbelief, please show me you’re real.” Of course, I realized it was silly if God did not exist, but there it is -- because I also realized I had to give the possibility of belief in God equal honesty, hence the earnest praying. I didn’t really think I’d be answered – and I certainly had no sudden conversion. It was a slow process actually (very slow) and took several years. Any reason for disbelief eventually was far outweighed by reasons to believe until doubts disappeared altogether. It is hard for a believer to explain belief. For me, it was not one convincing argument; it was the fact that there were numerous poignant ones. The wisdom, the genius, the continuity behind so many poignant arguments made belief in chance (i.e., that God did not exist) look foolish; and eventually, you cannot help but see there is a divine pattern.

[Cedars]

Independence in the sense that you are making a decision based on your own reasoning and not at the command of someone else. Wanting to please a parent is fine, but basing a decision on that instinct is not an example of an autonomous action. This has nothing to do with selfishness or what is "better", it is simply a definition of the term.
When you worship God, you are independently making a decision based on your own reasoning to worship God. I personally have not seen God face to face whereupon He commanded me to worship Him. Worship is an expression of free will -- I am freely worshipping because I want to, not because I have been forced.

I'm not sure why you view it as a grab for superiority. It sounds as if you are letting the question bother you more than it should. Obviously the argument itself isn't going to convert anyone to atheism, but I do feel it is an interesting logical construct, and since this is a forum not meant to exclude non-theist philosophies, I thought it was proper to share the construct with others.

Ethos
Thanks for your concern; but I am not bothered in the least. You misunderstand my meaning. You make the mistake in thinking there is no decision-making going on when one has faith in God and worships God. Let me put it this way: You have the choice to believe in God and worship Him, the same as I do. Like you, I have independently made a decision based on my own reasoning -- it just happens to be a different decision than yours.

[Cedars]

Look, I don't want to go off on a theological tangent here -- suffice it to say I think there's more than ample textual evidence that God changes his mind, his mood, and frankly his whole personality from time to time.
And I disagree for the reason that the "textual evidence" you refer to are metaphors. (That is like someone perhaps a few hundred years from now criticizing a meteorologist from our time for not knowing what he was talking about because he said it was raining cats and dogs.)

I actually agree that one must first accept that a deity exists before choosing to worship said deity. If you look upthread, you'll see that my first reaction to the OP was that it seemed a more convincing argument against worship than against existence per se. But how and whether God "changes" was always a side issue to that central point.
I agree that whether God "changes" is a side issue (which, by the way, was not brought up by me as I think it is a false or erroneous side issue).

So let's clarify things thusly: AFAIC, the "Mundanity" thread is the once currently making the best argument against existence. This thread, OTOH, even allowing for existence, makes a pretty powerful case against worship. Anything about that you'd care to rebut?
What is "AFAIC" (as far as I see)?

I will say the same thing I said to Ethos: When you worship God, you are independently making a decision based on your own reasoning to worship God.

[lawman]

If I am correct that God exists and has a moral law that we must follow, then you are subject to it regardless of whether you recognize that or not. In either case, the moral autonomy argument is rendered meaningless.
You're assuming connections not in evidence here. First of all, saying that God exists does not establish that he "has a moral law we must follow"; indeed, as noted a few days ago, even Plato (without ever doubting the existence of his gods) demonstrated logically how they could not be the source of morality unless morality was intrinsically arbitrary. Second, even if God could be the source of "moral law," obeying such a law is not the same as "worship," and does not presuppose the latter to be necessary.

...What I am saying (or trying to) is that understanding a Christian view (regarding the Bible, for instance) is not really the same thing as an argument for belief in God – it may strengthen one’s belief but it is not an argument in itself, that stands by itself, as a proof for the existence of God -- but it could tip the scales, so to speak, in favor of belief if, say, that was what was blocking one’s acceptance of faith because one didn’t understand the view but now it no longer blocks once it is understood.
Okay, let me try to parse this. You're trying to say that if a lack of understanding of a (particular?) Christian view is what's blocking one's belief in God, then increased understanding may allow one to "accept faith." Fine.

What does that have to do with the argument in the thread? It's about the logical impossibility of worship.

As for belief, I was brought up Christian, still know plenty of Christians, and understand the views of at least a few of them. What's blocking my "acceptance of faith" are other things entirely, not least the very concept of basing belief in anything on "faith" rather than on evidence and reason.

It is clear in the NT that we Christians should all be as one; we cannot be One when we have conflicting beliefs.
But in the way you mean it that's impossible by the very nature of human thought. Even when the Catholic Church held unchallenged sway this wasn't so; dissenters then just kept their views to themselves, or paid the price. Intelligent, autonomous human beings will never think "as one," to the exclusion of conflicting beliefs, and to be honest the very concept sounds repugnant.

...it really started me wondering why ANY faith should be true, even Christianity itself, and then I wondered why I should even believe that God existed at all. There were later events in my life (which time and space on this thread will not allow) that started me to seriously reconsider, and I figured if God existed, I ought to at least make an honest effort to find out... I am not going to go into details, because it would take a book, but I eventually started piecing together all the pieces of the puzzle... Any reason for disbelief eventually was far outweighed by reasons to believe until doubts disappeared altogether. It is hard for a believer to explain belief. For me, it was not one convincing argument; it was the fact that there were numerous poignant ones.
But your first sentence here is the only one that makes sense without further elaboration. I recognize the details may be rather personal, but the parts you say "space will not allow" and the details you're "not going to go into" are what's actually relevant to this discussion. Certainly many things can be remarkably "poignant" -- lots of good fiction is, for example -- without providing any reason at all to accept such things as truth. Many people argue that it feels good to believe, or that the world is a better place if people believe... but none of that makes the object of belief one bit more plausible. So the real question remains, what "reasons to believe" did you discover? (And, to bring it even more on-topic, how did that belief lead to worship?)

The wisdom, the genius, the continuity behind so many poignant arguments made belief in chance (i.e., that God did not exist) look foolish; and eventually, you cannot help but see there is a divine pattern.
Except that chance manifestly does exist, and can be demonstrated in any number of ways... while meanwhile pretty much any and all patterns found in nature can be explained within the realm of nature, without resort to divine explanations.

[lawman]

When you worship God, you are independently making a decision based on your own reasoning to worship God... Worship is an expression of free will -- I am freely worshipping because I want to, not because I have been forced.
Not that I agree (as I've said) with every step in Ethos' argument as presented... but I think what he's getting at here is that you're proposing a self-contradictory act. It's not consistent to express your free will by abnegating that free will in favor of the will of another.

(This of course presupposes that worship is such an abnegation, not merely a matter of thanks or praise... but given a concept of God as perfect, and thus any relationship to him as quite literally infinitely unequal, I can understand the presupposition.)

What is "AFAIC"...?
Sorry, didn't mean to be opaque. It stands for "As Far As I'm Concerned."

[Ethos]

When you worship God, you are independently making a decision based on your own reasoning to worship God. I personally have not seen God face to face whereupon He commanded me to worship Him. Worship is an expression of free will -- I am freely worshipping because I want to, not because I have been forced.

The choice to worship is an autonomous expression. I do not argue against this. However when it comes to the issue of living one's life through the will of another, autonomy is then removed.

You cannot simply say "okay, I choose to allow every future decision I make be based on god's will" and call this an ongoing autonomous act. By definition there is no independent process beyond the first choice because you have effectively handed all decision-making functions to someone else. So while the first decision may be independent, all future actions are based not on your own considerations, but those of another entity. This is why the act of worship does not allow for moral autonomy, among other things.


Thanks for your concern; but I am not bothered in the least. You misunderstand my meaning. You make the mistake in thinking there is no decision-making going on when one has faith in God and worships God. Let me put it this way: You have the choice to believe in God and worship Him, the same as I do. Like you, I have independently made a decision based on my own reasoning -- it just happens to be a different decision than yours.

However you do, as a part of that worship, give your life and all choices you make to your god. You make these decisions dependent on god's will, not your own.

So very simply, if a decision is made in accordance with god's will, there is no independence - no autonomy. Even if you choose to follow god's will, the act of doing so doesn't negate the fact that you are removing full freedom and independence from the process of decision making.

I'm not even sure why you are objecting so strongly to the concept of a lack of autonomy within the deity worship paradigm. The whole concept of Christianity (and other faiths) is an absolute devotion to god. How can one say "thy will be done" and also claim to have full control over their own lives? It's contradicting.

You certainly don't need to accept the rest of the argument only because you accept that a degree of autonomy is lost once the choice to worship a god is made.

Ethos

[Cedars]

Okay, you're both confusing the hell out of me! Let's get back to basics. I agree with you, Ethos, regarding the whole concept of Christianity as being absolute devotion to God. And you agree that it is a choice to follow God. Now, what I want to understand is what difference do you and Lawman think it makes whether I or anyone worship God or not? If it is my choice to conform myself to God's will (and keep in mind that conforming oneself to God's will is not as automatic and mindless as you might think) and worship God, what purpose is there in the moral autonomy argument? Because I really do not understand (and I am not intending to be rude here) the purpose of pointing out whether one is autonomous or not or why anyone should even care? What do you see this argument as proving (what do you think it means, ultimately, to say that worshipping God is not an autonomous act)? Lawman said, "It's about the logical impossibility of worship." Are you claiming we are not actually worshipping then? I do not understand what is ultimately meant here.

[lawman]

Now, what I want to understand is what difference do you and Lawman think it makes whether I or anyone worship God or not? ...what purpose is there in the moral autonomy argument? ...Lawman said, "It's about the logical impossibility of worship." Are you claiming we are not actually worshipping then? I do not understand what is ultimately meant here.
What difference does it make? None, on a personal level. But it's an important step in the philosophical argument we're discussing here, if one is to approach it in a rational manner. I didn't mean to say that you were "not actually worshipping," much less that you hadn't chosen to do so -- rather, the point is that the very act of worship, as it's been defined, stands in logical contradiction to itself.

People can certainly do illogical things... but that doesn't make them logical.

[Cedars]

What difference does it make? None, on a personal level. But it's an important step in the philosophical argument we're discussing here, if one is to approach it in a rational manner. I didn't mean to say that you were "not actually worshipping," much less that you hadn't chosen to do so -- rather, the point is that the very act of worship, as it's been defined, stands in logical contradiction to itself.

People can certainly do illogical things... but that doesn't make them logical.

Okay, that is what I thought you were arguing; but I wanted to be sure before I went any further.