This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The appeal to me is that it's true. I haven't chosen my opinions based on which ideas I liked most. There are other appeals (moral correctness, potential for growth, pretty much everything that typically goes along with religion) but first and foremost, I try to believe whatever's most true. Not that I actually believe aliens could imitate God.
So, as I said earlier, this reeks of "if God says my theological framework is wrong, then under my theological framework I find God to be unsatisfying." No. In the hypothetical we've already established that your theological framework is wrong! You'd better be really careful about rebuilding actual correct axioms before deciding you're ready to judge God and find him wanting.
That's what this is, in the end. "If God doesn't conform to my definition then he's not enough for me."
I'd be happy to tackle any of the underlying assumptions, but ideally I'd like to stick to just one:
Fortunately, it's not true and I have all the proof I need of that. However, if it were true I should just commit suicide and get it over with. Maybe that's extreme, the point is I would need to reevaluate quite a lot.
You really don't get it. Your question is, "What if I rip all the significance out of the world? Would you still call someone by their chosen name?" And the answer is, "Why on Earth do you think a name matters?"
\3. If morality doesn't inherently proceed from God, then God cannot possibly have a perfect understanding of morality
This is not the objection. The objection is, if morality is outside of God, then God is held to an outside standard. There is something outside God which is sovereign to God. In which case, cut out the middle man. Also, God can now be evil. If He can't then He's not free. If He can be evil, then following Him unreservedly is unwise.
Also, He could be lying to us about morality. A classical understanding of God provides the necessary background for something that "Cannot deceive nor be deceived." Take that away and we open up both doors.
As I said, I don't think aliens could imitate God either. Don't take the high ground about rejecting that position now.
No, it's not about the name, it's about the person behind the name. Real life doesn't work according to definitions. If I define OracleOutlook as "the person arguing with me who has orange hair" and you don't happen to have orange hair; that doesn't mean OracleOutlook doesn't exist, it means I was wrong about who you were. Same with God. You're still mixing up identifiers with definitions.
I thought I made that clear when I brought up the hypothetical about my dad secretly having a different name, or secretly not being my actual dad.
It's the objection you made. You said "'the Ten Commandments were really our best guess at moral laws but we are not really the basis for goodness.'" You truly seem to think that God cannot be omniscient outside of classical theism.
Again, "cut out the middle man" only makes sense if you're still in the classical theism framework. You need to understand that if the framework is wrong it is wrong.
I also believe God isn't the inventor of truth itself, nor the definition of it, nor whatever more complex thing classical theism would use to describe the idea that the concept of truth proceeds from God. 2+2=4 even if God doesn't exist. This doesn't mean God is "subject" to 2+2=4, or that it's an "outside standard he's held to", and it's utterly nonsensical to think, even if it were a standard he were held to, that one should therefore worship 2+2=4 instead. The law that 2+2=4 isn't written anywhere, it's not even necessarily a "law" at all; it's just how reality is.
Again, you're still within the classical theism framework. LDS theology holds that there is a 100% chance God will never be evil. He simply won't do it. "But within my framework if God can be evil he will be." OK, but if God can be evil then by definition we're already outside of your framework, and it no longer applies.
Yeah, you didn't really read this accurately. It the "we are not really the basis for goodness."
Yes, God is subject to 2+2=4 here in this example. You don't see it? It's possible for God to want something other than 2+2=4 but not be able to change it. That makes Him subject to it. It's an external power He has to work around. "Just how reality is," - That is putting limits on God. There is something outside of your concept of God that is more powerful than Him. Why not worship that thing?
It's also the "best guess." Don't pretend you didn't put that in there lol.
And, yet again, an example of what I'm gesturing towards. Really, if God is everything you believe he is, except that there's some fundamental law of reality he can't change (perhaps simply the law of non-contradiction), you'd worship that law rather than God? That's on you. That's you putting your definition of God above God himself. That's you saying, "if I'm wrong in the slightest about what God is, I will cease to be Christian."
I don't think you actually would, but I'm just saying this to illustrate the absurd overconfidence you have in your theological framework.
The funny thing is, we both agree that God lacks the power to change 2+2=4. It's just that you think that this is because 2+2=4 is fundamentally part of God, and God can't change himself, whereas I think 2+2=4 is part of truth, and God can't change truth.
I worship Truth. If your God is not Truth, then I do not worship him. Fortunately, Jesus said "I am... the Truth," so I'm happily a Christian.
What is God to you? I still don't understand. What differentiates him from another human being?
Right, and if my god turns out to be the correct one--someone who means "I am the truth" in any but the most painstakingly, autistically literal way--then you won't worship him?
I don't have a definition of God any more than I have a fully comprehensive definition of any person, place, or thing on Earth. He's my omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omniscient creator. The precise mechanics of my beliefs about his divine nature are comparatively unimportant, and certainly not a measuring stick I'll use to denounce the real God if it turns out I was wrong in some particular.
But yeah, I mean, it's not like any other human being is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, or omniscient. There's really not any possibility for confusion here unless you willfully misunderstand alternatives to your own framework. And it's not like any person or alien is capable of becoming any of those things either.
Ok, but there are some humans who are more powerful than you, there are some humans who are more good than you, there are some humans who know more than you. Do you worship them in this capacity? Is being stronger, smarter, and nicer than a human what distinguishes God to you above, say, your mom?
It sounds like what you're saying is that there needs to be a difference of type, not just "amount", between us and God?
I disagree that omnipotence is just "more powerful" than me. It's definitionally different. It's not that God can accomplish a million times what I can with one one-millionth the effort; he can accomplish infinitely more than me with zero effort. There's no amount of strength or power that will get you there.
To me the difference between morally perfect, and very good, is the same. There's still an infinite gap between "sins every few decades" and "never sins," let alone God's positive virtues.
Anyways you're interpreting what I said as a definition. I didn't give you a definition of God, I gave you who he is--how I identify him. I don't have a definition for you any more than I have a definition of my dad. I can tell you what traits I believe God has, but my internal definition is subordinate to reality. Perhaps if I were infallible it would not be, but I'm not God.
I still want a straight answer here. Or at least a "I can't possibly be wrong" so that we can end this conversation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link