September 3, 2009

  • C. S. Lewis, Anon, and Steve Lowell on "Hotly Criticizing Divine Justice" (part 2)

    Intro:

    On Victor Reppert's (VR) Dangerous Idea blog, he quotes some C. S. Lewis to show that atheists can't call the universe evil unless it is a moral agent.  In addition, those hot headed atheist critics of God should be commended for validating the theistic basis for morality and that their fervor is equal to how validated divine morality is.  VR never responded, but an anonymous Catholic Christian did (link).  When I point to some of the more significant moral issues that the Bible presents like eternal damnation for any reason, "anon" seems to think he can get away with denying we know enough about it to pass judgment.  Also,  he can't imagine what a perfect creation would be like and he cannot bear to part existential company with the idea of all his imperfect friends and loved ones who wouldn't ever exist in a perfect world.  Steve Lowell however is a bit more sensible and takes the conversation into more engaging territory in an attempt to defend Lewis' initial argument.  

    Anon responded (link):

    WAR,

    Except I haven't the foggiest idea of what eternal damnation is like, whether anyone is actually eternally damned (as a Catholic, I can't even say if Judas is damned), the scope of those crimes, etc. Now, I'm sure you'll find other people who believe they can tell you exactly who is and is not going to hell (they may even be certain I'm on the list!) and precisely what hell is like. And they may even have some very good replies to your objections - I'd try to find some for the sake of sport if I were in another mood. But for now, I'll just defend my view - and for me, the particularities of hell are unknown. As a Catholic some dogma is made regarding generalities, but that only gets you so far.

    And of course it cuts both ways! What, you think the Christian claims to have total and complete knowledge about God? That's ridiculous. At most they may have some personal or philosophical reasons (powerful ones, in my view) to believe in God's existence, His goodness, etc. But even if you can be utterly certain that God is literally omnibenevolent, that still leaves you in the dark on His purposes and justifications. And since we're dealing with God, I'd argue no amount of raw information is going to be enough (how much finite information is necessary before you can comfortably judge an infinite being?) It ends up becoming an awful lot like some human relationships - in other words, trust is a major factor.

    Okay, fine, perfect creation. What the heck is a perfect creation? Why in the world would I want to be in something always-perfect, when perfection to the point of exclusivity would doom to non-existence everyone I love (all very imperfect beings, I assure you) and myself (trust me - imperfect as I am, I'm pretty damn spiffy.) Will no one argue for improving the imperfect? Hell, will no one argue for us mere imperfect people? So no, it doesn't seem clear to me that much of an argument can be made for this universe being amoral, or even that "this isn't the sort of world a benevolent God would make". And I'd object to your God who doesn't allow the existence of anything less than perfect as not quite meeting my own moral expectations. Whatever value that charge has, though skeptics seem to think it's a frightful charge.

    Finally, you're saying that objective morality via theism isn't very persuasive unless theism is true? I think even the most die-hard theists of saintly faith will admit to that. Though I'd dispute that the objective morality is "invisible" (except perhaps in the way "math" is invisible), and how much value it has. Either way, all I said on this point was that naturalism won't be providing "objective morality", and that those non-theistic options that do personally tend to strike me as very theistic-sounding.

    I responded:

    Anon,

    "Except I haven't the foggiest idea of what eternal damnation is like"

    As long as there is anyone suffering eternally in some way, shape, or form without possibility of "parole" I personally would never be able to condone the actions of the Biblical deity as "good." Why does it matter what kind of punishment it is or who exactly goes there? It's entirely petty to worry about how many prongs Satan's pitchfork has, when the outline of what we do have is clearly way off the charts as unacceptable. The basics presented in the Bible are pretty straight forward even if things are described metaphorically and the Catholic Encyclopedia seems to be on the same page.

    And of course it cuts both ways! What, you think the Christian claims to have total and complete knowledge about God? That's ridiculous.

    The claim would be that if there are serious issues to be brought up in the "problem of evil" category, and the theist claims we don't have enough information to determine whether God is guilty, then it seems also true that we don't have enough information to determine that he is good either. If you are content to re-write certain hymns with lyrics that go like, "God may or may not be good, I wouldn't know," so be it. I still think this is implausible denial. We don't have to know everything to know there can't possibly be some huge misunderstanding to explain all of it away.

    And since we're dealing with God, I'd argue no amount of raw information is going to be enough (how much finite information is necessary before you can comfortably judge an infinite being?)

    We may not know where all of this is going (with the exception that Jesus tells us most people will be damned to eternal suffering), but we do know how it is getting there. If the full range of happenings in this world are what you honestly think could possibly be the methodology of a supremely perfect being, I would try to be shocked if I wasn't so used to Christians defending the indefensible. 

    "Okay, fine, perfect creation. What the heck is a perfect creation?"

    Um, you've heard of heaven, right? ;) Do we really have to know what would be a "perfect car" in order to tell that the cars we currently have are imperfect? The Christian response seems to be, "Blueprints or GTFO!" and that's just implausible denial again.

    "Why in the world would I want to be in something always-perfect, when perfection to the point of exclusivity would doom to non-existence everyone I love (all very imperfect beings, I assure you) and myself (trust me - imperfect as I am, I'm pretty damn spiffy.)"

    I've never heard any non-existent people complain. Your position also doesn't address the broad spectrum of humanity where we find folks that are not so happy with themselves to the point of suicide, and everything in between. I'm glad you enjoy your life and the people you love, but what you've said contributes nothing particularly relevant to the discussion, imo.

    "So no, it doesn't seem clear to me that much of an argument can be made for this universe being amoral, or even that "this isn't the sort of world a benevolent God would make"."

    I don't think a mere positive and progressive attitude on your part can hope to outweigh the fact we live in a vast cosmos populated by mostly empty space, where as far as we know so far, there's a tiny speck of life that is claimed by even Christian dogma as being "cursed." Anything can and does happen, from earthquakes that kill thousands of people to happy weddings of two people in love and everything in between. I'm hoping this sounds familiar... You live here too, right? :p Somehow you'd like to portray all of it as though it is going somewhere? I just don't think that's a reasonable claim even if humanity does one day manage to achieve some kind of utopia of its own creation.

    "And I'd object to your God who doesn't allow the existence of anything less than perfect as not quite meeting my own moral expectations. Whatever value that charge has, though skeptics seem to think it's a frightful charge."

    I have seen skeptics who think they can haughtily frighten Christians out of their faith, so I don't blame you for jumping to conclusions. Personally I don't consider the "amoral universe" claim "frightful," just factual. If we have to make a judgment call in our limited information on whether a perfectly good being is running this apparently amoral show behind the scenes, there's no compelling reason to give it such a tremendous benefit of the doubt. How did God earn so much trust from you? I'm certainly willing to change my own moral expectations if I am presented a good reason to do so, but it really does seem like you just don't take any of this too seriously and many Christians seem to be right behind you on that "I'm okay: who cares about the bigger picture" attitude.

    "Finally, you're saying that objective morality via theism isn't very persuasive unless theism is true? I think even the most die-hard theists of saintly faith will admit to that."

    Except the ones that wish to argue from morality of course. Have you met any of them? haha, I've met tons. My evaluation is that morality is neutral mental patterns anyone can identify on their own and can't be used by anyone to establish the metaphysics of something entirely unrelated. It's certainly compatible with some version of theism, if a creator made our minds work the way they do, but it's no more special than the other evolved patterns in our bodies. Many Christians seem to be of the conviction that, "Our worldview owns morality, you claim to be a moral person, therefore you have to be a Christian, and don't bother us about how messed up morality is in our belief system." There's so many ways that can be wrong, but they don't depart from the party line.

    "Either way, all I said on this point was that naturalism won't be providing "objective morality", and that those non-theistic options that do personally tend to strike me as very theistic-sounding."

    If it is objectively true that behaviors x, y, and z (whatever they might be) greatly increase the probability of genuine long term well-being and happiness of virtually any human being that puts those behavioral strategies into practice, then what in the world does that have to do with God? And if morality is about "something else" then why should I care about whatever that something else is?

    Ben

    Steve responded:

    War,

    I take your point about atheists being able to make moral criticisms of religion. That, however, doesn't mean you escape the thrust of Lewis's arguments here.

    Suppose morality is ultimately sourced in God. Then yes, all humans (Christian, atheist or anything else), being made in God's image will have that moral compass which enables them to judge certain things to be right or wrong ... which in turn makes it possible to criticize "Divine Justice". But suppose that the atheist agrees that morality makes no sense without God. What becomes of his criticism. He can still hypothetically say "Well, if God did exist my moral instincts would be a reflection of a larger moral reality, and those instincts would reveal some sort of moral code which God himself doesn't seem to live up to".

    Now I agree that this is a consistent line for the atheist to take. But it certainly doesn't count as "hotly criticizing divine justice". That would involve saying that God is unjust, not saying merely "supposing there is such a thing of justice, which if God exists there is, then God is unjust".

    If you agree so far, then then question is whether morality does or does not make sense "apart from God". For my own part, I think it doesn't. It is irrelevant that, as anonymous points out, some atheists do believe morality is real.

    Steve Lovell

    I responded:

    Hey Steve,

    Thanks for picking up the conversation.

    Perhaps you might be right in terms of a strict atheism vs theism dichotomy. At worst, we just go looking for another deity that conforms better with what we would have to consider the best of our moral reasoning. I don't really have a problem with that if such a deity can be found. So perhaps one doesn't escape the "thrust" of Lewis' argument, but you do easily escape his religion.

    I argue this way typically for the sake of brevity so I don't have to take down an entire moral paradigm and in addition assert an entirely new set of metaphysics and build up every aspect of my own moral paradigm in every conversation with a conservative Christian online. That's a lot of work especially when even this much is normally not taken seriously. Internal coherency is a short cut that works logically. So I use it.

    When mainstream religion fails, typically it seems that people are a bit more receptive to natural morality and aren't hyper-skeptical about evolved patterns in human brain activity. If morality can be thought of as a divine pattern in God's essence, then it's just a pattern. And patterns can be found in matter. So I don't see what the problem is.

    As I said to Anon, "If it is objectively true that behaviors x, y, and z (whatever they might be) greatly increase the probability of genuine long term well-being and happiness of virtually any human being that puts those behavioral strategies into practice, then what in the world does that have to do with God? And if morality is about "something else" then why should I care about whatever that something else is?"

    It doesn't matter whatever subjective complaints can be launched against the materialistic pattern on its own terms as though existential preference could ever hope to refute whatever realities are presented to us.

    Ben

    Outro:

    Two more parts ahead. 

    Ben

Comments (2)

Comments are closed.

Post a Comment