Comments on: A Theory of Morality http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/11/a-theory-of-morality/ The Bloggery of Damian Peterson Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:01:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: BC http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/11/a-theory-of-morality/#comment-745 BC Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:38:13 +0000 http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/11/a-theory-of-morality/#comment-745 Thanks, Damian, for your comments, and yes, your summary is very fair. To my mind, you naturally see the physical and spiritual as two different perspectives (or at best spheres of reality) about a shared reality. You discount the spiritual perspective on account of the first, being what you can grasp in your physical hand and eye and therefore critical mind. Your basis of belief about the world around you, is taken solely from one portion of the whole, the physical. As you have already encountered with Dale, others who may accept the physical and spiritual, commonly treat these as divided spheres which is the basic form of dualism; dualism of this basic nature doesn't exist in the Jewish cosmos. As a Christian, I take my queue for my understanding of reality from that background (as Jesus of Nazareth did), as everything is spiritual, as it gives impulse for knowledge of what, where, who, when etc. To our modern western minds, the ‘reality’ of which we have some idea, has been developed by a reference framework that enables us to categorise stuff. Although there is nothing wrong in using such a logic (as science does), it would be a fair to say that anything that is verified or proven within that framework, in fact, becomes, as a proven thing or idea, subservient to that framework. And this is the problem we have within that ‘reality’ in relation to being able to prove that a god exists. If a god is the God that is creator of this universe, but not a product or by nature of this universe (the Biblical God), then any reference framework we have in attempting to prove the existence of such a god, would have to extend beyond that god. So when it comes to proving that such a god exists, within a scientific construct, it is not surprising that we can not prove God within such a framework. You may ask, then, if such a God exists, then surely there would be some manifestation of God's existence in this physical world. Well, as far as Jewish and Christian understanding goes, the whole of the universe is that evidence. The problem is that we can't put God in a test tube and see a replication of what happened in the past. Hence the difference between what scientists do and what historians do. One field of knowledge is based on verifiability by experiment, the other by critical analyses by comparison of cultural relics and textual material that comes to hand. As far as believing in miracles etc as a leap of faith, the more I learn of what goes on in physics (large and small), I have no trouble accepting those miracles as true events recorded in the Gospels, for instance. Thanks, Damian, for your comments, and yes, your summary is very fair.
To my mind, you naturally see the physical and spiritual as two different perspectives (or at best spheres of reality) about a shared reality. You discount the spiritual perspective on account of the first, being what you can grasp in your physical hand and eye and therefore critical mind. Your basis of belief about the world around you, is taken solely from one portion of the whole, the physical.
As you have already encountered with Dale, others who may accept the physical and spiritual, commonly treat these as divided spheres which is the basic form of dualism; dualism of this basic nature doesn’t exist in the Jewish cosmos. As a Christian, I take my queue for my understanding of reality from that background (as Jesus of Nazareth did), as everything is spiritual, as it gives impulse for knowledge of what, where, who, when etc.
To our modern western minds, the ‘reality’ of which we have some idea, has been developed by a reference framework that enables us to categorise stuff. Although there is nothing wrong in using such a logic (as science does), it would be a fair to say that anything that is verified or proven within that framework, in fact, becomes, as a proven thing or idea, subservient to that framework. And this is the problem we have within that ‘reality’ in relation to being able to prove that a god exists. If a god is the God that is creator of this universe, but not a product or by nature of this universe (the Biblical God), then any reference framework we have in attempting to prove the existence of such a god, would have to extend beyond that god. So when it comes to proving that such a god exists, within a scientific construct, it is not surprising that we can not prove God within such a framework.
You may ask, then, if such a God exists, then surely there would be some manifestation of God’s existence in this physical world. Well, as far as Jewish and Christian understanding goes, the whole of the universe is that evidence. The problem is that we can’t put God in a test tube and see a replication of what happened in the past.
Hence the difference between what scientists do and what historians do. One field of knowledge is based on verifiability by experiment, the other by critical analyses by comparison of cultural relics and textual material that comes to hand.
As far as believing in miracles etc as a leap of faith, the more I learn of what goes on in physics (large and small), I have no trouble accepting those miracles as true events recorded in the Gospels, for instance.

]]> By: Damian http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/11/a-theory-of-morality/#comment-741 Damian Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:07:46 +0000 http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/11/a-theory-of-morality/#comment-741 Thank you for your excellent and well-considered response BC. That goes a long way toward clearing up why what seems like mundane (and imperfect) 'rules' might been seen as being from God. But now we're back to the starting point where I see the concept of a god as the unnecessary ingredient in the mix whereas you see it as the all-important underlying theme. To me, without good evidence, all these occurrences can be best explained as merely human artefacts where things like the mixing of grains or cloths can be seen as the result of human misunderstanding but you see these as interaction between god and man on a very human level and that these bits are mysteries that made sense at the time or are yet to be understood. So, in response to your question waaaay back in #20, my answer is that I come to my conclusions by way of my common sense and based on a weighing of the evidence I see before me. I believe that to have come to any other conclusion a leap of faith has had to be made at some stage (perhaps as far back as the belief that there is a god in the first place) but that this leap leads to an explanation of the world that isn't a true one. I see a vast collection of oddities like the examples I focussed on in Leviticus 19 throughout the Christian religion (and probably others but Christianity is what I know best) but where I see them as oddities you would see them as mysteries or miracles. Do you think this is a good summary of our differences and a good explanation as to why I made the comments I made about pork seeming to be a health issue rather than a genuine command from a god? Thank you for your excellent and well-considered response BC. That goes a long way toward clearing up why what seems like mundane (and imperfect) ‘rules’ might been seen as being from God.

But now we’re back to the starting point where I see the concept of a god as the unnecessary ingredient in the mix whereas you see it as the all-important underlying theme.

To me, without good evidence, all these occurrences can be best explained as merely human artefacts where things like the mixing of grains or cloths can be seen as the result of human misunderstanding but you see these as interaction between god and man on a very human level and that these bits are mysteries that made sense at the time or are yet to be understood.

So, in response to your question waaaay back in #20, my answer is that I come to my conclusions by way of my common sense and based on a weighing of the evidence I see before me. I believe that to have come to any other conclusion a leap of faith has had to be made at some stage (perhaps as far back as the belief that there is a god in the first place) but that this leap leads to an explanation of the world that isn’t a true one.

I see a vast collection of oddities like the examples I focussed on in Leviticus 19 throughout the Christian religion (and probably others but Christianity is what I know best) but where I see them as oddities you would see them as mysteries or miracles.

Do you think this is a good summary of our differences and a good explanation as to why I made the comments I made about pork seeming to be a health issue rather than a genuine command from a god?

]]> By: BC http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/11/a-theory-of-morality/#comment-740 BC Thu, 27 Mar 2008 08:27:26 +0000 http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/11/a-theory-of-morality/#comment-740 Sorry about any convolutions, but the aim is to try and pull in as many threads that have a bearing on understanding the Jewish view of God (Elohim) as a relational being, as opposed to Elohim being an enigmatic life force or a pantheistic interpretation of natural events having a life of its own. This then has a bearing on the nature of the law, which, when bits, often taken in isolation may talk about animal husbandry or manufacturing cloth, are pulled together by the overarching theme of purity of relationships that can be degraded by deceitful actions. Interesting that what you call plain old common sense, you see is different from what God maybe trying to tell us through our plain old common sense. It seems to be a matter of perspective rather than the intrinsic value of any particular commandment. Common sense, from a Jewish point of view, would be from God (as all things are). The fact that it seems easy for us to think them as just so-so, doesn't diminish their value or that God doesn't need to remind us of them. As you may appreciate this common sense could well do with a far bit of 'thundering from of high'. ;) As to that aspect, much of the 'thundering from on high' comes as a natural consequence of breaking the Law. Scripture maintains that all the ills of the world stem from such disobedience. When seen as common sense or bound into natural processes, the Law is integral with life. What God says, as reiterated in the text of the Law, again relates back to the relationship the Jewish people had with God. When it says 'God Said' I doubt if it means that there was an audible voice and dictation took place. As I alluded to with Moses, most of what became the Law was already known. This is mentioned several times in the Old and New Testament. Somewhere previously, 'canonised' was mentioned. This basically means that scripture became the measure (canon) by which life is judged. So for things that we could think up that wouldn't be consistent with our understanding of God, would reveal our knowledge of who we are, what the world's about and who and what we thought God is. The problem is we don't know everything about God, or much else. (You may think . . . mmm that's a cop out if I ever heard one). If we did know everything, would an all knowable god still be God? Bit of a bummer really, when we often try and pin God down on anything really tricky. So really, in that light and due to the nature of scripture, its content, subject matter and context, it would be impossible to prove if God said this or that. Except, that the overall picture is consistent. As far as examining another religion and its claims, the problem is what to measure against. You would have to consider as much of the culture and history you can, to be able to get a handle on the authority of the content within the respective religious texts. Much of what is shared between different religions in their respective moral codes should not be surprising. As you say it's common sense. For the Jew (and Christian) however, the greater difference is not so much that scripture is attributed to a deity, but to whom is it attributed. For the Christian and Jew this is inextricably tied into historicity of scripture, whereas in Hinduism it is not. In contrast to the Law of Moses, which was given not only to guide the Jewish people in their relationship with God, but also to highlight their shortcomings (sinfulness), the Hindu moral code intends to guide disciples through karma, to become enlightened to an extent where escape from the cycle of reincarnation enables the disciple to merge finally with the oneness of being. One is world affirming, the other world denying. Again, sorry about being so convoluted. Sorry about any convolutions, but the aim is to try and pull in as many threads that have a bearing on understanding the Jewish view of God (Elohim) as a relational being, as opposed to Elohim being an enigmatic life force or a pantheistic interpretation of natural events having a life of its own. This then has a bearing on the nature of the law, which, when bits, often taken in isolation may talk about animal husbandry or manufacturing cloth, are pulled together by the overarching theme of purity of relationships that can be degraded by deceitful actions.
Interesting that what you call plain old common sense, you see is different from what God maybe trying to tell us through our plain old common sense. It seems to be a matter of perspective rather than the intrinsic value of any particular commandment. Common sense, from a Jewish point of view, would be from God (as all things are). The fact that it seems easy for us to think them as just so-so, doesn’t diminish their value or that God doesn’t need to remind us of them. As you may appreciate this common sense could well do with a far bit of ‘thundering from of high’. ;)
As to that aspect, much of the ‘thundering from on high’ comes as a natural consequence of breaking the Law. Scripture maintains that all the ills of the world stem from such disobedience. When seen as common sense or bound into natural processes, the Law is integral with life.
What God says, as reiterated in the text of the Law, again relates back to the relationship the Jewish people had with God. When it says ‘God Said’ I doubt if it means that there was an audible voice and dictation took place. As I alluded to with Moses, most of what became the Law was already known. This is mentioned several times in the Old and New Testament. Somewhere previously, ‘canonised’ was mentioned. This basically means that scripture became the measure (canon) by which life is judged.
So for things that we could think up that wouldn’t be consistent with our understanding of God, would reveal our knowledge of who we are, what the world’s about and who and what we thought God is. The problem is we don’t know everything about God, or much else. (You may think . . . mmm that’s a cop out if I ever heard one). If we did know everything, would an all knowable god still be God? Bit of a bummer really, when we often try and pin God down on anything really tricky.
So really, in that light and due to the nature of scripture, its content, subject matter and context, it would be impossible to prove if God said this or that. Except, that the overall picture is consistent.
As far as examining another religion and its claims, the problem is what to measure against. You would have to consider as much of the culture and history you can, to be able to get a handle on the authority of the content within the respective religious texts. Much of what is shared between different religions in their respective moral codes should not be surprising. As you say it’s common sense.
For the Jew (and Christian) however, the greater difference is not so much that scripture is attributed to a deity, but to whom is it attributed. For the Christian and Jew this is inextricably tied into historicity of scripture, whereas in Hinduism it is not. In contrast to the Law of Moses, which was given not only to guide the Jewish people in their relationship with God, but also to highlight their shortcomings (sinfulness), the Hindu moral code intends to guide disciples through karma, to become enlightened to an extent where escape from the cycle of reincarnation enables the disciple to merge finally with the oneness of being. One is world affirming, the other world denying.
Again, sorry about being so convoluted.

]]> By: Uknown http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/11/a-theory-of-morality/#comment-738 Uknown Thu, 27 Mar 2008 06:39:11 +0000 http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/11/a-theory-of-morality/#comment-738 Well, I guess the most I can do right now is offer Damian and everyone else genuine concern. I'm still learning. Thanks Dale for the advice. I really appreciate it. Well, I guess the most I can do right now is offer Damian and everyone else genuine concern. I’m still learning. Thanks Dale for the advice. I really appreciate it.

]]> By: Dale Campbell http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/11/a-theory-of-morality/#comment-737 Dale Campbell Thu, 27 Mar 2008 02:58:05 +0000 http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/11/a-theory-of-morality/#comment-737 Damian, Yes, the basic Deist picture is of a god who is for the most part uninvolved. Different pictures would have different levels of involvement... Uknown, 1. Your genuine intentions and concern probably speak louder than my would-be intellectual explanations... :) 2. Indeed, the New Testament authors saw Jesus as the climactic fulfillment of all that had gone before, but there is indeed some basic, anthropological, covenantally monotheistic (and yes, significant) reasons for the Law. I'm not wanting to put words in your mouth, but just warn against the "it-was-all-so-jesus-could-come" train of thought... 3. And the Ravi Zacharias video probably won't mean much to Damian either? 4. See point number 1 again... :) -d- Damian,
Yes, the basic Deist picture is of a god who is for the most part uninvolved. Different pictures would have different levels of involvement…

Uknown,
1. Your genuine intentions and concern probably speak louder than my would-be intellectual explanations… :)
2. Indeed, the New Testament authors saw Jesus as the climactic fulfillment of all that had gone before, but there is indeed some basic, anthropological, covenantally monotheistic (and yes, significant) reasons for the Law. I’m not wanting to put words in your mouth, but just warn against the “it-was-all-so-jesus-could-come” train of thought…
3. And the Ravi Zacharias video probably won’t mean much to Damian either?
4. See point number 1 again… :)

-d-

]]> By: Uknown http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/11/a-theory-of-morality/#comment-736 Uknown Thu, 27 Mar 2008 02:40:35 +0000 http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/11/a-theory-of-morality/#comment-736 I don't know if you're interested but there is a good lecture that Dr. Ravi Zaharias gives on youtube.com. It's called "The Loss of Truth and The Crumbling Moral Foundation." I don’t know if you’re interested but there is a good lecture that Dr. Ravi Zaharias gives on youtube.com. It’s called “The Loss of Truth and The Crumbling Moral Foundation.”

]]> By: Uknown http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/11/a-theory-of-morality/#comment-735 Uknown Thu, 27 Mar 2008 00:03:08 +0000 http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/11/a-theory-of-morality/#comment-735 Damian, I was responding to your comment, "Is it perhaps because you’ve first accepted that whenever it says that “God said” in this book that it must be true?" I know that comment wasn't directed towards me but you made me think of God speaking things into existence and His sovereignty. As far as your concern about the laws of the Old Testament. The way I understand it is that God was setting aside a holy group of people for the coming of His son Jesus. I don't know the mind of God so I'm sure there were other significant reasons for it but that being the main reason. Damian, I was responding to your comment, “Is it perhaps because you’ve first accepted that whenever it says that “God said” in this book that it must be true?” I know that comment wasn’t directed towards me but you made me think of God speaking things into existence and His sovereignty. As far as your concern about the laws of the Old Testament. The way I understand it is that God was setting aside a holy group of people for the coming of His son Jesus. I don’t know the mind of God so I’m sure there were other significant reasons for it but that being the main reason.

]]> By: Damian http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/11/a-theory-of-morality/#comment-734 Damian Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:08:52 +0000 http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/11/a-theory-of-morality/#comment-734 From you Dale: <blockquote>The alien question is more parallel to a deist god, who –like a visiting, intervening alien– comes down, visits and intervenes, and then heads off again to their galaxy.</blockquote> And from Wikipedia: <blockquote>[Deists] tend to assert that God does not intervene with the affairs of human life and the laws of the universe</blockquote> I don't really know of all the -ism options out there but Deism doesn't sound right in this context. Never mind - it's semantics and I get where you are coming from. From you Dale:

The alien question is more parallel to a deist god, who –like a visiting, intervening alien– comes down, visits and intervenes, and then heads off again to their galaxy.

And from Wikipedia:

[Deists] tend to assert that God does not intervene with the affairs of human life and the laws of the universe

I don’t really know of all the -ism options out there but Deism doesn’t sound right in this context. Never mind - it’s semantics and I get where you are coming from.

]]> By: Damian http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/11/a-theory-of-morality/#comment-733 Damian Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:02:08 +0000 http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/11/a-theory-of-morality/#comment-733 <blockquote>I’m not sure how far down this rabbit-hole you want to go, Damian, but eventually you get to the question of the presence of evil in a world created and sustained by a sovereign, always active God</blockquote> The problem of evil can be left for another conversation altogether. I still haven't got a very good sense of where you are coming from with regard to the Jewish view of God though. Especially with how it contrasts to the overt thunderings in the Bible. From the little that you've described it sounds like you are saying that the Jewish view is that nature is very much a part of God (or is closely linked in some way) and that God is not a kind of separate entity who appears from time to time? How does this relate to the burning bush and the storm cloud events? They certainly appear to be a 'Jewish view' of God but they seem to be treating God as a booming voice who appears suddenly and then goes away. I'm genuinely interested.

I’m not sure how far down this rabbit-hole you want to go, Damian, but eventually you get to the question of the presence of evil in a world created and sustained by a sovereign, always active God

The problem of evil can be left for another conversation altogether. I still haven’t got a very good sense of where you are coming from with regard to the Jewish view of God though. Especially with how it contrasts to the overt thunderings in the Bible.

From the little that you’ve described it sounds like you are saying that the Jewish view is that nature is very much a part of God (or is closely linked in some way) and that God is not a kind of separate entity who appears from time to time? How does this relate to the burning bush and the storm cloud events? They certainly appear to be a ‘Jewish view’ of God but they seem to be treating God as a booming voice who appears suddenly and then goes away.

I’m genuinely interested.

]]> By: Dale Campbell http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/11/a-theory-of-morality/#comment-732 Dale Campbell Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:51:46 +0000 http://damian.peterson.net.nz/2008/01/11/a-theory-of-morality/#comment-732 I've never heard of Deism described in terms of a god being an 'ever-present force in nature'. That sounds more like pantheism. The deistic framework would underlie the worldviews of many diverse beliefs. Some Deists (of the more philosophical variety) would attribute very few things to the 'god', like our ability to reason, perhaps some fuzzy involvement in the creation of the universe, but not any on-going involvment or guidance... On the other hand, many Christians for example, imagine what may be described as a very active deist god - intervening not once every few centuries, but quite often pulling levers and flicking switches at various moments (presumably in 'response' to peoples' prayers). The Jewish view is perhaps best expressed in terms of relationship. Creator-Creation. There is a distinction, yes (instead of the tree <i>being</i> God - or vice versa, the tree 'speaks' of the Creator), nor is there complete separation or dis-interest (instead of the creator 'leaving the creation alone' as it were, the Creator upholds and sustains the creation - though not manipulating it). The Judeo/Christian does not hesitate to say that it is not 'nature' but God the Creator who, as it were, breathes life into the sails of the Creation. "He feeds the ravens when they call to Him." I'm not sure how far down this rabbit-hole you want to go, Damian, but eventually you get to the question of the presence of evil in a world created and sustained by a sovereign, always active God. Theodicy... Anything you want to add to this, BC? I’ve never heard of Deism described in terms of a god being an ‘ever-present force in nature’. That sounds more like pantheism. The deistic framework would underlie the worldviews of many diverse beliefs. Some Deists (of the more philosophical variety) would attribute very few things to the ‘god’, like our ability to reason, perhaps some fuzzy involvement in the creation of the universe, but not any on-going involvment or guidance… On the other hand, many Christians for example, imagine what may be described as a very active deist god - intervening not once every few centuries, but quite often pulling levers and flicking switches at various moments (presumably in ‘response’ to peoples’ prayers).
The Jewish view is perhaps best expressed in terms of relationship. Creator-Creation. There is a distinction, yes (instead of the tree being God - or vice versa, the tree ’speaks’ of the Creator), nor is there complete separation or dis-interest (instead of the creator ‘leaving the creation alone’ as it were, the Creator upholds and sustains the creation - though not manipulating it). The Judeo/Christian does not hesitate to say that it is not ‘nature’ but God the Creator who, as it were, breathes life into the sails of the Creation. “He feeds the ravens when they call to Him.”
I’m not sure how far down this rabbit-hole you want to go, Damian, but eventually you get to the question of the presence of evil in a world created and sustained by a sovereign, always active God. Theodicy…
Anything you want to add to this, BC?

]]>