What is of primary importance to you? The will of God (however you define it), or the laws of nature?

The laws of nature are the will of God.

And God doesn't break the law.

The laws of nature are what they are. 'God' has nothing to do with it. If there is a supernatural force controlling the forces of nature, then it is without conscience or empathy, in my opinion.

I do think there is a balance of Chaos vs Order in the Universe, but I see zero evidence of any divine design.

I obviously did not make myself clear enough. What I want to know is whether you personally believe the 'commandments' of God (to be 'better' than nature) of primary importance, or whether getting 'in tune' with the unchanging facts of nature (including human nature) are to you the all-important thing?

Message edited by its author, Jul 10, 2007, 3:36am.

Both! If there is a God, then getting in tune with the facts of nature will not conflict with any genuine divine commandment. Accordance with the unchanging facts of nature is one way of distinguishing between 'commandments' with a claim to be objective ("do not murder") and 'commandments' of purely human cultural origin ("mutilate your children's genitals"). What is important is not just getting in tune with the unchanging facts of nature, but also getting in tune with the changeable facts of nature, such as the way we make emotional and moral choices. Human nature includes such things as unrestrained greed and a propensity to genocide. One's response to such aspects of human nature is not predetermined or unchangeable. I believe these are to be avoided, whether you ascribe the resulting moral code to a personal God or an impersonal Dharma/Tao. (I have not yet seen a convincing argument in favour of moral behaviour on a purely atheistic or materialistic basis.)

Message edited by its author, Jul 10, 2007, 5:43am.

Hello again, Myopic!

According to an old priest I saw in an interview, it won't do for people to say 'This is the way we are', because God demands that we be different (sexually, or whatever) from the way we are made. He obviously had no problem with the idea that God's unchanging will, and commandments, were more important than human nature.

So, I ask: What is more important to you? The natural and mutable, or the eternally fixed will of God?

Message edited by its author, Jul 10, 2007, 3:48pm.

Neither. The question makes no sense to me. For an atheist, "God's will" is meaningless. For a theist, God's will is by definition paramount: I can't see how one could believe that "God's will" was a meaningful concept and then deny its greater importance. So your question appears to boil down to "do you believe in God or not?". The divine will only conflicts with nature if you have obliged yourself to follow a particular dogmatic formulation of what God's will must be.

In my world, God demands that we fulfil what we are, not try to be something that we are not, whatever your "old priest" says to the contrary. To regard sexual orientation as something we can alter by force of will, like overcoming the temptations of greed or envy, is simply a categorical mistake made by those unable to move on from the moral perceptions of previous millennia (fossilized as they are in scripture and religious tradition). But the old priest is also right: it won't do for paedophiles and torturers to say 'This is the way we are'.

And there are several unwarranted assumptions in your question. The nature of God is usually regarded (philosophically speaking) as unchanging, but it is another thing to describe God's will as "fixed". Taking for the moment a conservative position on God's action: his will is for good, but if we change what we do, then he changes what he does in response. One could point to mythical tales in which God changes his mind, such as Abraham's prayer for Sodom or Nineveh's repentance after Jonah's preaching.

And the natural is not the same as the mutable. The law of gravity, the magnitude of pi, and the speed of light are non-negotiable.

So I ask, what is more important to you: the eternally fixed laws of the impersonal universe, or an ever-shifting relationship with the divine spirit, blowing where it wills, manifest in human love and awe in creation?

The 'fixed laws' of the impersonal universe, are MY version of the 'divine spirit, blowing where it wills, manifest in human love and awe in creation'.

Anything outside (above, or 'higher' than) nature is an abstraction, only a human 'idea', one all too easily attached to because it appeals to our egotism.

One of the reasons the mind loves such abstractions is it allows us to believe there is a fixed 'morality', that must be obeyed, and therefore which CAN be obeyed. Once you accept this kind of thinking, judgementalism is inevitable, with all its short-term satisfactions, and long-term disastrous results.

When we say 'This is the way we are', we must draw a deep line between what is unchangeable, e.g., sexual orientation, and what is changeable (assuming paedophiles and murderers are actually saying 'This is the way we are AT THIS MOMENT'). However, what happens when said murderer or paedophile is really being HONEST when they make this claim? The mind attached to the idea of 'correct' morality will refuse to accept this possibility. There is its weakness.

You recognized the question I am asking is 'Do you believe in God?' If I am reading your comments correctly, it seems that you DO believe in God, but describe Him as a 'spirit', one which, as you describe it, can just as easily be called the processes of nature.

I do not believe in God, or in anything else above, or higher than nature. Getting in touch with who I really am is all the 'heaven' I need.

Message edited by its author, Jul 11, 2007, 4:35pm.

mysticskeptic,

re: your fourth paragraph (When we say 'This is the way we are', we must draw. . . )

First of all, there are many motives that draw murder--momentary anger, self-defense, etc. Perhaps it would be more comparable to paedophilia if we were to say sadists? (Or pick a different motivation that is unchangeable). I believe they ARE being honest when they say 'this is the way we are.'

I guess I don't understand what you mean when you say that someone with a 'correct' morality belief system cannot acknowledge that possibility. Please explain.

christiguc,

Thank you for pulling me up for trying to be too clever. You are perfectly right, I think, to suggest when we talk of 'unchangeable' human nature, we should restrict our examples to those who are obviously telling the truth when they say 'that is how they are'.

As for explaining my comments about a "'correct' morality belief system", I was arguing that many religious people have a morality that is usually extemely simplistic in its notions of right and wrong. To this sort of individual, if the Bible (for instance) says God does not like homosexuality, then gay people CANNOT 'be' that way 'naturally', they MUST be deliberately breaking God's commandments.

I was pointing out that this is the kind of thinking that results when, instead of looking at what nature teaches about humanity, the ego attaches to something unnatural and abstract - which is what all religious ('higher') ideas really are - to supply us with rules for 'moral' living.

I feel honour-bound to repeat that very few people are actually this rigid in their day to day thinking. Most of us, religious or otherwise, are not obsessed with the twisted notions of 'correct' behaviour I have outlined.

Message edited by its author, Jul 11, 2007, 5:27pm.

mysticskeptic,

So, to be clear, are you taking the position that there is no need for a morality system or that human nature provides a sufficient morality system? That society-imposed restrictions are not necessary because natural instinct will protect what we proscribe these rules and morals to protect? Or that what they are protecting is not worth protecting?

I agree that strict conservative adherence to some religious beliefs can have negative outcomes (like your homosexual example), but, as you concede, that is a minority of cases. But, yes, I concede that that kind of thinking CAN result when we look to 'higher' ideas about 'moral' living. Does that make religion 'harmful'? Doesn't that depend on many other factors, such as what alternatives are there to a superimposed morality system?

I think I'm still not sure about what ultimate position you are taking. If you would clarify, I'd appreciate it. :)

christiguc,

I don't have a problem with any of the structures humanity has come up with to maintain law and order, in principle.

My problem is entirely with prejudice (ignorance) - of all varieties. And with the abstract notions of 'correct' behaviour (whether these are based on social, religious or other 'norms') that are peddled to buttress that prejudice.

The most dangerous stupidity is the idea that there is an 'ultimate' law-giver who has provided us with 'eternally' valid ethical rules for living. What makes it so deadly is that in many instances these rules demand that we be entirely different from what we truly are.

If religion, for example, can stick to the maintenance of social order as its main criterion, I could respect it, but the constant attempt to impose from above what is 'right', in matters that are entirely private (resulting in extreme misery, usually for the socially disadvantaged and minorities, precisely the ones religion claims to care most for) only shows that underneath the fancy language, prejudice really runs the show.

Message edited by its author, Jul 12, 2007, 3:25am.

Granted, some views on morality of some religions are misguided. But isn't it impossible to maintain social order without a definition of morality? And if you could convince me that it is possible, is it desirable? How could the church, then, stick to maintaining social order?

christiguc,

We have a workable set of rules for the maintenance of social order already in place, continually being refined as we speak. The morality they are based on has nothing to do with the 'revealed' laws of religion (despite what 'true believers' assert), and everything to do with letting harmless people living their lives as they see fit.

If someone offends your religious sensibilities (by breaking one of the sillier 'commandments'), because he is simply being who he really is (while harming nobody), and you feel he MUST be stopped, then it is YOU that is thinking in a prejudicial, immoral and anti-social way.

Beyond insisting their members uphold the basic standards of social morality, the church should get right out of the 'law and order' debate (they are two-thousand years out of date!), and stick to what they should really be about, which is leading people into an always deeper, more intimate relationship with the ultimate Being.

Jesus said 'I and the Father are one'. How many Christians do you know who can say the same thing?

Who is "we", who have a workable social order? Your first paragraph would fit North Korean society perfectly. If the morality of social order is self-generating, then on what basis would it ever be possible to criticise the morality of another society which has reached a different set of rules? Do you think it irrational to criticize other societies? Or do you suppose that all societies can be rationally assessed by the extent to which their social order measures up to the North American standard?

Relationship with the ultimate Being involves openness to a reassessment of one's own purely individual moral responses. That might mean abandoning old prejudices and embracing those considered "sinful" by traditionalists. But it might also mean abandoning a laissez-faire morality based on the extrapolation of egoistic desires, in favour of alignment with that which is truly good. God and the churches need not be involved. The Buddhist Eightfold Path enjoins Right Action: but what is Right?

Although Christ sought that all his followers should be one, no (sane) Christian claims to be fully one with the Father: theosis is a gradual and lifelong process.

Hello MyopicBookworm!

Delighted to be crossing friendly swords with you again.

Where on earth did you get the idea I was in favour of 'a laissez-faire morality'? I am in favour of NON-HARMFUL (RESPONSIBLE) LIVING. Period. No violence. No prejudice. That is what I call getting into 'alignment with that which is truly good'.

I cannot think of a single example of a normal 'egoistic' behaviour that does NO HARM to anyone which deserves to be labelled 'bad'. But I can think of far too many instances of 'moral' behaviour that is really just unbending authoritarianism in disguise. A disguise whose mask slips very quickly - to reveal a very immoral face indeed - when faced with the 'threat' of disobedience. That 'old priest' I started off with in # 7 had completely forgotten human sexuality (the issue under discussion was gay rights, surprise, surprise) is a good thing, a VERY good thing, and that any God that is against a good thing is a bad God, whether he is the Creator of Everything, or not. An argument he (the priest) of course, would totally reject. He probably knows he has lost. But, like all 'true believers', no doubt imagines he will triumph 'in the (final) end'.

As to the idea that Christians should never claim to be fully 'one with the Father', this is only a way of avoiding living a 'Christian' life (i.e., as Jesus lived his), and fighting for the sexually and economically marginalized (to pick just two). Jesus said 'Be perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect'.

Message edited by its author, Jul 14, 2007, 8:41am.

Hello mysticskeptic (and anyone else still following this thread)!

OK, 'laissez-faire morality' was a rhetorical exaggeration of what you call 'non-judgemental': if they're not harming me (or other third parties), then let them get on with it. I'm sure there are debates to be had about what constitutes 'harm' (would I 'harm' my spouse by having a secret one-night stand?) and whether self-harm is immoral; but I'm no moral philosopher, just puzzled about how to construct a persuasive moral code in the absence of any external reference for what constitutes 'good' behaviour.

Unlike the old priest, liberal Christians consider that divine love can be expressed in a loving and committed homosexual relationship. Conservative Christians, be it noted, generally consider that homosexuality is not just divinely disapproved, but actually 'against nature'. (And by the way, why is human sexuality a 'good thing'? It's just a way of propagating the species.)

I didn't say that Christians shouldn't claim oneness with the Father: just that no sane Christian would. Actually they might, but it depends on context: if a populist Christian preacher got up and said he was one with the Father, I might move hastily in the other direction; but if a Christian contemplative monk said the same thing, I might view it in a rather different way.

Yes, Jesus said 'be perfect', but I'm not sure he expected us to achieve it. (He also said 'Why do you call me good? Only God is good', and according to Paul, 'he did not cling to equality with God, but humbled himself, taking the form of a servant'.) It is quite hard to tell what Jesus actually expected of the majority of his followers: the complete abandonment he demanded of his immediate disciples could hardly be expected of every human being, in its most literal interpretation. To put it in Hindu terms, if everyone is a renunciate and no one remains a householder, there will be no one to fill the monk's begging bowl. (Maybe that's why Islam seems easier to follow than Christianity: it doesn't make impossible demands, just unreasonable ones.) And Jesus didn't demand wandering discipleship of all: to one would-be follower his advice was 'go home'. What he did demand is unselfish love, and you don't have to be very far along the road to unity with God in order to exercise a bit of that.

I'll avoid discussing perfection, so as not to get distracted into an amateur wrangle with Plato. But if you don't believe in an objective notion of 'goodness', then what can 'be good' possibly mean?

MyopicBookworm,

I am puzzled by your need to have an 'objective' standard of goodness. Are you really saying it can't be 'moral' if it's not based on 'God's will'?

To me, the idea that 'if they're not harming me (or other third parties), then let them get on with it' is enough of a workable standard of morality to begin with. Once we've got that well understood as the central tenet of 'civilized' values, we can then go on to discuss the finer details.

If there is no external source of morality, then I don't see how you can persuade someone not to do something that they want to do, on the grounds that it is a 'bad' thing to do. If you say 'it harms someone', and they say 'so what?', where do you go, other than to the enforcement of a local majority opinion about what is socially acceptable?

The 'enforcement of a local majority opinion about what is socially acceptable' is all we've ever really had, Myopic.

Most of us are no longer respectful of laws based on prejudice and ignorance, obeyed only because they are the 'revealed word' of an all-powerful supernatural being.

We would rather make sure we are doing no harm, rather than bowing before the 'will of God'.

As I said, though, the will of God and the laws of nature are one. The moral law is revealed through the natural world and through our own natures. Yes, attempts to codify it have been presented as 'revealed word' by those who believe in personal deities, and they have often included mere folk custom in their body of morals. I do not respect laws based on prejudice and ignorance; I do what my evangelical friends would disapprovingly call 'sitting in judgment on Scripture', measuring anything I find in it against my own experience and rational criticism. Your moral code boils down to the negative 'do no harm': mine boils down to the positive 'love your neighbour as yourself', and that is such a demanding code that it can only be followed if you think that it really is compelling, that love really can be transcendent.

Myopic,

If your God is 'revealed' through the natural world and through our own natures, that would indicate that He is not in total control of everything, that nature is allowed to run its course and, if this is true, then why not admit that 'Nature' is really in charge of everything?

I respect your 'sitting in judgement' of Scripture, measuring what is in it against your own experience and rationality. But, if God (an all-powerful, external 'authority') really existed, surely you would not dare to do so. You are displaying as much 'faith' in humanity, as you do in God. By doing this, you please neither the religious, nor the rationalists. I am not suggesting you should be trying to please them, simply pointing out the difficulty of defending your position.

I find the idea that 'do no harm' is somehow not as 'good' as the notion of 'loving your neighbour' rather strange. Surely we are discussing here what actually does good, what actually works, rather than what sounds more moral simply because it has the weight of centuries of tradition behind it.

Transcendence means, to me, the experience of perfect freedom - the profoundest mystical/psychological liberation - from all social constraints, morals, and rules that keep us from realizing our truest, most spontaneous selves. Once we have experienced this level, we know the desire to 'love our neighbour' is not something demanded of us from some external - or even an 'inner' - supernatural being. It is an inescapable part of the process of living.

Message edited by its author, Jul 21, 2007, 10:04am.

No, the 'man in the sky' view of God is hopelessly naive and I find that he is believed in mostly by atheists (if you see what I mean): ordinary religious people in my experience can be rather more sophisticated. To say that God's word brought everything into existence is (a) probably true* and (b) a mythological way of putting it. As for the idea that God has 'total control', free will has always been the spanner in the works there, and no, I don't believe that the planets go round because God is pushing them. As a biology graduate I cannot accept simplistic views of God's control - not just because of evolution, but because of how the natural world is.

(*I use 'God' here to mean 'whatever caused the universe', whether abstract Logos or conscious Mind, considering it less likely that the universe was either causeless or self-causing.)

To say that 'Nature' is in charge is meaningless: what you mean is that nothing is 'in charge', and life is ultimately without meaning or purpose except whatever you invent for yourself. If you believe that anything is 'in charge' at all, then it is a matter of taste or perspective as to whether you think personalizing it is (a) helpful or (b) more true to experience. If your 'Nature' is anything more than one damn thing after another - something more than a purely determinist or random process - then it is merely God by another name. My inclination is to think that personalizing it is a way of getting a handle on it from a human perspective (how successful that can be is seen in the religious approach of Jesus, who clearly personalized God). Too much anthropomorphism, however, is a mistake.

I do not think God is 'all-powerful' in the simple way in which many people take it. Yes, I have faith in humanity, but if you think God made humanity, and loved it so much that he joined it, I don't see the problem. I dare to judge Scripture because I think it is essentially a human response to the divine, not a divine dictation, and I do not think that God is a bloke in the sky who will get cross with me for exercising the reason I was born with.

The main difficulty of defending my opsition is that it is complex and only partly determined. Fundamentalists, whether religious or atheist, want the world to be black and white, but the world is actually full of shifting shades of grey. Nevertheless, if the cosmic Logos does not exist, I think I might have to invent it.

Interesting conversation. I've been following it, though not taking time to comment (because I just upgraded my account and have found that I am addicted to adding and sorting my library). :) I have just a couple of questions.

Mysticskeptic, I am interested in your idea that there can be a working universal morality that is not based on some sort of belief in a higher calling or being. Could you briefly sketch out what a system would look like?

In your "do no harm" model, what constitutes harm? There are the obvious harms, but there are some things that are debatable. For example, public nudity: some people think it harmful to their children, and others think it simply natural. Another example--killing a serial rapist (i.e., doing one harm to prevent several harms). Pedophilia--at what age would you say "harm" occurs? This needs to be a workable system, not something that has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I don't need every detail, but something to show me that some definite universal rules can be derived from such a system.

Second, who would get to define "harm'? The majority? Or maybe the physically strong will define it? And who is to say that their system would be any better that what religious systems have set up today? Is there a way to keep prejudice and ignorance out of this new system?

Also, who would accept that definition of morality? What right does the empowered group have? And even if they have the power (and the right), why should I believe their definition is the correct one? One thing religious morals have going for them is that they are compelling for those that follow that religion--the fact that a god set the moral code gives it credence.

And what about generosity and philanthropy? Do you believe that we have no moral obligation to help those less fortunate? If our wealth, health, position, etc. are not obtained at the direct expense of others, we are doing no "harm" in your system. Yet I would argue that if you were to "love your neighbor", there would be an obligation imposed to give back to the community.

Sorry--that's a lot of questions. I just kind of run-on when I get going. :)

For me, Nature and her processes ('one damn thing after another') are all I believe in.

Religious people who cannot accept the idea of a 'personal' God, also by default accept the primacy of Nature - they simply ascribe to her, a 'consciousness', or 'logos', that supposedly brings 'everything' about, and somehow underlies all that exists.

I spent several years on the question whether the universe was conscious, or not. In the end, I concluded it wasn't, but that in any case it is still the exact same process, that we all have to get 'in tune' with. The 'mind' of the universe - if it is not a 'personal' deity - is by definition utterly transcendent of, and totally indifferent towards humanity, indeed all life. It can offer no 'rules' for living, and no 'reward' other than the experience of blissful happiness/awareness of being fully alive - and the possibility that this bliss may be an eternal one in the hereafter.

'Morality' should be based therefore, ideally, on an absolute freedom from the 'obligation' to give something to another if we choose not to, except the fundamental one to leave harmless individuals alone to find their own way to the bliss experience. What I would like ultimately is for everybody to be able to stand as completely alone as humanly possible, 'dancing' - as the Buddhists put it - 'in the void'.

Personally, I do not see anything in this sort of thinking that cancels out such 'good' things as compassion, neighbourliness and empathy. It allows me to not only care for those 'of my kind', it extends the boundaries of my respect, to include even people I may wish to deride as 'selfish' and 'immoral'.

This is the end result of following the example of unsubjugated, 'transcendent' nature. All humanity is welcomed to the table, including, or perhaps especially, those religious 'commandments' seek to exclude.

Message edited by its author, Jul 22, 2007, 10:38am.

All humanity is welcomed to the table, including, or perhaps especially, those religious 'commandments' seek to exclude.

Actually, that's quite a good summary of the message of Jesus Christ, who invited the excluded to his fellowship and condemned hypocritical and judgemental religious observance. It is an unfortunate side effect of human nature (which finds virtue boring) that the Pharisees and excluders in the Church seem to make more noise than those who are quietly producing and sharing the wine of the Kingdom in the less brightly-lit corners.

Should I exercise my absolute freedom from obligation by ignoring the baby next time he cries when I'm busy?

the possibility that this bliss may be an eternal one in the hereafter

You still think the afterlife is worth hankering after, even though you've discarded every other vestige of belief in the spiritual? Whereas I think the light of Christ is worth following even though I'm distinctly sceptical about the hereafter.

I don't believe there is any afterlife worth hankering after. I was pointing out that when I experienced the 'spirit' (so-called) underlying all reality, I was (almost) totally convinced I was eternal, immortal, indestructible and infinite. I had read nothing about it, I had not given it a thought in my life, I had only heard the word 'soul', and it seemed to fit the experiences I had had perfectly. I was in reality only a soul/spirit/consciousness - all else was an absolute illusion. As I have said elsewhere, it took four years to think myself out of this belief, yet it still lingers, however shyly, however much my rational mind rejects it.

You may be surprised to hear, MyopicBookworm, that I know the 'light of Christ' you talk about. Four years ago, I read the New Testament (having previously read only a few books of the Old, including Genesis), and I'll be damned if I didn't get a tiny, but intense dose of the 'spirit' of Christ. It is still here today, somewhere in me, occasionally I feel the 'presence' of Jesus (after having reading Buddhist scriptures, I also experience the 'presence' of the Buddha), mostly - but not invariably - 'loving', but ALWAYS, because of my rational nature, deeply disturbing.

I have learned from this that there is no such thing as a completely 'secular' person, or a completely 'religious' person; when exposed to different ideas, well presented (I think it highly significant I am attracted to supernatural fiction where 'atmosphere' is all-important to the suspension of disbelief), we can all of us be pulled in directions we would not wish ourselves (consciously) to be pulled in.

I am a 'godless' atheist. I am a secularist, and a rationalist. My 'morals' are all couched in naturalistic terms. That is who and what I truly and proudly am. Yet, if we met, you would find a part of me is also working - in your words - 'producing and sharing the wine of the Kingdom in the less brightly-lit corners' (of the Church). Perhaps in corners where no (external) light ever reaches. William Blake has a couplet that goes: 'God appears and God is light, to those poor souls who dwell in night; but does a human form display, to those who dwell in realms of day'.

I can only believe in the (inner) 'light', which I then find it necessary to rationalize. 'God' is impossible for me to respect, though I find it quite within the bounds of possibility that I may be able to worship (however temporarily) with all my heart (and afterwards feel utterly distraught about it) this non-existent being.

I have in actual fact rejected the spiritual. But it appears I am living proof it never really leaves you. Yet, I am also living proof it does not always gain the upper hand. Many believers have disturbing moments of doubt. I have disturbing moments of 'belief'.

As for the question about your baby, it was a wonderful realization, a few years back, to see that we never 'have to' do anything. We always 'want to' do anything we do, of our own free will. Nobody 'makes us' do anything. We choose to do it.

Message edited by its author, Jul 23, 2007, 12:56pm.