Our discussion is rapidly moving away from naturalism and "evolutionary
morality," and onto other topics. So perhaps after this post or your next
response (if you bother to respond), it will be time to take this to
private e-mail.
You wrote:
> Perhaps what you would call "sinful nature", I would call "animal nature",
> "mammal nature" or even "human nature". But then, I would suggest that we
> have very different attitudes to sin, defined as "theological autonomy" or
> "independence from God". I see such autonomy as desirable, even necessary,
> for people to approach their full potential.
This conclusion follows naturally (though not necessarily) from your
belief that God does not exist. If God does exist and the Bible is
revelation, then the natural conclusion is that our full potential is
possible only in relation to our creator.
-----
> LH> I suggest that if we're looking for God's supernatural
> >influence on morality, we look for it in the learned/social component of
> >our moral IDEALS.
DM> This is reasonable *IF* you trust alleged divine revelation. I don't, since
> I believe it is too easily counterfeited or misinterpreted.
> LH>Whether I can prove to you that there IS an affect of God's revelation on
> >the development of society's moral ideals is, to say the least,
> >problematic.
DM> The odds approach certainty that you would be wasting your time, unless you
> had a way of undermining my deep scepticism about the authenticity of
> alleged divine revelation generally. If I accepted the authenticity of
> divine revelation, your claims about the effect on human morality would be a
> small hurdle.
Yes, you are exactly right. I'm glad we can quickly find our essential
points of disagreement. :-)
DM> What I see happening here is that certain people produce an effect on other
> people's moral codes by feigning divine revelation or erroneously
> misinterpreting an unusual personal experience as divine revelation and
> transmitting it socially.
Yes, lots of people have done that and continue to do that. But the
existence of conterfeits does not prove that the real thing does not
exist. The only reason people bother to counterfeit money and art is
because the real thing DOES exist and is valuable.
-------------------
>LH> I would point your attention to the "religious
> >affections" described so well by Jonathan Edwards in his book by that
> >title. What is the source of "truly gracious and holy affections ...
> >grounded in the excellent nature of divine things, not self-interest"
> >found in so many people? (In other words, why do some people place their
> >highest values and affections, not on family/clan survival, but upon the
> >perceived qualities on a transcendent being?)
DM> Hope of future huge reward, e.g. eternal life; hope of avoidance of
> punishment, e.g. disease, eternal torment; hope of a present hotline to a
> God that is, to some people, little more thn a divine Santa Claus.
Jonathan Edwards' main point was that true "religious affections" do not
spring from the hope of future reward. They are a genuine valuing of
divine qualities, above all other things, APART from any self-interest.
To the extent to which I can honestly evaluate myself and others, I would
say that Edwards was right; I do see those affections in myself and my
believing friends. I think it is on this point, if you openly
investigate, that you might find some of that authenticity you seek.
----------------
DM> ...
> I agree 100%. If Jesus is divine, then Christian "oughts" should and will
> displace the "oughts" of other religions that do not have a divine leader.
>
> However, firstly I don't believe that Jesus is/was divine. Secondly, I think
> that the *most* that can be claimed of the New Testament writings is that
> they were written by the followers of the followers of Jesus, more to
> present a viewpoint than to provide a historically accurate description of
> events.
Two more things can be said about the New Testament writings. Most were
written when many eye-witnesses to Jesus' alleged miracles were still
alive. Many of these followers died under torture rather than renounce
their beliefs.
-----------------
>DM> I reject
>> revelation transmitted via "chosen" people as a means of gaining knowledge
>> or understanding, since such revelation is so easily counterfeited that no
>> god worthy of the title would consider such an unreliable method of
>> revealing themselves.
>LH> What good reasons might the Creator have for acting this way? Whole
>> chapters have been written, so I'll leave that discussion for another day.
DM> Whenever you're ready!
I confess that I am speculating here, but I will offer what I believe are
some reasons why God _might_ restrict his supernatural revelation to
certain people (with the command that they share what they have learned),
rather than offering widespread supernatural proof of His existence to
everyone.
God is not so much concerned whether people believe in his existence
_per_se_. God is more concerned with whether people live in obedience to
his commands: to love him and to love each other. It does not
necessarily follow that, if God clearly demonstrates his existence and
power to lots of people, they will all respond in love and obedience. In
fact, it MIGHT be counter-productive in the long run. Let's look at some
historical examples:
1) God rescued the children of Isreal from slavery in Egypt through
supernatural plagues and the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea, and spoke
to them all from Mt. Sinai with such an awesome spectacle that "... they
responded with one voice, 'Everything the Lord has said we will do.'"
(Exodus 24:3) A few weeks later, they were bowing down to a golden calf.
2) Over and over again throughout their history, the children of Isreal
turned to worshipping idols right along side their worship of God, even
though they had the law of Moses, the testimony of righteous judges and
prophets, and the stories of how God had miraculously saved their
ancestors. Even after the prophet Elijah had prayed for a three-year
drought (even King Ahab sullenly acknowledged that Elijah's prayer was the
cause of the drought), and then called down fire from heaven onto an altar
to prove who was the one true God, this did not cause the king or the
people to repent and turn to God; instead, Elijah had to flee for his
life. (I Kings 18 ff)
3) Many people witnessed Jesus' reported miracles of healing. All of the
Isrealites of Jesus' time, particularly the religious leaders, knew that
miracles of healing could only come from the one true God, the God of
Abraham. They believed and understood that miracles MUST be a sign from
God. Yet what was their response? Only a few of Jesus' followers
proclaimed him to be the Messiah, the Son of God. The religious leaders
became jealous, and decided they would have to kill him before he got too
popular and gained too many followers.
4) In the middle ages in Europe, Christianity was the only world-view
option for most people. If you asked any nobleman, scholar, or peasant,
they would have almost certain replied that of course God exists, and of
course He wrote the scriptures and established the church. But although
everyone believed in God's existence, how many of them responded in love
and obedience to Jesus' teachings?
(You may not agree with the historical veracity of the first three
examples as they are recorded in scripture. Even so, you can probably
see the "truth about human nature" within those stories.)
The point of all these examples is this: even if God revealed his
existence and power to EVERYONE, and confirmed that the Bible was His
revelation, that would not ensure that anyone would respond in love and
obedience. Human nature and history confirm this.
The way God operates, most of the time, seems to be thus: He makes his
existence known to people during and after their coming to repentence, not
before. As long as someone is unready and unwilling to examine their
lives to see the extent of their sin and their need for God's redemption,
God (almost never) forces them to see supernatural proof of his existence.
But if someone is genuinely seeking, God offers assurances.
On a related point, if God routinely performed supernatural acts, we would
be strongly tempted to think of God as a "quid pro quo" god. (i.e. If
you do good, God will reward you with health and wealth; if you suffer,
you must have done something bad.) Job's friends (the book of Job) seemed
to think about God this way, and they were reprimanded. Look at the story
of God miraculously feeding the Israelistes in the desert with manna (in
the book Exodus). Do they respond with gratitude and obedience? No, they
start hoarding, and pretty soon grumbling. Look at the story of Jesus
miraculously feeding a large crowd (book of John chapter 6). Did the
crowd respond with gratitude and obedience? No, just a day or two later
they selfishly tried to maneuver Jesus into repeating the miracle for
them.
Rationality is only ONE important aspect of our human nature. God is
interested in our ENTIRE nature. That, I believe, is one reason why God
uses human means to transmit His revelation and uses natural means to
provide for our needs, and why "supernatural reasurrance" comes mostly to
those who are willing to examine and change their nature.
Best wishes,
Loren Haarsma