Well, that is what I have been trying to do; not *dis*prove the
usefulness of Christian ethics, but prove that there are other,
equally effective, ethical systems out there.
>(more on this
>later).
>Above is stated the argument:
>P: God exists and wants us to behave this way.
>
>C: Therefore, we should behave this way.
>
>The problem with leaving this argument as it is ( or presenting it this way
>for that matter) is that it is incomplete. So to refute this argument
>really does nothing to help the position of non-theists. As I said earlier
>the stated argument simply doesn't call all of the facts into question. The
>premise states that God exists and "wants" us to behave in a certain way.
>The more correct way to put this is God exists and "commands" us to behave
>in certain ways.
OK, then replace "want" in my example with "command". It still leads
to the same result, unless you wish to argue that we must behave
that way simply because God commands us to.
>God's law was not given to plead with us to follow certain
>behavior pattern. It is not to be taken as God saying, "I'd really
>appreciate it if you'd love your neighbor, and love me with all you heart,
>soul and mind." God commands us to behave in certain ways. To command
>something is to require it.
So IOW, we have to follow God because He has all the power. I don't
find that any more logically compelling.
>God requires that we behave in certain ways. If
>we don't behave the way He wishes we will be punished. Why would God punish
>us for not behaving the way He wants? Because God is the Holy and Just
>Standard of Morality. How is it that I know God is the Holy and Just
>Standard of Morality? He has revealed that to me and the rest of the world
>in the pages of the Bible...His persoanl revelation to the world. Since God
>is Holy, He knows what is best for us, He knows what behavior patterns will
>aid us in life more. Since God is Just, He can judge us in righteousness
>when we fail His standards.
I disagree that the God you believe in knows better than me what behavior
patterns are best for me. Some of the tenets of Christian morality make
sense to me, but others don't. I need a logically compelling reason to
believe in them; something more compelling than "might makes right", or
"He knows what's right for you -- don't question Him." Blind submission
to authority has gotten humanity into far too much trouble in the past
for me to accept it as a rational approach to life.
>The next thing that is wrong with the argument is that it is missing a
>premise. the Argument should be stated like this:
>P1: God exists and commands us to behave in certain ways.
>
>P2: We should obey God's commands.
>
>C: Therefore, we should behave in certain ways.
I still find nothing logically compelling about this.
>Generally speaking the second premise "should" be presupposed...but only by
>Christians. We know this to be a fact and stating it is almost redundant to
>us. But when speaking to non-Christians we sometimes forget and comtinue to
>assume that the second premise is common knowledge. I don't think that the
>argument stated in this fashion will cause any logical problems. That is
>not to say that non-theists won't like it, that is a given. The problem
>there is that just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't true.
It's not even a matter of whether or not I like it. It's a matter of
whether it is logical and objective. It isn't.
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
2 + 2 = 5, for very large values of 2.