Board index ‹ Morality

[J Lord]

You can't say God is the source of morality if god's morality derives from secular morality.

It is common for secular people to say that their morality is a concept based on a concern for human well being. This idea is what I am calling secular morality.

It is common for Christians to say that their morality is based on God's laws, or God's rules, or God's mind, or God's nature, or something along these lines.

But if God's moral rules or moral nature is based on a concern for well being, then it would be flawed to say that God is the source of morality. God would be just applying the logic of secular morality, so he wouldn't be the source of morality.

God could still be the ultimate most trustworthy moral authority as he could use his omnipotence to always know what is best in terms of human well being. But this would just make him perfect in his application of secular morality, not the source of morality itself.

So if God's rules are just his application of secular morality we would expect God's morality to always line up with a concern for human well being. We would expect that his moral judgments would always align with what is best in terms of human well being. For example, God says do not murder because he knows that murder is detrimental to the victim, their family, their society as whole, and almost always to the murderer as well. So God says it's immoral because he knows it's detrimental to human well being. He's just applying secular logic.

Whereas is God is a separate source of morality we would expect to see some divergence from secular morality. There should be some instances where God's morality would dictate that something harmful to well being would be morally good (or conversely that something beneficial to well being would be morally bad). But are there actually any examples of this?

If there are no known examples of anything God considers both morally good and detrimental to human well being (or vise versa) then I think it is reasonable to conclude that God is just applying secular morality. Without any knows examples there is no way to distinguish secular morality from God's morality and that would make it reasonable to conclude they are the same.

So this leads to the question for Christians: Is there any example of something that you think God views as good and that you also think God views as being detrimental to human well being (or vise versa)?

I don't claim to be able to know all the possible examples or scenarios people can think up, but since the rules of the forum require the person posting to take a position on the topic, I will for the sake of argument assert that there are no such cases and that God's morality is therefore just an application of secular morality. And my way of supporting this position will be by responding to anyone claiming to have such an example, or anyone pointing out any other flaws with the reasoning of this post.

[jimwalton]

I don't contend that God's morality derives from secular morality, so your case is suspect from the onset. God' source of morality is what is intrinsic to His being and is not dependent on any standard or source for its existence.

> But if God's moral rules or moral nature is based on a concern for well being, then it would be flawed to say that God is the source of morality.

I don't contend that God's moral rules or moral nature are based on a concern for well-being. They are based instead on what is ultimately true. As they play themselves out, they indubitably have a lot to do with well-being, but that is neither their ground nor purpose. It's more a case of "it is because that's the way it is."

In addition, the Bible is not intended to be a moral guide. Instead of conceiving of a moral system as analogous to laws, obedience, and crimes, it is more accurate to conceive of morality in the Bible as analogous to the category of health. In today's Western culture, few things are considered as important as good health, which requires specifications of diet, nutrients, exercise, nutrition, etc. Doctors and researchers labor continually to determine what will lead to health. Frustration results when doctors give contradictory advice: are eggs good or bad for you? Does Vitamin C really fight colds? Even in today's science, it is still difficult to provide an unambiguous list of specific guidelines for all.

It would complicate matters significantly and prove utterly frustration and unreliable to look to the Bible to derive universally applicable principles for good health. The Bible's authors knew no such science and God has offered no revelation concerning how to achieve good health (though we would not therefore conclude the idea of good health is irrelevant).

Likewise, we might have good reason to maintain that God is interested in ethical behavior, but if we want to pursue that goal, the Bible doesn't provide unambiguous guidance to it.

As you can tell, I see your premises as faulty, and therefore are leading you in misdirections and to false conclusions

> Is there any example of something that you think God views as good and that you also think God views as being detrimental to human well being (or vise versa)?

Judgment for sin. God frequently takes a bad rap for judging people for their sin that is perceived as detrimental to human well being, not to mention fairness. As far as "vice versa," the popular conception of same sex relationships is perceived by many to contribute to human well being, whereas God labels it as detrimental.

[J Lord]

> Judgment for sin. God frequently takes a bad rap for judging people for their sin that is perceived as detrimental to human well being, not to mention fairness.

I don't think I see what you mean. Are you saying that the act of making moral judgments is itself detrimental to human wellbeing but morally good?

> As far as "vice versa," the popular conception of same sex relationships is perceived by many to contribute to human well being, whereas God labels it as detrimental.

Yes, but God is merely prohibiting that which he knows to be detrimental. He is using principles of secular morality to label something immoral because he knows it is detrimental to human well being. Humans who disagree are operating under the same principles of secular morality, but have reached a different factual conclusion about how homosexuality influences human well being.

[jimwalton]

> Are you saying that the act of making moral judgments is itself detrimental to human wellbeing but morally good?

Yeah, I would guess I'd agree with that, except that it would say the act of making moral judgments is perceived as detrimental to human wellbeing even though it is morally good.

For instance, people are full of disdain for God because of the flood. They claim He is violent, cruel, unfair, and it was just plain wrong. The biblical text claims that the culture was irredeemably corrupt and that the only way to prevent total human self-destruction was to reduce the region's population to a guy with integrity and morals and sort of start over. (I don't believe the flood was global, by the way.) People perceive the flood as detrimental to human wellbeing, but the Bible views it as morally good.

> He is using principles of secular morality to label something immoral because he knows it is detrimental to human well being.

What makes you think God is using principles of secular morality? What evidence do you have that secular morality was not only His grounds for action but also His standard for evaluation?

[J Lord]

> except that it would say the act of making moral judgments is perceived as detrimental to human wellbeing even though it is morally good.

Then there is no contradiction. God is applying principles of secular morality and doing what is best for human well being. The fact that humans don't see the benefit is irrelevant.

> What makes you think God is using principles of secular morality?

The fact that Christians cannot produce a single example where God's morality does not align with principles of secular morality. If there is no effective difference between secular morality and what Christians call God's morality, then it is reasonable to conclude that God is applying the principles of secular morality to determine his moral laws.

[jimwalton]

> God is applying principles of secular morality and doing what is best for human well being.

I would assert, instead, that secular morality at times reflects the goodness of God, which is inevitable since morality by any name must at times include what is good. There is no indication in the Bible or in any sense that God is apply principle of secular morality. When god does what is best for human wellbeing, that's an act of wisdom, love, and purpose. The fact that secular morality also acts toward human wellbeing shows that it is borrowing capital from Christianity. Remember, God was there first; secular morality came later.

> The fact that Christians cannot produce a single example where God's morality does not align with principles of secular morality.

I gave you one. Two, actually. But it doesn't surprise me that secular morality often lines up with God's character, since humans have somewhat of a common understanding of what "good" is. Since God was there first and secular morality later, it's exactly opposite of what you're claiming. So I'll ask you: can you give me a single example where a principle of secular morality preceded God's morality? If you can't, then it is reasonable to conclude that secular morality reflects God rather than that God is applying the principles of secular morality to determine His moral laws.

[J Lord]

> I gave you one. Two, actually.

No, you gave instances where you think God prohibits that which is detrimental to human well being. That is what we would expect if God were following secular morality. To disprove what I am saying you would need to provide an example where God's doesn't appear to be following principles of secular morality. So it would have to be a situation where God knows something is detrimental to human well being but still declares it morally good (or vise versa).

> can you give me a single example where a principle of secular morality preceded God's morality?

If God's rules always align with his application of secular morality, then God's morality is identical to morality based on concern for human well being. So neither would precede the other.

[jimwalton]

> provide an example where God's doesn't appear to be following principles of secular morality.

God NEVER follows principles of secular morality. You want an example; here it is: EVERYTHING. You might as well ask why God chose to be non-corporeal. He didn't choose it, it's what He is by nature. God doesn't follow secular morality; God is good by His very nature.

> If God's rules always align with his application of secular morality,

You're still backwards. Secular morality conforms to God's goodness, not vice versa. God was first.

> God's morality is identical to morality based on concern for human well being

You're still backwards. Our human understandings of morality conform to God, not vice versa. God was first.

You still have no evidence, let alone proof, that morality came first and God second. It's a false assumption, and your whole case is built on it.

[J Lord]

> God NEVER follows principles of secular morality.

Yet his rules are always consistent with the theory that he is applying secular morality based on human well being.

If you are trying to figure out someone's moral views and in every instance their position is indistinguishable from secular morality, it would be reasonable to assume they are following the principles of secular morality (either knowingly or unknowingly) when reaching moral conclusions.

I am applying the same logic to God. If all his moral views are consistent with with his understanding of human well being, this is good evidence that he is following the standard of secular morality (which I defined as concern for well being).

[jimwalton]

> Yet his rules are always consistent with the theory that he is applying secular morality based on human well being.

As I have mentioned several times, to no avail, you have it backwards. God is not applying secular morality; secular morality, instead, borrows from and appropriates standards of goodness found in God. God was first; secularism later.

> If you are trying to figure out someone's moral views and in every instance their position is indistinguishable from secular morality, it would be reasonable to assume they are following the principles of secular morality (either knowingly or unknowingly) when reaching moral conclusions.

You're backwards. If you're trying to figure out where principles of secular morality came from, you only need to look at the person of God and you'll see them there. Secular morality derives its practices from standards that have been in existence from time immemorial.

> I am applying the same logic to God. If all his moral views are consistent with with his understanding of human well being, this is good evidence that he is following the standard of secular morality (which I defined as concern for well being).

You have reversed the logic. You have it backwards. God was first; He is not following standards of secular morality. Secular morality is deriving principles and practices from what God is like and has been like from eternity past, long before humans existed and long before they practiced secular morality.

In ancient days, there was no such thing as "secular" morality. Everything that happened was perceived to be the work of the gods. There was no distinction between sacred and secular because all things were sacred. There was no division between natural and supernatural because the work of the gods was seen to infuse all things. Any distinctions of natural and supernatural or sacred and secular are modern constructs to divest God's involvement in life. And on that basis you have the audacity to assert that God is just copying secularism. Your case simply doesn't hold water.