[Clete]

The issue of whether God is moral or not is an issue that I've noticed being mentioned here and there around the forum, mostly with mindless, reactionary & emotional comments rather than with sober minded methodical thinking. It happens to also be an issue that I've been thinking through for some time and I decided today to put my thoughts on the issue out here for the forum's consideration.

Some of this you'll be familiar with if you read my posts but not all of it. I still consider this a very rough draft. There are issues here that touch on the Euthyphro Dilemma as well as a couple of other things that I could spend some considerable about of time developing but in its current form its already longer than the vast majority of you are willing to actually read and so posting what would be the equivalent to a full chapter of a book would be a waste on a forum of this type.

And by the way, if you post a reply that goes ignored, you can know that it was almost certainly because your response was an example of the typical mindlessness that has been posted on this topic in recent weeks and months. What I'd like is just some intelligent conversation about the issue. I'm not interested in debating it. I'm quite fully persuaded that what I'm presenting here is at least close to the truth. I'm happy to discuss it intelligently and to listen to thoughtful objections and to answer honest questions but I'm not even going to respond to stupidity any longer, on any subject really, but especially on this one.

Enjoy!

Our Moral God

The question of God's morality might, to some, seem a ridiculous question. To some the idea that God might not be moral is so ludicrous a thought that it would be down right blasphemous to even utter it aloud. After all, they say, if God is amoral (i.e. non-moral) then there can be no standard of right and wrong. But to those who take such a position it would come as quite a surprise to discover that there are at least as many, if not more, who think it an equally blasphemous thought to suggest that God is moral. After all, God is not subject to the law! Right?

What is the source of such confusion? Well, there are many possible ways to answer that question, the most obvious of which has to do with the defining of terms and explaining in more detail what it meant when one says that God is, or is not, moral. But I don't believe that the problem can really be solved by a mere analysis of the semantics involved. This is not an issue of sophistry but rather it is a problem of philosophy. There is a more fundamentally philosophical issue involved here that I believe the vast majority of people on both sides of this issue do not understand nor do they even have any inkling of the issue's existence for that matter. The purpose of this essay is to bring this issue to the attention of those on both sides of this issue and to explain how the God we serve is indeed moral but not because He follows or is subject to a set of rules nor because His nature defines morality, which is meaningless, but because God is rational.

In John chapter one we are taught not simply that Jesus is God, nor simply that God became a man, but that God the Son is the Logos of God. The New King James renders the passage this way...

John1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

In this passage, everywhere you see the phrase, "the Word", the Greek word being used is "Logos". It is important to understand what this Greek word means because the use of "Word" as an English translation just doesn't convey what this passage is teaching. Logos conveys the idea of communication or more specifically, discourse and more specifically than that, rational discourse and or rational argument. It is the word from which we get the suffix "-ology", as in Biology, Technology, Climatology, Cosmology, etc. So the study of living things is "Biology" and the processes in a living creature are said to be biological. Notice bio-LOGICAL. This is the meaning conveyed by "Logos". To apply logic to the processes in living things, and thus to understand them, is biology, it is the logos of life.
So now, with this better understanding of the Greek, lets look at this passage again...

John 1:1 In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And Logic became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

Now, there are some who object to such a translation thinking it improper to equate the living God with some abstract concept such as logic. But it should be noted that those who make such an objection never object to God being equated with the abstract concept of "Word", nor are they typically capable of offering any explanation as to what exactly it means to say "the Word was God". In other words, people who object on the grounds of referring to God as an abstraction, typically have no real problem with abstractions so long as the abstraction being used can't be made any sense of at all.
This is, however, quite a new idea to most of those reading this and so let me just cite a couple of others who have used and acknowledge the validity of such a translation. Not that doing so helps to prove anything other than that this teaching is not unique to, nor can it's genesis be attributed to me. Indeed, this idea is as old as Christianity. As evidence of both its veracity and its antiquity, I offer the following quotations, the likes of which there are many...

"...this translation––may not only sound strange to devout ears, it may even sound obnoxious and offensive. But the shock only measures the devout person's distance from the language and thought of the Greek New Testament. Why it is offensive to call Christ Logic, when it does not offend to call him a word, is hard to explain. But such is often the case. Even Augustine, because he insisted that God is truth, has been subjected to the anti–intellectualistic accusation of "reducing" God to a proposition. At any rate, the strong intellectualism of the word Logos is seen in its several possible translations: to wit, computation, (financial) accounts, esteem, proportion and (mathematical) ratio, explanation, theory or argument, principle or law, reason, formula, debate, narrative, speech, deliberation, discussion, oracle, sentence, and wisdom.
Any translation of John 1:1 that obscures this emphasis on mind or reason is a bad translation. And if anyone complains that the idea of ratio or debate obscures the personality of the second person of the Trinity, he should alter his concept of personality. In the beginning, then, was Logic." - Gordon H. Clark; Against The World. The Trinity Review, 1978-1988. [God And Logic, Gordon H. Clark, p. 52-56] John W. Robbins, Editor.

"For not only among the Greeks did reason (Logos) prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also among the Barbarians were they condemned by Reason (or the Word, the Logos) Himself, who took shape, and became man, and was called Jesus Christ;" Justin Martyr: The First Apology of Justin Chapter V

Logos n. < Gr, a word: see Logic 1 Gr. Philos. reason, thought of as constituting the controlling principle of the universe and as being manifested by speech 2 Christian Theol. the eternal thought or word of God, made incarnate in Jesus Christ: John 1 - Webster's Dictionary

Okay, so what's the point? God is Logic, Logic is God - so what? Well, lets suppose someone, for whatever reason (uh hem), rejects the Bible, Jesus Christ and the whole concept of God, a true atheist attempts to think through the issues of life and does so in such a way so as to stay as true to the principles of logic and sound reason as he possibly can. If the Living God is Logic and a person uses logic in such an endeavor, what conclusions then should this person come too? Should they not be at least very similar to the teachings which are found in Scripture? If such an atheist existed and made such an attempt to use reason to formulate his philosophy of life, would he not be using God to formulate it, even if by accident and in ignorance?

Now, bearing that point in mind, I want to look at John 1 again. This time verse 4...

John 1:4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

I find it interesting that the issue of life is brought up in the context of the Logos of God. It interests me because if one were to attempt to contemplate a purely rational basis for morality, life would have to be a necessary starting point because it is only to the living that issues of morality apply or matter. Ayn Rand, just the sort of atheist to which I've been referring, put it this way...

"...the first question is "Does man need values at all—and why?" According to Rand, "it is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible," and, "the fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do." Rand writes: "there is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action... It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death..." The survival of the organism is the ultimate value to which all of the organism's activities are aimed, the end served by all of its lesser values." Ayn Rand (1964). The Virtue of Selfishness (paperback ed.). p. 13 & 18 New York: Signet.

Rand also said,

"Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive he must act and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch––or build a cyclotron––without a knowledge of his aim and the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think." Rand, Ayn (1992) [1957]. Atlas Shrugged (35th anniversary ed.). p. 1012 New York: Dutton

Now, according to Rand, rationality is the primary virtue in ethics (i.e. morality). For rand ethics is...

"the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action." Rand, Ayn (1964). The Virtue of Selfishness (paperback ed.). p. 25 New York: Signet.

All of which, if God is Logic, is entirely consistent with the common Christian teaching that morality is derived from and defined by God's character. Which, by the way, is not to say the Ayn Rand was a godly person, nor that her philosophical conclusions were all correct. On the contrary, her rejection of the existence of God lead to a great many errors, some of which are disastrously grievous. But, nevertheless, to the degree she stayed true to reason, her conclusions remained close to the truth, which means, by definition, that they remained close to God and His truth as taught in the pages of Scripture.

Rand's quintessential statement on morality is this ...

"Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil." Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged

Now, since we now know that God is Reason, what could an atheist say that would be any more in line with the teachings of Scripture than that!?

And so, in conclusion, I attest and believe that I have now shown that we can find the answer to the confusion surrounding the morality of God in the fact that God is Logic. Morality is not simply defined by God's character as many Christians suppose, but rather that which is moral is so because it is rational, which is the equivalent of saying that what is moral is so because it is God like. To say that God is moral, is not to say that God has a list of rules He must follow but simply that God is Life and that He is consistent with Himself and therefore acts in way which is proper to life. To say that God is moral is to say that God is rational. A non-moral God would be non-rational and therefore non-personal, non-relational, non-thinking, non-living, non-real!

God is real, therefore God is rational, therefore God is moral!

Resting in Him,
Clete

(Originally written on 3/24/2012)

[Tambora]

I'm reading over this, Clete.
Thanks.
I may comment after I have read it and thought about it.

I already see a couple of very good points you have made from the little I have read so far.

[Clete]

Originally Posted by Tambora

I'm reading over this, Clete.
Thanks.
I may comment after I have read it and thought about it.

I already see a couple of very good points you have made from the little I have read so far.

Cool!

I look forward to finding out what you think about it.

[glorydaz]

I like it. God is the standard on which we base morality.

This puts me in mind of Romans 1:19-20 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Isn't true Logic the Wisdom of God?

Proverbs 3:19
The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens.

[Clete]

Originally Posted by glorydaz

I like it. God is the standard on which we base morality.

This puts me in mind of Romans 1:19-20 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Isn't true Logic the Wisdom of God?

Proverbs 3:19
The LORD by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens.

If you start looking for it, you see this concept all over the place in scripture, especially in Proverbs and Psalms.

[zippy2006]

Interesting post Clete. Forgive the pithy reply, the topic deserves more time than I am able to give:

Originally Posted by Clete

John 1:1 In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God.

Logic is certainly a possible translation of Logos, especially in the Greek culture. I think it is a valid one too, and many of the early Christians pointed this out and saw in this and Exodus 3:14 the convergence of philosophy and religion. So I agree, but...

This falls short of what the word means. It also means communication, or language, namely the message from God: Christ. Not only is the Word logical, but it is meaningful. I think that should be kept in mind, but your argument holds assuming God is logic, even if He is much more.

I find it interesting that the issue of life is brought up in the context of the Logos of God. It interests me because if one were to attempt to contemplate a purely rational basis for morality, life would have to be a necessary starting point because it is only to the living that issues of morality apply or matter. Ayn Rand, just the sort of atheist to which I've been referring, put it this way...

"...the first question is "Does man need values at all—and why?" According to Rand, "it is only the concept of 'Life' that makes the concept of 'Value' possible," and, "the fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do." Rand writes: "there is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence—and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not: it depends on a specific course of action... It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death..." The survival of the organism is the ultimate value to which all of the organism's activities are aimed, the end served by all of its lesser values." Ayn Rand (1964). The Virtue of Selfishness (paperback ed.). p. 13 & 18 New York: Signet.

Rand also said,

"Man's mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive he must act and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch––or build a cyclotron––without a knowledge of his aim and the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think." Rand, Ayn (1992) [1957]. Atlas Shrugged (35th anniversary ed.). p. 1012 New York: Dutton

Now, according to Rand, rationality is the primary virtue in ethics (i.e. morality). For rand ethics is...

"the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action." Rand, Ayn (1964). The Virtue of Selfishness (paperback ed.). p. 25 New York: Signet.

All of which, if God is Logic, is entirely consistent with the common Christian teaching that morality is derived from and defined by God's character. Which, by the way, is not to say the Ayn Rand was a godly person, nor that her philosophical conclusions were all correct. On the contrary, her rejection of the existence of God lead to a great many errors, some of which are disastrously grievous. But, nevertheless, to the degree she stayed true to reason, her conclusions remained close to the truth, which means, by definition, that they remained close to God and His truth as taught in the pages of Scripture.

Rand's quintessential statement on morality is this ...

"Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil." Ayn Rand: Atlas Shrugged

Now, since we now know that God is Reason, what could an atheist say that would be any more in line with the teachings of Scripture than that!?

First we should ask, "Does logic/reason define morality?" The history of ethics and morality shows that Rand's view is a drop in a bucket (personally I think Rand goes astray since we are not at all content with survival, life is more than that). But regardless, the views go astray because of differing metaphysics, or first principles of being. Given differing sets of presuppositions, differing moral systems follow quite naturally and logically. Either way, without certain grounding principles or values, there is no apparent connection between reason and morality. Good Christian moral systems such as natural law theory do ground morality in reason and God, but it is hard to say whether reason itself can get us these initial axioms--history certainly seems to doubt it, though I suppose it is possible.

Morality is not simply defined by God's character as many Christians suppose, but rather that which is moral is so because it is rational, which is the equivalent of saying that what is moral is so because it is God like.

Criticism: Euthyphro's dilemma is at best pushed back a step--I don't think it helps us there.

I also have a personal objection to clinging full-stop to this understanding. God is Love, and that is why He is moral. Reason/logic at best tell us what to do, but not how to do it, and I'm not even sure it always tells us what to do, for Rand or any other philosopher would balk at someone who says the cross is rational. The cross, faith, agape, our hope--these things are all rational, but not merely rational. They cannot be gotten to by rationality, and in that sense they are super-rational. If our Christian morality is super-rational, then certainly God is super-rational in the sense that His love does not stop at what is rational, but rather moves from justice to mercy.

To say that God is moral, is not to say that God has a list of rules He must follow but simply that God is Life and that He is consistent with Himself and therefore acts in way which is proper to life. To say that God is moral is to say that God is rational. A non-moral God would be non-rational and therefore non-personal, non-relational, non-thinking, non-living, non-real!

I think this is an important aspect of any authentic Christian morality: it must be able to stand on its own two feet without any reference to evil. God is whole, evil is less than whole. To be moral or to have love is simply to have life, and life to the fullest. They are indistinguishable.

[glorydaz]

Originally Posted by Clete

If you start looking for it, you see this concept all over the place in scripture, especially in Proverbs and Psalms.

Very true.....wisdom, knowledge, understanding and truth...all attributes of God. Man's versions of "logic" can't even come close to the Logos of God.

[Tambora]

I'm loving it too, Clete!

I thought the connection between logic/reason/morality and life was an excellent point.


I also love how you pointed out that morality is based on God's character, and not a list of rules to follow.

I really connected with this point, and want to expound on it a bit at this time.

It reminded me of when the priest fed David the shewbread from the temple.
According to the list of rules (law), only priest were allowed to eat the shewbread.
But the moral, merciful, loving, and logical thing to do in order to sustain David's life was to feed David the shewbread.

Mercy trumped the law!



Excellent thread to study!
Thanks.

[Clete]

Sorry for the delay!

I'll respond to your posts as soon as time allows.

Clete

[Clete]

Originally Posted by zippy2006

Interesting post Clete. Forgive the pithy reply, the topic deserves more time than I am able to give:

Its a good post! Nothing to be sorry about.

Logic is certainly a possible translation of Logos, especially in the Greek culture. I think it is a valid one too, and many of the early Christians pointed this out and saw in this and Exodus 3:14 the convergence of philosophy and religion.

Interestingly if my thesis is correct and God is Logic, then "I am that I am." is as good a way as can be for the person of Logic Himself to state the Law of Identity. If God is Logic then "I am that I am" is the equivalent to "A is A".

So I agree, but...

This falls short of what the word means. It also means communication, or language, namely the message from God: Christ. Not only is the Word logical, but it is meaningful. I think that should be kept in mind, but your argument holds assuming God is logic, even if He is much more.

In my ears, all this sounds like different ways of saying the same thing.
Is there any such thing as true communication that is not also logical and vise-versa?
Is there any such thing as illogical communication that is meaningful or logical communication that is not?

That which turns sounds into speech and speech into the intelligible transmission of ideas is logic.

I don't deny that Logos implies all the things you mention but so does Logic. So far as I can tell, our use of the word logic is pretty close to synonymous with the Greek use of logos. But I'm no Greek scholar so I could be wrong on that one.

First we should ask, "Does logic/reason define morality?"

I don't think it "defines" it, I think that morality follows logically when one begins with rational life as their primary philosophical base. As Rand put it, "That which is proper to life is the good, that which negates it is the evil." So if anything, it is life and that which is proper to it which defines morality.

The history of ethics and morality shows that Rand's view is a drop in a bucket (personally I think Rand goes astray since we are not at all content with survival, life is more than that).

Rand would never agree that we should be "content with survival". On the contrary she says over and over again in her writings that the avoidance of death is not the love of life. Rand was not and I am not suggesting that mere survival is the primary premise upon which morality is based but life itself and one's freedom to live it and live it to the fullest. Thomas Jefferson would have stated the premise as "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". A premise which is, by itself, responsible for the greatest increase in both longevity and standard of living the world has ever seen.

But regardless, the views go astray because of differing metaphysics, or first principles of being. Given differing sets of presuppositions, differing moral systems follow quite naturally and logically.

This is the point I think you missed. It is precisely the first principle of life and more specifically the life of a rational being that rationally spawns a moral code of conduct that would apply to any rational person, whether created or Creator.

Either way, without certain grounding principles or values, there is no apparent connection between reason and morality.

How about the grounding principle of the value of the life of a rational being?

Good Christian moral systems such as natural law theory do ground morality in reason and God, but it is hard to say whether reason itself can get us these initial axioms--history certainly seems to doubt it, though I suppose it is possible.

I agree, but again, it isn't just logic its life that is the issue here. Logic is the means, the value of life is the initial presupposition.

Fortunately for the Christian God is both Life and Logic. A point which I believe not to be coincidental nor trivial.

Criticism: Euthyphro's dilemma is at best pushed back a step--I don't think it helps us there.

I believe my thesis removes the underlying presupposition upon which the dilemma is based.
It isn't that morality is defined by God's nature nor is it that morality is determined by God's fiat command but rather that morality emerges from God's nature as both Life and Logic.

I also have a personal objection to clinging full-stop to this understanding. God is Love, and that is why He is moral.

What is Love if not acting in a manner logically proper to life?

Love is life lived logically.

Reason/logic at best tell us what to do, but not how to do it, and I'm not even sure it always tells us what to do,

Okay, on this point you've definitely gotten it wrong. What else is there to tell us what to do if not sound reason?

Asked another way..

How did you come to the conclusion that reason cannot tell you how to do what you ought to do? (This question answers itself, by the way.)

Every thought in your head comes from reason - every single thought. Reason is the only tool your mind has with which to function. The only variable is the soundness of the reasoning used.

for Rand or any other philosopher would balk at someone who says the cross is rational.

I'm surprised that you said this.
The only people who balk at the cross or any other aspect of the Christian faith as being irrational have bad information as to the particular doctrine in question.
The cross in particular is clearly rational.

The cross, faith, agape, our hope--these things are all rational, but not merely rational. They cannot be gotten to by rationality, and in that sense they are super-rational.

I disagree with you here entirely.

I am not a rationalist in the sense that we human beings can figure out every aspect of what is true purely by the use of our minds and empirical analysis of naturally available data. There is no question that information received from God is a necessary ingredient for a good understand about who God is as well as our condition before Him and His plan of salvation.
Having said that, however, that is only true because we are fallen human beings that do not have access to such information independent of divine revelation. If we did have access to all the pertinent information or once we do have access to it, then the doctrines which follows must follow rationally. There is no such thing as an irrational truth, nor can there be anything super-rational as God Himself is Reason and nothing can be Super-God.

If our Christian morality is super-rational, then certainly God is super-rational in the sense that His love does not stop at what is rational, but rather moves from justice to mercy.

This hurt when I read this. I literally got one of those weird pains you get when you see someone crash their bicycle and go flying over the handle bars to plant their face in the mud. Owch!

Zippy, if there's one thing you've got to understand as a Christian its that justice and mercy are not contradictory concepts!

If God were able to be merciful and not have to worry about the principles of justice being contradicted then were is the need for Christ's death on the cross? Don't you see that it is precisely the cross and Christ's death on it that preserves justice while making mercy possible?
That's the entire point of the cross! That's the reason why the cross is such a foundational and indispensable issue in the Christian faith.

Here's some words to live by....

"Contradictions do not exist. If you think you've found one, check your premises. You'll find that one of them is wrong." - Ayn Rand

And that goes for ANY contradiction!

I think this is an important aspect of any authentic Christian morality: it must be able to stand on its own two feet without any reference to evil. God is whole, evil is less than whole. To be moral or to have love is simply to have life, and life to the fullest. They are indistinguishable.

Indeed! I agree with this ENTIRELY!

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Clete]

Originally Posted by Tambora

I'm loving it too, Clete!

I thought the connection between logic/reason/morality and life was an excellent point.

Thank you for saying so!

I also love how you pointed out that morality is based on God's character, and not a list of rules to follow.

It could be just your wording here but it sounds like you might have missed part of my point here.

My thesis is that God is moral. That's a description of His character and so it cannot be meaningfully stated that morality is based on God character. It would be like saying that circles are circular because they are round. Rather uninformative, wouldn't you agree?

What I'm saying is far more controversial that what your statement suggests. What I'm saying is that if you begin with the preservation and promotion of the life of a rational being as your foundation and proceed from that rationally you will have a moral code of conduct that is all but completely identical to the Christian moral code. I'm saying that atheists can, for the most part, get morality right. That there is, in fact, a basis for morality that people can use without belief in God. They can understand what is moral for the same reason they can understand that both crops and steam engines need water and that neither a good crop nor a working steam engine nor a moral code is a miracle but rather the product of a thinking mind.

The key to what I'm driving at is more than just that though. Its also that when atheists use reason they borrow from the Christian worldview. That they are merely benefiting from those aspects of reality that they have chosen to acknowledge (i.e. the fact that logic and reason work and that they are rational beings who cannot live without reason) in spite of their having rejected other aspects of that same reality (i.e. the existence of God, the very source and incarnation of the reason by which they choose to live).

Its sort of a presuppositional argument for existence of objective morality, if you will.

I really connected with this point, and want to expound on it a bit at this time.

It reminded me of when the priest fed David the shewbread from the temple.
According to the list of rules (law), only priest were allowed to eat the shewbread.
But the moral, merciful, loving, and logical thing to do in order to sustain David's life was to feed David the shewbread.

Mercy trumped the law!

Awesome! Terrific point!

The law was made for man (i.e. a rational being) not man for the law!

Interestingly, the show bred law and other religious laws like it were never intended as issues of morality but of rituals intended to teach Israel about God's plan as well as to keep them separated from other nation. Moral law never conflicts with itself the way religious laws can. If, for example the eighth day of a male child's life falls on a Sabbath, the Sabbath law against physical work was in conflict with the law of circumcision. Circumcision was considered superior and so the child was circumcised on the eighth day regardless of what day it fell on. But more laws cannot conflict in this way. You could never find yourself in a situation where you have to rape someone in order to keep from murdering them, or where you had to rob someone to keep from committing adultery with his wife.

But that's a subject for another thread!


Resting in Him,
Clete

[Sealeaf]

Generally excellent. I am however left with a feeling that God has been defined as what He truely is, but as not as He completely is. A bit like saying the ocean is water and water is H2O, so the ocean is H2O. It is true but not comprehensively true. The ocean is also fish, tiny plankton and great whales. It is bright sparkling waves and deep, cold currents. The Ocean is beautiful and terrible, simple and mistifying. So it is also with God. To say God is logic is true, but God is also beauty and God is also love.

[quip]

Originally Posted by Clete

To say that God is moral is to say that God is rational. A non-moral God would be non-rational and therefore non-personal, non-relational, non-thinking, non-living, non-real!

God is real, therefore God is rational, therefore God is moral!

Resting in Him,
Clete

(Originally written on 3/24/2012)

I disagree that rational = moral.

It may be a rational course of action to kill a man who is attempting to do the same to you. Is this moral?

It's rational to not believe in God (thus not follow His word). Do you consider this moral?

To someone living under sharia law... its rational to follow the teachings of Allah/Koran; not the God of Christianity. Is this moral?

How do you rationally explain the vast amount of non-rational evil that God allows to permeate throughout our world?

[Clete]

Originally Posted by quip

I disagree that rational = moral.

On what basis? Philosophically speaking, I mean.

Based on your attempted counter examples, my guess is that you don't understand what is meant by "rational".

The word "rational" above links to a great article on the necessity and nature of logic. In it you'll find the following quotation...

If the contents of the Bible did not correspond with the truths which God has revealed in his external
works and the constitution of our nature, it could not be received as coming from Him, for God cannot
contradict himself. Nothing, therefore, can be more derogatory to the Bible than the assertion that its
doctrines are contrary to reason. The assumption that reason and faith are incompatible; that we must
become irrational in order to become believers is, however it may be intended, the language of infidelity;
for faith in the irrational is of necessity itself irrational....We can believe only what we know, i.e., what we
intelligently apprehend. - Charles Hodge

It may be a rational course of action to kill a man who is attempting to do the same to you. Is this moral?

Yes, of course it is.

It's rational to not believe in God (thus not follow His word). Do you consider this moral?

No, it is not rational is reject the existence of God. That's just the point of the opening post.

To someone living under sharia law... its rational to follow the teachings of Allah/Koran; not the God of Christianity. Is this moral?

It is not rational to follow a god that does not exist.
It might be consistent to "follow" a false god if you've been deceived into believing in it but consistency with a false premise is not rational.

How do you rationally explain the vast amount of non-rational evil that God allows to permeate throughout our world?

Free will.

If evil (i.e. the rejection of God) were not possible, loving Him would be meaningless. God is capable of ending the evil but only at the cost of the human race's existence as we know it. Something that will happen in due time. (2 Peter 3:1-9)

Resting in Him,
Clete

[Clete]

Originally Posted by Sealeaf

Generally excellent. I am however left with a feeling that God has been defined as what He truely is, but as not as He completely is. A bit like saying the ocean is water and water is H2O, so the ocean is H2O. It is true but not comprehensively true. The ocean is also fish, tiny plankton and great whales. It is bright sparkling waves and deep, cold currents. The Ocean is beautiful and terrible, simple and mistifying. So it is also with God. To say God is logic is true, but God is also beauty and God is also love.

Beauty and love are both meaningless without reason (as is everything else I suppose).
Mindless art is stupidity.
Causeless love is meaningless.

Having said that, I agree with your primary point.

Job 9:10 He does great things past finding out, Yes, wonders without number.

Romans 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!

Resting in Him,
Clete