Mister Emu and Ash Wright: On the best index of good, and its relation to salvation.

[Mister Emu]

Welcome to Religious Forums @Ash Wright , and thank you for agreeing to this discussion.

This debate will be centered on the best index for good. When a moral decision is to be made, what is the best measure by which one can come to the good. If a moral dilemma is present, for example the famous Trolley Problem, wherein an unstoppable trolley is on a path to kill multiple people and you stand by a switch that can send it to kill one, by what methodology do we, or should we, come to the good decision. The decision that ought to be made.

God is the ultimate index for good. God is the alpha index and the omega index, He is the culmination of all legitimate indices of good. And multiple true indices for the good do exist, among them the utilitarian maximal eudaimonia, the reasoned categorical imperative, virtue, the glory of God, and the ineffable way. Common to the human experience, without regard to the ethical framework being operated under, is the understanding that these ethical frameworks can and should be applied broadly to society and the individuals therein. We have an instinctual drive to promote good and suppress evil, that there are heinous behaviors which demand action to prevent and/or punish them. I argue that this commonality in human understanding points towards a fundamental truth of a real and objective good that rests outside of the human subjective experience. A metaphysical force that pushes existence towards a specific state that we call ‘what ought to be’ "this person ought not have been murdered", "this river ought to be clean" etc. This metaphysical underpinning of the notion of good is what we refer to as God. I’d go further and argue that a creator God is the only possible source of an ought state for existence.

Materialistic observation has only, and can only, provide insight into what is and says nothing about what should be. Even an impersonal truth, such as that found in Buddhism, cannot account for directive power, with no steering hand there is only the way of the things as they are. Only a personality can aim, and only a personal God can aim all of existence.

 

[Ash Wright]

The use of human reason in pursuit of the ineffable way is the ultimate human endeavor, and is virtuous separate from the virtue of the glory of God. The specification of human reason is important to the argument at hand because human reason is inherently flawed, like the world, which makes the human’s reason better suited to the world and the impossible moral puzzles it produces. The parable of the logical donkey warns us of the consequences of perfect reason in an imperfect world. If a perfectly logical (and hungry) donkey comes upon two equally appetizing piles of hay, the story goes that he will die of hunger before being able to make a decision. What is a god’s answer to an impossible moral dilemma, in which every choice produces the same amount of pleasure, or pain? The argument stands that these questions are unanswerable, and that such dilemmas would produce contradictions in the omni-god.
Therefore, one must fall back on reason, and personal conscience, in order to meaningfully choose a moralized action. This creates an opportunity for individual and authentic interaction with the world, while the contra, following a godly religion, touts absolutes and encourages assimilation of beliefs. From a moral particularist’s standpoint, the permittance of the individual is crucial to personal development and even enlightenment. While stories like that of Abraham impart the importance of the individual with regard to faith, it is reason to remark that the bulk of organized religion (centered around the omni-god) relies on the preserving of absolutes to maintain authority of the church in question.
The inability of humanity, historically, to come to a conclusive understanding of the the “ought-to-be”, and even the inability of the theist population to do so, points to the absence of a one fundamental truth, rather than its existence. Instead, a comparison could be made between the various ineffable ways and the various governments of the world. Some governments must be distinct from others in substantial ways in order to best serve varying populations. The same is true about moral codes- they must be flexible and able to adapt to different societies and across cultures and heritages. The attitudes toward concepts like death greatly vary throughout history and across the globe. In Tibet before modern medicine, the perception of death was much more positive than the present-day attitude, and the argument holds that this is out of necessity from circumstance. Now take, for instance, a country like present-day Japan, a society plagued by decreasing birth rates and declining populations. The attitude toward death is more grief-based and action-oriented than that of the ancient Tibetans, again out of necessity. This is evidence that it is necessary for moral indices to change across time, space, and culture, and the search for absolute index is a Sisyphean task.

 

[Mister Emu]

This creates an opportunity for individual and authentic interaction with the world, while the contra, following a godly religion, touts absolutes and encourages assimilation of beliefs. From a moral particularist’s standpoint, the permittance of the individual is crucial to personal development and even enlightenment.

I would not say that the determination of the good isn’t also up to you as a person. In fact, I'd suggest that what God does is create the environment where you are afforded the opportunity to recognize the good and turn it into action. Earthly good seems to be most often a necessary conjoining of two wills and powers to bring the world into that ought state.

In any proper moral framework humans are not absolved from developing themselves, and this is no different operating under the auspices of God. As further in the argument I will spell out clearly.

The inability of humanity, historically, to come to a conclusive understanding of the the “ought-to-be”, and even the inability of the theist population to do so, points to the absence of a one fundamental truth, rather than its existence. Instead, a comparison could be made between the various ineffable ways and the various governments of the world. Some governments must be distinct from others in substantial ways in order to best serve varying populations. The same is true about moral codes- they must be flexible and able to adapt to different societies and across cultures and heritages.

You yourself questioned the the validity of reason in an imperfect world, I would suggest we must ask ourselves whether the observation is a result of an inevitable truth or a consequence of the imperfect world we subjectively experience. I suggest that the general sense that there is an ought, which is shared across time and culture combined with the inability of humans to come to consensus is best explained by the perfect Way of the perfect God being recognized by imperfect humans and their perceptual failings causing a dispersion of ideologies. Like white light hitting a prism, the perfect good is refracted into a rainbow.

This does not, however, mean that God is in this an explanation, despite His explanatory power, as opposed to an observed reality being documented. While I do not expect, much less require, that someone find my experiences or the experiences of others compelling, I do make a demand of understanding that my perspective is not one of using God to explain, and that God’s ability to explain supports His existence. I have observed God as the completeness of reason, God the righteous path, God the greatest amount of good, and God the foundation of virtue. In the transcendental unification of these indices, we find God and in God the good that we ought to apply to the world.

Of course, that brings us to the foundational question of good, ‘why should I hold as good the good which God is, or has declared?’ Even if God created existence, and provisions what is good, whether that is His being or His command, why should anyone internalize that as their choice? I believe that God is self-justifying by His existence, He is the greatest pleasure and seeks only a collaborative enjoyment, the best possible outcome in Himself and in His desires for us, Righteous, His aims have no ulterior motives, etc. But, even then, the choice of determining what is good to you is yours, and we all have to come to an axiom that defines how we will order the world.

 

[Ash Wright]

I suggest that the general sense that there is an ought, which is shared across time and culture combined with the inability of humans to come to consensus is best explained by the perfect Way of the perfect God being recognized by imperfect humans and their perceptual failings causing a dispersion of ideologies. Like white light hitting a prism, the perfect good is refracted into a rainbow.

This is an interesting rebuttal, and I suspect that could be applied to theories about the formation of various denominations from a single derivation. However, I maintain that the general sense you mention is perceived, and the fact that the perception is interpreted differently, while it could also be due to human failure, is reflective of the source itself, which in this case would be the creative god.

Just as a non-believer must accept the disciple’s testimony at face value, so must the disciple accept the non-believer’s firsthand knowledge that the god that exists for some does not exist for them.

Therefore, while the argument takes no issue with personal faith and the lifestyle it produces, the issue falls with the organization of these faithful individuals with the purpose of spreading that belief system across the world. After all, if someone truly believes they have found the key to an optimally happy life, it’s not unreasonable for them to possess the desire to share that with the world, but the earlier argument holds that one singular system of belief does not apply perfectly to every soul. Furthermore, it should be noted that the argument does not take a firm atheist stance, rather, it is likely that some underlying force or essence exists, and guides the course of the universe. However, the line is drawn between a force and a personal god that requires worship in exchange for enlightenment. As with the distinction between a solitary believer and a church, there is also a distinction between a creative but otherwise uninvolved force, and a willful god.

In short, while I condone the efforts of individuals to seek salvation through divine faith, I discourage the implications that come with affirming the truth which one or some have experienced to be the truth for all. Which, in a small way, forces me to concede and agree on a different notion- that the ineffable way can present itself in a multitude of iterations, while all still being the way.

 

[Mister Emu]

This is an interesting rebuttal, and I suspect that could be applied to theories about the formation of various denominations from a single derivation. However, I maintain that the general sense you mention is perceived, and the fact that the perception is interpreted differently, while it could also be due to human failure, is reflective of the source itself, which in this case would be the creative god.

Fair enough, while I share the truth as I am able to perceive it because of the joy and enlightenment I see it as having brought me, I accept that when the truth as you have experienced it does not lead you to share in my truth, that this is the way of things as they are. I cannot push you to abandon what you know to be true, and I think I mean that literally in the sense that if you have the subjective understanding of knowledge it would be impossible to make you actually understand otherwise. Nor, as I believe God has not, would I if I could as that would destroy your ability to willfully choose any truth and improve. As I said above, no moral code abrogates the need to for self improvement, for making yourself a better person who seeks good in greater amounts.

In fact, that is precisely what the process of the being of eternal bliss in the afterlife is, we call it Theosis or 'becoming like God', the internalization and implementation of the good, in ever greater amounts. In certain spheres of the truth, there is recognition that God’s good is our good, is the ultimate good for and of all. Then we, seeking good, alter the core of our identity to align with that good in thought and deed. Salvation is necessary for this process by the damage done to our essential character such that we cannot of our own accord become that person without divine intervention. The metaphysical wounds and our knowledge of them in our imperfection mean that the presence of God is painful, thus damnation, caused not by a penal system but our own reaction to the presence of God with us, which allows us no self-deception about who we are and have become.

In short, while I condone the efforts of individuals to seek salvation through divine faith, I discourage the implications that come with affirming the truth which one or some have experienced to be the truth for all.

Just as a non-believer must accept the disciple’s testimony at face value, so must the disciple accept the non-believer’s firsthand knowledge that the god that exists for some does not exist for them.

Precisely, the truth is good, and you must adhere to the truth as you perceive it. Not be forced into the pretense of a belief you do not hold. Because God is a being of love as He is, we are not doomed. He reaches out to us and works with us where we are at. It is only when we know what is good, that it is good, and then reject it completely. Not when we fail. Not when we stop trying. When we actively rebel against what we perfectly know to be perfect. Christianity offers that belief in Christ, His redemptive sacrifice, and calling on Him is the only path for salvation. If we open up to God and offer Him our hearts and souls, in truth and totality, He will mold us into His people, no matter what it takes. However, this is understood in the context of knowledge, if the truth as you understand it is in conflict with this revealed truth you may not be held to it.

On an individual level, this means that, as the Catechism states: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

 

[Ash Wright]

In fact, that is precisely what the process of the being of eternal bliss in the afterlife is, we call it Theosis or 'becoming like God', the internalization and implementation of the good, in ever greater amounts. In certain spheres of the truth, there is recognition that God’s good is our good, is the ultimate good for and of all. Then we, seeking good, alter the core of our identity to align with that good in thought and deed.

I would say that our definitions of salvation and enlightenment are similar in the way each is accomplished and the results each produce. I would say my perception of enlightenment includes the recognition and commitment to the implementation of the good, in whatever capacity the enlightened individual understands and believes about what is good. The notion of completely knowing oneself, knowing the connection between oneself and both the material and metaphysical worlds, and being perfectly content with that connection, this notion is referenced in many theistic descriptions of salvation, and I would even say this notion aligns with your beliefs about salvation as well.

However, where we diverge is your necessity for divine assistance. If this state of being can be reached without (and in some cases in spite of) the omni-god, then the argument must attack the claimed necessity of the omni-god’s gospel. You did espouse your stance on this already, and your assertion of the presence of metaphysical wounds upon our souls is one I am not versed enough to engage in a meaningful debate about, but for the purposes of the rest of my argument, we’ll assume my general disagreement for purposes of disagreements between the type of god that must or can exist.

Conceding that it is a valid and virtuous gospel that nonetheless is helpful in working toward enlightenment, it is asserted that such a gospel is only A way for one to work towards enlightenment, and other paths that offer the same destination are just as valid and virtuous (and may even be just as true).

In conclusion, I would like to thank you for participating in this debate in good faith and good spirit. I hope you’ve realized as much as I have how close many of are stances actually are.

My final thoughts are mainly to reiterate the points I wanted the reader to receive: that morality is not solely based on whether you subscribe to the correct god when making moral choices, that fulfillment and even enlightenment can be achieved secularly, which is not to say that those things can not be achieved with religion, and that individuality is necessary for meaningful moral action.

 

[Mister Emu]

Thank you, as well. It was an enjoyable exercise, and I do see how we are close in many respects, as though standing on opposite banks of a narrow, if deep, river.