Can God be moral?

[Trailblazer]

Thanks for that I do the best I can, that must be enough

It's always interesting hearing your views from the Bahai perspective, because as you know, I actually agree with a lot of the thoughts and goals that it promotes. Obviously as you know I take the humanistic view, which basically share a lot of the same ideas, but logically without a God as the driving force

Despite my limited knowledge of the Bahai faith and deep workings, at least to me it seems to have some noble goals.

It does have noble goals but it has “some” of the same problem s that Christianity has, namely trying to explain how a loving God would allow so much suffering, especially animal suffering, which cannot be explained away.

Im probably leaning towards disagreeing with you on this one, because it doesn't seem to me, that religions are especially interested in this, but rather they care more about accepting each others views. Which is good.

But for it to happen, I think we would need divine intervention. My guess is, that we will see a change towards more people simply referring to themselves as believers of some kind, whether that is in a creator of some sort, an afterlife, might be a God or simply that there is more to the Universe than meets the eye. So quite undefinable in that sense, but much more of a personal meaning with life or existences or what you want to call it.

I think it is possible that people will come to realize that there is only one God and one eternal religion of God at which time they will all want to be part of one religion… In the following passage the clouds are the veils that prevent people from seeing the truth, that there is only one God and one eternal religion of God.

“The day is approaching when the intervening clouds will have been completely dissipated, when the light of the words, “All honor belongeth unto God and unto them that love Him,” will have appeared, as manifest as the sun, above the horizon of the Will of the Almighty.” From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 306

On the other hand it is possible there might be some kind of divine intervention and God will be the one removing the veils, before everyone will believe that there is only one God and people accept that all religions as one.

“He Who is the Eternal Truth knoweth well what the breasts of men conceal. His long forbearance hath emboldened His creatures, for not until the appointed time is come will He rend any veil asunder. His surpassing mercy hath restrained the fury of His wrath, and caused most people to imagine that the one true God is unaware of the things they have privily committed. By Him Who is the All-Knowing, the All-Informed! The mirror of His knowledge reflecteth, with complete distinctness, precision and fidelity, the doings of all men.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 204

As you can probably guess, I don't really care if the world as such is better off or not in that sense, but rather if it's true or not. For me personally, and I probably told you this already in one of our countless chats, is that I aim towards believing as many true things as possible and try to be as honest towards the evidence as possible, and just see where it leads. Obviously a lot of mistakes is bound to happen, but those will have to be corrected along the way.

/quote]
This might surprise you, but I also don't really care if the world as such is better off or not but rather I care if it's true or not. If the Baha’i Faith was not true then it would be a false religion so that would mean that either some other religion (or religions) is (are) true or there is no God at all. So if it was not true we would need to determine what is true rather than trying to fix the world with a false religion.

A completely different thing, which was a video I saw yesterday by another atheist, which in my opinion have some very good and sound arguments for his positions, while being very respectful at the same time. But when I saw it, as I didn't knew what it was about, I instantly thought about you, because it is something that I know you are struggling with a lot. But the video is about what he regards as the biggest problem facing Christianity, its not really aimed at Christianity, its more used as an example and aimed at religions claiming that God is all good and the issue with animal suffering.

So I thought you would find that interesting, so here it is if you want to see it.

Thanks, that was a good video. It was very difficult to watch, but I watched it for your sake.

If I ever had believed that God is loving I would not believe it after watching that.

But I am sorry to say that I do not believe that God is living because I cannot believe what makes no sense at all just because it is written in scriptures. Sure, I believe that God exists, but God cannot be all-loving, not with all the suffering we see in this world. Christians cannot make that work, nor can Baha’is.

The animal suffering is not to mention all the suffering that “some” humans have to endure.

Of course an all-powerful and all-knowing God could have created the world differently, so the fact that God chose to create it KNOWING that humans and animals would suffer through no fault of their own, is very telling. It even says in the Baha’i Writings that only some suffering is caused by human free will choices…

“Some things are subject to the free will of man, such as justice, equity, tyranny and injustice, in other words, good and evil actions; it is evident and clear that these actions are, for the most part, left to the will of man. But there are certain things to which man is forced and compelled, such as sleep, death, sickness, decline of power, injuries and misfortunes; these are not subject to the will of man, and he is not responsible for them, for he is compelled to endure them. But in the choice of good and bad actions he is free, and he commits them according to his own will.” Some Answered Questions, p. 248

And WHY is man forced to endure them? Because God set it up that way.

So what about all the other human suffering to which man is forced and compelled, and what about all the animal suffering?

I found it rather distasteful how that Christian in the video tried to say animals don’t suffer because they do not feel pain. A Baha’i would never say anything that absurd, because we know that animals feel the same pain as humans do…

“Briefly, it is not only their fellow human beings that the beloved of God must treat with mercy and compassion, rather must they show forth the utmost loving-kindness to every living creature. For in all physical respects, and where the animal spirit is concerned, the selfsame feelings are shared by animal and man. Man hath not grasped this truth, however, and he believeth that physical sensations are confined to human beings, wherefore is he unjust to the animals, and cruel.”
Selections From the Writings of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, pp. 158-159

Yet the Baha’is still cannot explain why a loving God created a world in which He knew innocent animals would suffer. The only conclusions I can draw is that either God did not care if animals suffer and was only concerned with accomplishing certain goals for humans and animals are just collateral damage. It is possible that animals have an afterlife but that still does not negate the suffering they endure in this life, nit anymore than a human afterlife negates it. Why am I being asked to love a God who does not love the creatures He created? That is the hundred-dollar question no believer has been able to answer.

 

[Nimos]

It does have noble goals but it has “some” of the same problem s that Christianity has, namely trying to explain how a loving God would allow so much suffering, especially animal suffering, which cannot be explained away.

I really like that you give this problem a lot of thoughts and don't just write it off with some half baked excuse that God work in mysterious ways or that we just don't understand God as a lot of people do, whenever they are faced with questions like these. Because they are truly not easy to justify, and honestly if I could help you answering it, despite being an atheist, I honestly would try to help you. But ill straight up admit that I have no idea of where to even begin with this

A long shot, could be to maybe look at some of the earlier religions, where animals etc. were considered spirits or gods and worshipped or where they paid them respect and maybe see how they dealt with it, maybe that will help, if they even thought about it like that. I have no clue.

I think it is possible that people will come to realize that there is only one God and one eternal religion of God at which time they will all want to be part of one religion… In the following passage the clouds are the veils that prevent people from seeing the truth, that there is only one God and one eternal religion of God.

It sort of already is like that except for the religions that have more gods, but most religions only accept one(or set) of God(s), a few seem to allow for more gods to exists, they just don't agree which God(s) is the only one

So if it was not true we would need to determine what is true rather than trying to fix the world with a false religion.

You almost sound like an atheist

If I ever had believed that God is loving I would not believe it after watching that.

From the stuff I have read that you have posted about these things and your concerns about it, I got the impression that most of these things have already crossed your mind. But its always nice to get another persons perspective on it as well as they might have other thoughts. So I didn't post it in an attempt to try to "convert" you, but simply because I knew this topic is of great interest/concern to you.

I found it rather distasteful how that Christian in the video tried to say animals don’t suffer because they do not feel pain. A Baha’i would never say anything that absurd, because we know that animals feel the same pain as humans do…

Yeah, I agree its not really a sound case he is making here. But to be honest, I think he struggles with it as well, again it's not easy to justify. I think in a lot of debates, or maybe its connected to religions themselves, is this setup that they have created for themselves, with all these absolutes and it comes back and bite them.
Because as an atheist, I have no problem simply saying "I don't know" or "I have no answer for that", because im not bound to claims that something must be absolute true, think about how many issue this simple sentences can cause for religious people. "God is all loving", it's an absolute statement and must be a complete nightmare trying to explain, how all the cruel things we observe in the world fits into that.

Why am I being asked to love a God who does not love the creatures He created? That is the hundred-dollar question no believer has been able to answer.

They have It's your own fault or something, remember God is all good, so you can't blame him.

 

[Trailblazer]

I really like that you give this problem a lot of thoughts and don't just write it off with some half baked excuse that God work in mysterious ways or that we just don't understand God as a lot of people do, whenever they are faced with questions like these. Because they are truly not easy to justify, and honestly if I could help you answering it, despite being an atheist, I honestly would try to help you. But ill straight up admit that I have no idea of where to even begin with this

Don't feel bad, nobody can help me with this but at least you understand and have empathy and that goes a long way!

It sort of already is like that except for the religions that have more gods, but most religions only accept one(or set) of God(s), a few seem to allow for more gods to exists, they just don't agree which God(s) is the only one

What a mess! ~ I never wonder why atheists are atheists.

You almost sound like an atheist

That's because I almost am one.
Don't tell God on me though...

From the stuff I have read that you have posted about these things and your concerns about it, I got the impression that most of these things have already crossed your mind. But its always nice to get another persons perspective on it as well as they might have other thoughts. So I didn't post it in an attempt to try to "convert" you, but simply because I knew this topic is of great interest/concern to you.

Yeah, I know you are not trying to convert me, you were just sharing. That video is a keeper so I put it in my back pocket.

Yeah, I agree its not really a sound case he is making here. But to be honest, I think he struggles with it as well, again it's not easy to justify. I think in a lot of debates, or maybe its connected to religions themselves, is this setup that they have created for themselves, with all these absolutes and it comes back and bite them.
Because as an atheist, I have no problem simply saying "I don't know" or "I have no answer for that", because im not bound to claims that something must be absolute true, think about how many issue this simple sentences can cause for religious people. "God is all loving", it's an absolute statement and must be a complete nightmare trying to explain, how all the cruel things we observe in the world fits into that.

"God is all loving", it's an absolute statement and must be a complete nightmare trying to explain, how all the cruel things we observe in the world fits into that."

They cannot explain it and still be rational so they defer to beliefs, it's rather sad.

You have more empathy for Christians trying to make it work for a loving God than I do, but them as you said I am in a religion that teaches that God is loving so is more difficult for me.

They have It's your own fault or something, remember God is all good, so you can't blame him.

Yes, that is what they say. If only I would love God then God would love me back, so it is my fault, as if an all-powerful loving could not love me first. No, God can do no wrong, except when He doesn't do anything.

 

[Nimos]

Yes, that is what they say. If only I would love God then God would love me back, so it is my fault, as if an all-powerful loving could not love me first. No, God can do no wrong, except when He doesn't do anything.

This is one of the huge issues, because no matter what, God can't be blamed, If a religious person will maintain that God is all loving, as an absolute statement. Then even with the amount of cruelty and suffering we see in the world, regardless of how much worse and bad it gets, you have accept that things are like that, because they are as optimal as they can get, there is no way around it. The only option is to limit God and argue that he is simply incapable of doing certain things, which prevents him from making things better, but that ruins one of the other absolute statements that also must be true, that God is all powerful.

So to maintain both absolute statements, God must do things the way we see them, because it is the absolute best it can ever be. God is using all of his power to create the most loving environment for humans and animals that is physically and divinely possible. Because in that case, both the statements are arguable correct.

It obviously raises a whole lot of questions, which will cause a lot of other problems. First of all and probably the most obvious one is, why and what is so powerful that it can prevent God from solving animal suffering in another way?
Because we don't know of anything or anyone that is even remotely said to have the power that God have and that can restrict him, and also we have never heard of anyone or anything that is interested in what is going on in the animal kingdom.
God, at least according to the bible, gave the animals to humans so we could rule over them. But that doesn't explain animal suffering in the wilds.

So even when God doesn't do anything, it is the absolute best it can be.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The problem with the Bible is that men wrote it, not God, so there is no reason to believe that these stories that were written by these men ever actually took place. I do not believe that did take place with a God ordering them, but obviously many people so believe that they are true stories.

By extension, there is then no reason to believe in God. All the knowledge you have ever gained about God came from those around you as well - other human beings. If that is not the case, then please let me know how I can tap into the type of knowledge you have gained that WASN'T first either shared with you by other humans, or inspired as your own thoughts by the stories other humans have told you.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I pointed out the issue of free will to someone else in this thread as well, can't remember who. But I will use the same argument here, if you asked all the people in the world and if possible all the ones that are now dead, how many of them have murdered and raped someone, I think you will find that the vast majority haven't done any of these things, yet do you think that they feel like they have/had no free will, compared to those that did? Because if free will is so important, clearly rapists and murderers are the one benefitting from this, because they are the ones experiencing what true free will is. I have never killed, raped or molested a child yet, I don't get the impression that im more restricted than they are.

So would you say that raping, murdering and molesting children is a requirement for free will? Because in that case, as I said, they are the only ones with true free will, because to me these things are not options, regardless of whether im free to do them or not.

Sorry, you logic escapes me. Everyone has free will. You do have free will to do terrible things, you just don't choose them because you have been taught morality and/or still have a conscience. If you use that free will to go further and further down the road of evil, eventually rape or murder will be options for you. In other words, just because you can't currently imagine those possibilities, doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[Trailblazer]

By extension, there is then no reason to believe in God. All the knowledge you have ever gained about God came from those around you as well - other human beings. If that is not the case, then please let me know how I can tap into the type of knowledge you have gained that WASN'T first either shared with you by other humans, or inspired as your own thoughts by the stories other humans have told you.

My knowledge about God did not come from others around me, it came from what was written by a Messenger of God in His Own Pen. It was not shared with me by other humans, or inspired by my own thoughts or by the stories other humans have told me.

 

[halbhh]

I think one has to be a be careful here, because I actually think what you are making a case for is subjective morality or at least you could, but I will let you be the judge of that.

When you say that "so I point out how the laws we have about fair trial are also objectively good", let's assume that trials were in fact fair, despite we have examples of people not really being treated fair or even getting trialed for things that they probably shouldn't have been trialed for in the first place, like a person's sexsuality for instance, or if you remember those rape incidents in India, where all the men were found not guilty for raping a girl, or something. I don't remember all the details, as its a lot of years ago, but it got a lot of media attention, at least where im from. But anyway I think you would agree that not all trials are fair, you can probably think of your own.

But lets run with the idea of fair trials, then you have already loaded the topic by using the word fair. But who decided that it is objectively fair? Because the justice system is in constant development, meaning the way black people were trialed in the US, 50 years ago is probably different than it is today.

So if we look at a definition of subjective morality:

The opposite of objective morality is subjective morality. Subjective morality says that our morals are all human-made, and can vary from person to person. While there are strong morals shared by most of humanity, such as killing, many morals are subjective as to whether or not they are correct.

So humans or our society decided how trials should be done, but these varies from country to country, for instance in Denmark, you are not trialed for you sexsuality, because we don't find that to be a crime. But other countries think that it's perfectly fine to do so. So who or what is the authority that decides whether Denmark or one of these other countries are the most moral?

You can say that you believe that Denmark is more moral, because that is your opinion, as stated above "vary from person to person", however others obviously disagree with you. And we could obviously also ask one of the people trialed due to having such sexsuality, what they believe is the most moral thing to do?

Compare that to objective morality:
Objective morality, in the simplest terms, is the belief that morality is universal, meaning that it isn't up for interpretation. ... Religious people will define objective morality according to the commandments of their god(s). Other people may look at some universal laws, such as murder, as inherently bad.

Which means that whether or not trials are fair or not, is not up to interpretation, they are just fair, regardless of whatever you think. So when you write it like you do, you could basically just have said, "so I point out how the laws we have about morally good trials are objectively good" it would basically be the same, because if its already decide beforehand that they are "morally good", then there is not really any discussion to be had, because they are good So I hope, I at least to some degree demonstrated that trials are not always fair, it completely depends on who you ask, what the trial is about and what society of humans we are talking about.

You obviously could make the argument as some religious people do, which is that God is intrinsically good and therefore everything he say is per definition objectively good. Which is obviously what I disagree with, because it conflicts with what I think is morally right, and I don't believe in God or that any morality is objective, but is arrived at and therefore it is subjective, now it is very important to understand, that just because it is arrived at, doesn't mean that it is good or bad. Simply that those that arrived at it, believes it to be one or the other, independent of what others might believe, so there is no final judge (Entity/God/Whatever) with an objectively correct answer to it. But you as a human can judge them and make your own call of whether you agree with them or not.

Key question:

who decided that it is objectively fair?

As we both already pointed out, first me, and then you just above that sometimes trials don't have correct verdicts even according to their law -- a side topic, but one about which we already apparently both point out and agree on...

Therefore, the far more important question about which we actually might have any discussion is the deeper, non-trivial question: What makes a law "fair"?

Is it only cultural?

Of course, it's obvious to anyone that many laws are only culturally specific. Just local to a nation or region.

Don't you agree?

But...some laws might not be that way.

And this possible group: a small set of general laws that are possibly fair in an absolute way -- to all humans -- in any culture, in any time, is the interesting topic.

Right? Do you agree the dozens of possible side topics are just other discussions, and not quite as interesting? (at least to me, the side topics are interesting, but this one topic is the most interesting)

What basis would there be for such possible universal laws?

Answer: the universal characteristics that all human beings share generally (unless someone is handicapped to lack what all humans normally have as their shared characteristics, but that would be yet another side topic; while it's interesting that some are sociopaths, and that's an entirely different topic).

So, here the topic that is the most interesting is what are universally valid laws that humans in any time and place would most all agree about?

Laws based on our shared human genome.

The basis: The subset of characteristics we all share: the universal human characteristics shared by all races and in all times and places, for modern homo sapiens, any existing in the last 50,000 years for example.

Of which several interesting universal characteristics exist, forming a possible basis for universal laws.

For example:

The universal human trait of a sense of fairness.

e.g. Puppet experiment suggests humans are born to be fair

 

[Nimos]

Therefore, the far more important question about which we actually might have any discussion is the deeper, non-trivial question: What makes a law "fair"?

Is it only cultural?

Of course, it's obvious to anyone that many laws are only culturally specific. Just local to a nation or region.

Don't you agree?

I think this is actually a very good question and had to think about it for quite some time. But let's see if you agree with it or not.

To start with, this is the definition of fair:

Fair
- treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination.

I would argue that a fairness is not related to morality and that something as a fair law doesn't really exist at all, which might sound weird at first, but will try to demonstrate it.

Let's imagine we have a law that state: "If you are caught stealing something, your left hand will be cut off. This rule applies to all people capable of voting.", to determine whether this is fair or not. Let's assume we have 100 people capable of voting.

Based on the definition, we can conclude the following:

- If 100% of the people voted that they wanted this law, then it would be considered fair.
- If less than 100% voted that they wanted the law, it must be unfair.

Therefore we can also conclude that the content of the law is completely irrelevant in regards to whether or not it can be considered fair or not. It solely depends on the % of people that want it.

Clearly we run into some huge problems straight away with this definition and fairness, because hardly anything can be considered fair. Imagine all laws regarding foreigners, in most countries there are different rules for them, and treating them differently will be to favour some people over others. Also I doubt most people have independently been asked about what they think about each and every single law that exist in their country. Which again mean that you could in theory claim that you are being discriminated against.

However, even if we assumed that all people at a given time in history, voted for a law and by some miracle agree on it. It still wouldn't be objectively morally right. Because at any given point, someone might disagree with it. But also every single person would have to decide on it to begin with, which is a subjective process, weighing for and against arguments to reach an opinion.

Therefore we break it down into countries, and we proclaim that the laws we make are fair, but according to the definition they will never be, so the closest we can come is that fairness is a subjective judgement made by an individual. We can't even go as far as to say that, even if 99% of people agreed on something, that it would be more morally right.
Because again in our 100 people society, we could imagine that 99 of them voted for a law, that all green people should follow a certain rule, which made things harder on them, and if there is only one green person, clearly the law is not fair. But also this person, would see the law as immoral, while the rest might see it as morally right. So either something is 100% fair or it is unfair, so there is probably no such thing as fair laws.

The closest we can come to finding something that is truly fair, would be the natural laws. Because I don't see humans as a whole coming together all 7+ billions of us and decide anything unanimous.

So do you agree with this?

 

[Trailblazer]

This is one of the huge issues, because no matter what, God can't be blamed, If a religious person will maintain that God is all loving, as an absolute statement. Then even with the amount of cruelty and suffering we see in the world, regardless of how much worse and bad it gets, you have accept that things are like that, because they are as optimal as they can get, there is no way around it.

Most religious people will maintain that but I won't, because it makes no sense to me. Of course we have to accept the cruelty and suffering, although we can try to mitigate some of it that is caused by human evils, but some kinds of suffering will always exist because that is inherent in a physical world where people and animals get sick, live and die.

The only option is to limit God and argue that he is simply incapable of doing certain things, which prevents him from making things better, but that ruins one of the other absolute statements that also must be true, that God is all powerful.

Making God less than all-powerful would ruin God and make Him less than God, so that is no solution.

So to maintain both absolute statements, God must do things the way we see them, because it is the absolute best it can ever be. God is using all of his power to create the most loving environment for humans and animals that is physically and divinely possible. Because in that case, both the statements are arguable correct.

That is probably the most logical conclusion, that it is the best it can be, and God knows better what is best than we do because God is all-knowing and all-wise and we are neither one. So since we are not all-knowing we cannot understand why there is so much suffering in the world.

It obviously raises a whole lot of questions, which will cause a lot of other problems. First of all and probably the most obvious one is, why and what is so powerful that it can prevent God from solving animal suffering in another way?
Because we don't know of anything or anyone that is even remotely said to have the power that God have and that can restrict him, and also we have never heard of anyone or anything that is interested in what is going on in the animal kingdom.
God, at least according to the bible, gave the animals to humans so we could rule over them. But that doesn't explain animal suffering in the wilds.

Yes, the suffering of animals is the biggest problem for me. Why did God create animals just to see them suffer? I have heard the religious apologetic that the animals were created just for humans, but that makes me rather sick, and it is very arrogant to believe humans are that important. The only conclusion that I can come ton is that God did not care if animals suffer because everything was created for the benefit of humans. Sadly, I do not believe most humans are worthy of what God created for them.

So even when God doesn't do anything, it is the absolute best it can be.

That is true. It is the best we are going to see since we don't have anything to say about what God doe not do.

 

[Nimos]

Most religious people will maintain that but I won't, because it makes no sense to me. Of course we have to accept the cruelty and suffering, although we can try to mitigate some of it that is caused by human evils, but some kinds of suffering will always exist because that is inherent in a physical world where people and animals get sick, live and die.

It's not a matter of opinion. Its because otherwise it would be a contradiction of the statements.

1. God is all loving
For this to be true, in regards to our understanding of the word love, God would need to save and reduce suffering as optimal possible.

Let's say you have an accident involving 10 people, 6 of them survive. If God could have done it so 7 people survived, but didn't, then the statement that God is all loving would be false. Because obviously he could have saved one more. If God only saved 5, but could have saved 6 or more, then clearly the statement would be false as well, because if God is all loving he would save as many as possible. Therefore saving 6 must be the perfect number.

And its the same with suffering of animals, you wouldn't expect an all loving God to not avoid all unnecessary suffering, if possible. And therefore the suffering we see must be the best possible suffering there is.

Therefore in theory, it doesn't matter how much we try to mitigate, because God as all loving and would always "know" or make sure that it's the amount is as optimal as possible.

2. God is all powerful
For this to be true, again we must assume that God is doing whatever is in his power to make sure that whatever he does is all loving. Which we would assume he would also do to reduce animal suffering, again to make sure that the 1. statement is true.

That there will always need to exist some kind of suffering, might be true, but it doesn't explain why the current amount is the optimal amount. As the guy in the video also pointed out. Animals could just instantly die when they got caught by a predator, why there has to be so much suffering involved is unclear, because this have nothing to do with humans in this case, this is going on in the wild. And as you might also recall, William Lane Craig's explanation that its to make sure that animals don't overpopulate, so predator have to kill some. But it's difficult to believe that God couldn't have solved this issue in a less brutal way, like simply make it so they could only have a certain amount of offsprings in their lifetime or that all animals were herbivores and simply made it so they ate different plants.

As he also said, we as humans do not need to introduce predators to human societies to solve starving, which were also one of WLC arguments for them. And if humans can do it, its difficult to understand that an all power and loving God couldn't come up with a better solution for animal suffering and starvation.

Making God less than all-powerful would ruin God and make Him less than God, so that is no solution.

Exactly or at least we would have to change the 2. statement above.

I have heard the religious apologetic that the animals were created just for humans, but that makes me rather sick, and it is very arrogant to believe humans are that important. The only conclusion that I can come ton is that God did not care if animals suffer because everything was created for the benefit of humans.

But even if that were true, we could use that argument for our treatment of pets and livestock. But it wouldn't answer the issue of suffering in the wild, because I don't see how that is connected to humans or some unknown will of man, that we want them to suffer. Despite animal suffering is going on around the whole when it comes to pets and livestock. For a lot of people even considering hurting their pet is unthinkable and the small goat herder in the mountain, which makes a living of his goat, is not interesting in them dying due to him mistreating them, otherwise he would have no way to make a living. So the explanation he is giving is simply flawed.

 

[halbhh]

I think this is actually a very good question and had to think about it for quite some time. But let's see if you agree with it or not.

To start with, this is the definition of fair:

Fair
- treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination.

I would argue that a fairness is not related to morality and that something as a fair law doesn't really exist at all, which might sound weird at first, but will try to demonstrate it.

Let's imagine we have a law that state: "If you are caught stealing something, your left hand will be cut off. This rule applies to all people capable of voting.", to determine whether this is fair or not. Let's assume we have 100 people capable of voting.

Based on the definition, we can conclude the following:

- If 100% of the people voted that they wanted this law, then it would be considered fair.
- If less than 100% voted that they wanted the law, it must be unfair.

Therefore we can also conclude that the content of the law is completely irrelevant in regards to whether or not it can be considered fair or not. It solely depends on the % of people that want it.

Clearly we run into some huge problems straight away with this definition and fairness, because hardly anything can be considered fair. Imagine all laws regarding foreigners, in most countries there are different rules for them, and treating them differently will be to favour some people over others. Also I doubt most people have independently been asked about what they think about each and every single law that exist in their country. Which again mean that you could in theory claim that you are being discriminated against.

However, even if we assumed that all people at a given time in history, voted for a law and by some miracle agree on it. It still wouldn't be objectively morally right. Because at any given point, someone might disagree with it. But also every single person would have to decide on it to begin with, which is a subjective process, weighing for and against arguments to reach an opinion.

Therefore we break it down into countries, and we proclaim that the laws we make are fair, but according to the definition they will never be, so the closest we can come is that fairness is a subjective judgement made by an individual. We can't even go as far as to say that, even if 99% of people agreed on something, that it would be more morally right.
Because again in our 100 people society, we could imagine that 99 of them voted for a law, that all green people should follow a certain rule, which made things harder on them, and if there is only one green person, clearly the law is not fair. But also this person, would see the law as immoral, while the rest might see it as morally right. So either something is 100% fair or it is unfair, so there is probably no such thing as fair laws.

The closest we can come to finding something that is truly fair, would be the natural laws. Because I don't see humans as a whole coming together all 7+ billions of us and decide anything unanimous.

So do you agree with this?

No, for the reason I state in that post you responded to, further down.

I think that post can be read in under a minute, but let me know if unclear.

 

[Nimos]

For example:

The universal human trait of a sense of fairness.

I think you risk making wrong assumptions here, which could lead to a wrong conclusion. Im not saying that you are wrong, but I think your reasoning is.

Im not 100% sure, how or what your definition is when you are talking about universal law as you use it in this context, except that it is some sort of generalization of some characteristics that are shared by all humans, which is a bit to weak or broad definition, I think. So I may have misunderstood what exactly you mean.

Because in order to demonstrate it, you have to show that "fairness" is not an evolved trait as a result of evolution and therefore is not really a universal law.
Because I would argue that it is an evolved trait, as a result of us being social animals and a sense of fairness is beneficial for our survival. I would also make the claim, that humans both today in our society and especially in earlier one, when they were much smaller are more likely to "expel" or get rid of people that doesn't play along with the rest. Like a sociopath, psychopath or simply a person that think fairness is not all that important. Imagine one of your friends and every time you should share something or help each other, this person would always try to cheat or exploit you one way or another. How long do you think it would take you before you wouldn't care about that person anymore or want to hang out with them?

We see similar behaviour with other primates and even amongst wolves, and there have been studies made on this as well. This is from an interesting article about it:

Scientists have long recognised that what they term a "sensitivity to inequity", or a sense of fairness, played an important role in the evolution of co-operation between humans. Basically, if others treated you badly, you quickly learned to stop working with them.

Researchers believe that the behaviour is also found widely in non-human primates.

The fact that the behaviour was found in both wolves and dogs helps to overturn the idea that dogs learned this concept because they were domesticated.

The experiments suggest instead that the behaviour is likely inherited from a common ancestor to both wolves and dogs.

"It makes much more sense to say that this would be something shared from a common ancestor than to say it evolved twice, or to say that it came from domestication," said Jennifer Essler.

You can read the whole thing here:
Dogs and wolves share sense of fair play

I don't know if you believe in Intelligent design or creationism and that all species were created perfect and in their current form, or if you support evolution with common descent? But if you do, then clearly wolves, dogs and humans have evolved from some ancestor, which evolved from another etc. Which could explain that fairness is developed over time and weren't always there to begin with and therefore not necessarily a universal law, because a lot of animals do not seem to express a sense of fairness, at least from what I can see, but rather something that seem present in the more complex and socialized lifeforms or what to say. Like a snake for instance, I don't get the impression that fairness is especially important here, or that it even have it.

So we can't simply assume that something is a universal law, because it seem logically to us, you have to provide an explanation of how fairness could be an universal law.

 

[halbhh]

I think you risk making wrong assumptions here,

Read further. It's based on objective findings, as you'll see if you read further.

I think possibly, unless you read the post through, I must have left out a key piece I know as just an old background stuff. But first let me know you read through fully.

Is it clear this has zero to do with nonsense like "intelligent design"?

Isn't that clear? If not, I perhaps could re-write, or you could just read with less prejudice.

 

[Nimos]

Read further. It's based on objective findings, as you'll see if you read further.

I am at the very bottom of the post, the last sentences is a link to an article, but I don't think that it is a counter argument to what I wrote. But won't go into it here unless that is what you referred to?

Is it clear this has zero to do with nonsense like "intelligent design"?

Excellent, as there would probably be no reason to keep chatting about it then as there would be more important matters

Isn't that clear? If not, I perhaps could re-write, or you could just read with less prejudice.

If what I wrote just above weren't what you meant, then you might have to rewrite it. That would be much appreciated.

 

[Trailblazer]

It's not a matter of opinion. Its because otherwise it would be a contradiction of the statements.

1. God is all loving
For this to be true, in regards to our understanding of the word love, God would need to save and reduce suffering as optimal possible.

That would only be true if both a and b are true: (a) God is responsible for reducing suffering and (b) there is no possible benefit that can be derived from suffering. But what if suffering is beneficial for us to grow and improve our character?

Let's say you have an accident involving 10 people, 6 of them survive. If God could have done it so 7 people survived, but didn't, then the statement that God is all loving would be false. Because obviously he could have saved one more. If God only saved 5, but could have saved 6 or more, then clearly the statement would be false as well, because if God is all loving he would save as many as possible. Therefore saving 6 must be the perfect number.

And its the same with suffering of animals, you wouldn't expect an all loving God to not avoid all unnecessary suffering, if possible. And therefore the suffering we see must be the best possible suffering there is.

Therefore in theory, it doesn't matter how much we try to mitigate, because God as all loving and would always "know" or make sure that it's the amount is as optimal as possible.

That would only be true if (a) God is responsible for mitigating our suffering and (b) God intervenes in the world to do so. We don’t know that either a or b are true. Just because God is all-powerful, we cannot assume they are true.

2. God is all powerful
For this to be true, again we must assume that God is doing whatever is in his power to make sure that whatever he does is all loving. Which we would assume he would also do to reduce animal suffering, again to make sure that the 1. statement is true.

That would only be true if God is all-loving and all-powerful. If God had been all-loving, why would He have created a world in which He knew (since He is all-knowing) that animals would suffer? As the video pointed out, there could have been other options. I do not think there is anything that can be done by God now to change how things work in nature, now that the natural world has been created.

That there will always need to exist some kind of suffering, might be true, but it doesn't explain why the current amount is the optimal amount. As the guy in the video also pointed out. Animals could just instantly die when they got caught by a predator, why there has to be so much suffering involved is unclear, because this have nothing to do with humans in this case, this is going on in the wild. And as you might also recall, William Lane Craig's explanation that its to make sure that animals don't overpopulate, so predator have to kill some. But it's difficult to believe that God couldn't have solved this issue in a less brutal way, like simply make it so they could only have a certain amount of offsprings in their lifetime or that all animals were herbivores and simply made it so they ate different plants.

As he also said, we as humans do not need to introduce predators to human societies to solve starving, which were also one of WLC arguments for them. And if humans can do it, its difficult to understand that an all power and loving God couldn't come up with a better solution for animal suffering and starvation.

You are right about that as the guy in the video pointed out. It did not have to be this way for animals. So the only conclusion I can come to is that God did not care how much animals suffer, which to me means God is not all-loving. The only other possibilities would be that God is not all-powerful and all-knowing, but then God would not be God. God can be less than all-loving and still be God.

Maybe you could start a new thread with that video and see if Christians can defend their God.

But even if that were true, we could use that argument for our treatment of pets and livestock. But it wouldn't answer the issue of suffering in the wild, because I don't see how that is connected to humans or some unknown will of man, that we want them to suffer. Despite animal suffering is going on around the whole when it comes to pets and livestock. For a lot of people even considering hurting their pet is unthinkable and the small goat herder in the mountain, which makes a living of his goat, is not interesting in them dying due to him mistreating them, otherwise he would have no way to make a living. So the explanation he is giving is simply flawed.

I fully agree that religious apologetic is flawed, not only because that gives humans an excuse to use and abuse animals for their own purposes but also because it does not account for animals in the wild. One might argue that it give humans an opportunity to be more compassionate such as those wildlife biologist who studies and tries to improve the living conditions of wild animals, but they cannot even make a dent in animal suffering in the wild. But if God set it up so animals are really just for human benefit, pleasure and enjoyment and food, then there is really not much we can do about it.

 

[halbhh]

I am at the very bottom of the post, the last sentences is a link to an article, but I don't think that it is a counter argument to what I wrote. But won't go into it here unless that is what you referred to?


Excellent, as there would probably be no reason to keep chatting about it then as there would be more important matters


If what I wrote just above weren't what you meant, then you might have to rewrite it. That would be much appreciated.

Ok, so having zero connection to whether one is a believer -- having nothing at all do with the wrong ideas of young earth creationists, etc. -- there are objectively beneficial laws based on our shared objective human nature, traits we all share in common, characteristics expressed from our common genome.

They are the subset of laws -- the small number -- that fit our human nature and using that human nature then help us live in peace and relative prosperity (compared to a culture where those laws are not followed).

 

[Nimos]

Ok, so having zero connection to whether one is a believer -- having nothing at all do with the wrong ideas of young earth creationists, etc. -- there are objectively beneficial laws based on our shared objective human nature, traits we all share in common, characteristics expressed from our common genome.

They are the subset of laws -- the small number -- that fit our human nature and using that human nature then help us live in peace and relative prosperity (compared to a culture where those laws are not followed).

Not sure I understand what you mean.

Can you give an example of an objective beneficial law based on a shared objective human trait, think that would help me?

 

[halbhh]

Not sure I understand what you mean.

Can you give an example of an objective beneficial law based on a shared objective human trait, think that would help me?

I'll give an obvious one, to show the principle. We generally have a desire to continue living, initially, such as in childhood.

A law corresponds to this objective human trait of desiring to live -- "Do not murder"

This one is so obviously beneficial -- and in an objective way -- that it's probably hard to find a nation where it's not on the books.

"Do not steal" is another universal one you can find most anywhere, though sometimes not well followed in a place or time.

 

[Nimos]

Im going to ask you some questions, not to annoy you, but so you can clarify what you mean using your own words.

What is the criteria you use for determining that something is considered beneficial, what are the rules so to speak?

"Do not murder"

Can you think of any situation where murder could be beneficial?

"Do not steal" is another.

Similar question as above, is there any situation where stealing could be beneficial?