Yes, no, and maybe.
Torus34 2020-09-20
The topic line gives the three possible responses to the question, 'Is there a god?'
At first glance they appear to be somewhat equal. But they're not, at least as far as ethics and morality go. Here's why.
If the answer is 'Yes,' a set of what can be called ethical/moral axioms come with it. Chose the religion and Bob's your uncle. You have a structure or, if you wish, a foundation upon which to build further.
However, if the answer's either of the other two, you're in the same place as far as ethics/morals go. You must develop a rationale for a set of axioms before you begin.
A secular humanist, [No, that's not necessarily contradictory, Dear Reader,] I've wrestled with the question of ethical/moral axioms for a long time. Thus far, I've not tapped out.
Regards to all.
At first glance they appear to be somewhat equal. But they're not, at least as far as ethics and morality go. Here's why.
If the answer is 'Yes,' a set of what can be called ethical/moral axioms come with it. Chose the religion and Bob's your uncle. You have a structure or, if you wish, a foundation upon which to build further.
However, if the answer's either of the other two, you're in the same place as far as ethics/morals go. You must develop a rationale for a set of axioms before you begin.
A secular humanist, [No, that's not necessarily contradictory, Dear Reader,] I've wrestled with the question of ethical/moral axioms for a long time. Thus far, I've not tapped out.
Regards to all.
Comments (7)
Not necessarily. Someone could conceive of God in a way outside of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. Someone could conceive of God as Gaia or some type of universal mind or spirit in which case a systemic of ethics wouldn't automatically follow.
I skipped a step in the OP. It was that once a god is accepted, there are a number of religions to choose from. Of course, one could always adopt the position that structured religions are unnecessary to believe in the existence of a god, but then such a position would lead to having to define a set of moral/ethical axioms, nu?
Regards, stay safe 'n well.
Good point! I was in the Agnostic "maybe" category, but developed a Deist god-concept based on the science of Information Theory, and concluded that a First Cause (the Enformer) must exist -- necessarily. But it would be similar to Plato's LOGOS. Since I have no direct revelation from that hypothetical creative deity, I've had to develop my own "system of ethics" from observation of the Creation. That god-model is compatible with something like Spinoza's "god of philosophers", which he called Universal Substance, and I call Information or Enformation. :smile:
Ironically, Atheists and Trolls on this forum still lump me into the "Yes" category with traditional
Abrahamic Theists. Perhaps that's because they can't conceive of belief in a logically necessary but non-empirical Principle of Existence.
Quoting Torus34
Although, I practice no religion, and my ethic is essentially Secular Humanism, I do believe that an unknowable First Cause is the only reasonable explanation for the existence of my world. For me, it's not contradictory. :cool:
Define "god" or specify which conception of divinity is at issue, otherwise the question is incoherent.
Regards, stay safe 'n well.
Yes no maybe, I don't know, can you repeat the question. (song)
According to definition I think I can make all three answers feel correct to me. For examples...
Def: God (your god) is whatever is of central importance in your life; whatever you give your life up to. It might be money, or power, or justice or law, or love, or sadly, your own pleasure.
Answer - yes.
Def: God is the big guy in the sky who hates faggots, and likes everyone to sing His praises every Sunday, and doesn't want anyone to have any fun.
Answer - no.
Def: God is whatever, beyond the universe of space and time, had some purpose for setting things up just so, that we are participants in.
Answer - maybe.