What is Modern Humanism?
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 11. 2020
- An explanation of the modern view called "Humanism," an assertion that people can be "Good without God" and find morality and meaning in life without religion.
Sponsors: Joshua Furman, Joshua Opell, NBA_Ruby, Eugene SY, Antoinemp1, Antibody, Ismail Fagundes, Adrien Ecoffet, Tom Amedro, Christopher McGevna, Joao Sa, and Dennis Sexton. Thanks for your support!
Donate on Patreon: / carneades
Buy stuff with Zazzle: www.zazzle.com/carneades
Follow us on Twitter: @CarneadesCyrene / carneadescyrene
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and more!
I think most theists today would accept the claim that you don’t need God to be Good. They would say you need him for objective morals.
But what would be the "Good" you are referring to. Isn't it a circular statement.
For those interested, some odd years ago, Sandi Toksvig, in association with Humanists UK, did a whole humanism series/course via the FutureLearn MOOC platform -I found it to be really illuminating. They still have it up and accessible: futurelearn.com/courses/introducing-humanism
🙏❤️🙏
Atoms combine to form molecules ( water, CO2,amino acids , proteins DNA …….) when
They have a membrane around them = life=a cell
Conception
This one cell multiple 30/40 billion times into specialised cell and forms a human
Using ChatGPT they communicate ( hopefully love)
you have one of the coolest styles in your presentations , love it :D
Thanks so much! I'm glad you enjoy.
Thanks Carneades, had a disagreement with a secular humanist and had no idea what that entailed
Could you do something on Heidegger and Dasein?
What would you call the claim that, while ethics is best viewed through a secular lens, humans still require spirituality of some sort in order to live fulfilled lives? Religion and spirituality don't necessarily have to be theistic, and some religious viewpoints hold ethics to be a matter of human determination much like Humanism does.
One of the biggest problems with spirituality is that it's a pretty vacuous term that tends to mean many different things to many different people
Great question. My answer is when we consider the human race as a super organism, society as a whole offers the existence of morality and yet can differ on the approach to morality. Tribes of moral belief exist and differ also on what to emphasize. We leave moral agency to those feel called to that thread and other tribes to balance it.
For example, the tribe of conservativism keeps liberalism in check and the reverse is also true. Unfettered tribes would create chaos. Some are called to rescue dogs, or environment, or poverty...and we are all unified on a belief that what we believe will make the world better. Even nihilists are needed.
I am looking for a short vid called "WE wewre afraid " that deals withnthis subject. Can anyone out there direct me ??
Morality is a human concept so it is subjective. Our capacity to abide by a moral code in my opinion does have objective origins based in biology, particularly in how a species adapts to its environment. It is my express opinion that we have the capacity to abide by a moral code not because it has been dictated to us from a supernatural origin on how we must act or treat others but... and in all my many hours listening to subjective vs. objective "debates" on the origin of morals I've never once recalled anyone on either side mentioning, because as members of a species that has evolved to live in groups it is an instinctive response to how we want to be treated ourselves.
A number of intelligent social species such as chimpanzees, corvids, parrots, dolphins and others have been observed responding to what we would recognize as unfair treatment much the same way we react when we feel we've been denied our fair share. It has to do with the benefits of reciprocity for group cohesion, reciprocity that flows in both directions; no point living in groups if it lowers the chances for individuals within a group to survive and pass on their genes.
It's ridiculous to me how religious people claim atheists have no reason to control themselves and so can be expected to do horrible things to others. Besides the fact that I am repulsed by that kind of behavior, personally I'd rather not live in a world where I must be constantly contending with the prospect of being on the receiving end of such treatment.
Can you do a video on actual Idealism.
Morality is the basic premise of civil law making. Civil law is a collection of immortality practices that protects the peoples from harm of self and others.
Interesting claim. It seems that there are at least some things which are about moral to do, but not required by law (such as giving to charity), and things which are immoral, but not forbidden by the law (such as keeping your promises). If laws are based on morality, it seems they are only loosely based.
I think religious morality is already based on human emotions and supported rationally. I think the issue is not that one throws away religion, but that they never understood the values taught through religion and were only indoctrinated to uphold them. I think the minority of people are ready to relieve themselves of religion, and this can create conflicting ideas of morality that may contradict those which are widely accepted.
Religious morality requires people to no eat certain animals on certain days, to not eat at all on other days, to only work on certain days, to not wear clothes of mixed fabrics, etc. I doubt such claims could be rationally justified. Religions do not agree on which animals to eat when, which fabrics to wear when, which rituals to conduct when or which clothes to wear. Rationality support means that there is only one answer, the reason that religion is irrational is that there are many answers, none of which can be decided between through debate or discussion (czcams.com/video/FmqYwV-N_IM/video.html).
Additionally, simply because something is widely accepted does not make it true. If you care about believing true things, you may need to accept something which is rationally supported, but not widely accepted because it is scary (czcams.com/video/oE4gR0cFKw4/video.html).
@@CarneadesOfCyrene I’m not religious, but how do you have a rational discussion about morality when morality is subjective or unreachable?
@@CarneadesOfCyrene I get when they both subscribe to the same ideology/religious belief it is rational, but I mean in a situation when it is impossible to have that.
I believe that the natural world is chaos, and our human minds seek to make order out of it. And part of the chaos results in patterns, which our minds may latch onto. I do believe that there is meaning in the chaos, I just don't think it can be made comprehensible to human minds. Does this make me a skeptic? Or, rather, what can I look into to find what other people have thought about this sorta stuff?
@Nicholas Olesen how so? I mean that the pattern is entirely coincidental, like every phenomenon is random, and sometimes these repeat in ways our minds read as patterns... Idk if that makes sense?
@Nicholas Olesen then again, gödel's incompleteness theorem kinda screws the pooch on the universe thing. I'm there with you on humanism though for sure
@Nicholas Olesen "How can anything be truly 'random' when we know the physical laws of the universe and keep learning and know everything has a cause, and an affect."
Wouldn't a thing be random if that thing were not the effect of some cause? The process of learning that various things have causes entails that we still have not yet learned the cause for everything. Perhaps someday we will learn the cause of everything, but until that day we should face the possibility that some things might not have causes. For example, consider radioactive decay of an atom. That's famously considered an entirely unpredictable random event. We can predict how often it will happen in a statistical way, but we currently have no way of knowing whether it will actually happen at any given moment, and we haven't found any way encourage it to happen, as if it were totally spontaneous with no cause at all. Isn't that how a thing can be truly random?
I'm here to find out about Umanism
Hahah
What is aporia? - would be a great episode
Different than a priori?
@@Dayglodaydreams Aporia is another concept. Refers to certain knowledge where two or more contradictory answers seems to be equally true. Some philosophers say that this happens because contradiction is the underlying structure of reality itself
@@Dayglodaydreams Now i realized. In english is named Aporia. I made a bad translation before
People in religious communities tend to talk about different subject matter entirely than people in scientific communities. The assembly of the Disciples of Christ or the crux of the 4 Noble Truths are entirely different than the 4 states of matter or Newton's 12 laws of motion. As far as being able to be good without God,...sounds possible. Not how I was raised at all, but sounds possible.
One of the goals of philosophy is to bring various disciplines into conversation. Both religion and science make claims about the world, one purpose of philosophy is to provide a neutral playing field to debate the merits of those claims. Some religions make very few claims about the world (e.g. deism) which are less in conflict with religions that make many claims about the world (folks that claim the earth is 6,000 years old). If you fall into the former category, then yes, they are often discussing different subject matter, but if you fall into the latter, no, they are discussing the same thing, just using different methods.
I believe morality is basically non-existent of course, however I also think that heuristic instruments such as Logic obviously can provide us with rational decision in a particular situations. You could say logic may become a rational alternative to the traditional institutes of morality
So, are you taking a teleological perspective?And if so, would you mind expanding on that? And if not, what do you use as a meta-ethical framework?
The first obvious question is not whether one can be good without God, but whether if one can be good *with* him, at least the Abrahamic god, given his blatant immorality.
The second obvious question is whether humanism is the answer if we define humanism as a moral framework based on the wellbeing of humans. I contend it isn't, given its obvious shortcoming: it ignores the wellbeing of other sentient beings. Under humanism, animal abuse is perfectly acceptable. Under sentientism, it is not. I therefore contend that sentientism is a superior moral framework.
Morality is just a set of rules we follow one way or another, and we think others should follow too. Simple as that.
The issue isn't whether morality is a set of rules that we think people should follow. Everyone knows that. The issue is _which_ rules are morality? Humanism is one opinion on this topic.
@@Ansatz66 All of them...??? I don't know, it's more a semantic type of think, i.e. depends how morality is defined. A better question that bypasses this problem is "which rules are best" (spoiler alest: humanism baled, same page).
Another less significant question is how did you write italics in a youtube thread.
What is the differnce between the good and the moral in your conception?
@@mr.stargazer9835 I understand that "good" refers to perception, i.e. "I feel this is good" or "I feel this is bad". Moral seems like a sociological extension of good. Moral for someone is something he perceives as good plus he/she thinks there is an obligation to do so from his/her part and from others.
That's not true, some moral systems do involve rules, but that's not a necessary feature. For example, other moral systems aren't rule-based but outcome-based.
I don't believe objective morality exists. In a sense, I identify as a nihilist. That being said, I also identify as a humanist. I don't believe, when I claim something is good, that it is ultimately so objectively.
Then again, when I say that pizza tastes good, I don't believe it is an objective claim.
I think that reason, science, and social connections allow us to improve our quality of life. The measure of quality ultimately being a subjective one.
There are tendencies in human beliefs of what makes for a better quality of life. Similarly, there is a tendency for humans to dislike eating rotten food or feces, to prefer eating foods with lots of fats, proteins, and carbs.
Well morality is based on the fact sentient beings are capable of happiness and suffering. That's where good and bad comes from. So I don't see such a mystery. And certainly religion doesn't help.
So I think it's immoral to eat animals. But at the moment I am :-( so I'd say that's bad.
In the human world I think I'm doing a bit better. I generally try to be fair to people and treat them well, which reduces their suffering and increases their happiness. In turn I get instrinsic pleasure out of this, from seeing their reaction and reciprocal behaviour. So win, win. I think win, win is another moral principle btw. We can see it's often better than zero sum games because then there is suffering.
You seem to be a consequentialist, and possibly a utilitarian (czcams.com/video/cbQx-Cmtqt0/video.html). This is a viable ethical position, but deontologists and virtue ethicists will give you some push back. :)
@@CarneadesOfCyrene
I think all will end in the same place. Why is something virtuous?
And the push back tends to be in the form of showing how consequentialism can lead to people doing bad things. But again, why are they bad? And we end up with consequential reasons not to do them, once more.
Morality is purely creative. It's neither subjective nor objective. Thus, it's neither prescriptive nor descriptive.
I actually really like that; food for thought
Morality doesn’t exist as an object but it does as an idea. I believe in God but not that God holds us to any universal standards. Our purpose is to exist and express ourselves through free will. God’s purpose as the self awareness of existence is to know and understand everything fully and intimately. A side effect of both our conditions is that our intimate link allows us to ask God for a life beyond reality with God. God is what we might call Good because God knows everyone’s suffering intimately, so like all compassionate beings, concludes that being good is better than being bad. This means God likely allows only those who are truly good to live with God in a place you might call heaven, where they can explore and express themselves is infinite or near infinite ways, while those deemed evil would simply be left behind, not some eternal suffering because that would be evil as it is a punishment not fitting the crime. God might give them a second chance but probably only if those in Heaven petition for them. My thoughts anyway, but I don’t believe faith is 100%, even by definition, so I could be wrong; but, who could disprove it? And there we are. 🤓
Well sure, but faith in what? The teleological perspective would likely contend that since we can point out varying irrationalities that which tend to entail from faith-based philosophies, we have an imperative to move on to more adaptive and comprehensive moral systems which address issues that a more obstinate faith struggles keeping up to date with.
edit grammae
@@ParadymShiftVegan, Faith in God as the sole decider on what is morally good, evil or neither, assuming that no other being would have all the knowledge of existence, combined with the absolute power to enforce rewards, punishments, or indifference. And God’s morality would be all encompassing for any situation because God knows all situations that have been and will be, therefore, there is no need for it to evolve. But since we do not know it, and it’s complexity likely exceeds our ability, due to the impossibility of humans knowing everything, we can only guess and live according to what we think God would do if God were in our specific situation at the specific time and place. And God understands our limitations, so I think God would judge us by two criteria: 1. What we think of ourselves, to include regrets and pride; 2. How we treat others. If we meet God’s approval, then we get to go beyond this world of ignorance and suffering. If not, our life as it is exists only where it is in space and time, with us none the wiser of our dilemma. However, God may choose to give us a redo, but that is up to the decider. Given the above as my own belief, I must conclude that any moral system developed by men is no better or worse than any other, and would only be universal if everyone agreed and God approved.
@@democracyjohn6715 Okay fine, fair enough. I can see what you're saying and accept it on a logical basis that is right up until a certain point; but, before we get there let's go over the areas that I do agree.
Your system seems to make sense until we get to the dilemma of, even if this is the case, since we don't have a definitively objective manner of deriving what this opinion might be, as you asserted, we must merely guess at what that may be.
So, my question is, how is this guessing any better or any worse, or any different from, let's say a teleological perspective? Why would anyone prescribe specifically to this perspective?
It seems like you're prescribing an unnecessary axiom just to get to the point with which you use your reasoning, which I suppose we all have to do to some degree, but specifying it in such a multifaceted manner seems almost irrelevant since it's the actual guessing that is going to get us to the conclusions in the first place -which brings us back to rationality and logic as the basis for determining whether any given analysis is moral or not.
Here's where we get to my contention. You claim that no moral system is better than another, and at first this might seem reasonable if, for example, we are comparing deontology to utilitarianism, but on the other hand, this seems intuitively false when we consider moral systems like Nazism or Sexism. Clearly not all moral systems are created equal, to say the least 😹
Finally, for the same reasons I mentioned earlier, it seems unnecessary to mention that God must approve of a moral system in order for it to be universal given that there are no reliable methods with which to determine said approval (short of being wiped off of the face of the Earth or experiencing unimaginable widespread tragedy, which still presents the dilemma of inductive limitations).
edit clarification
@@ParadymShiftVegan, this is an interesting conversation, so let me say thank you for having it with me. Wow, there is a lot to address in your last post, so let me engage a few issues that jump out at me.
I believe in two forms of existence, reality and the imaginary. I say morality is not real, but it is imaginary, therefore, it exists as an idea. The only thing I know for sure is that I exist. It seems that there is a difference between the reality outside and the imaginary inside, but sometimes what I think is real, is not, and what I thought was imaginary, wasn’t. Santa Claus and evolution for example. I believe I see in reality a pattern of intelligent design, but I could be wrong. And I think murder is always evil, but a Nazi might say murder is necessary to purify the human race and prevent suffering in the future. Who am I to say he is wrong, when I admit how little I know about the world around me? I would still defend myself, but not because of a moral truth, only because I don’t want to die.
Whether or not God exists, it is a useful concept for humbling myself. I call myself Democracy John because my Unifying Theory of Belief is meant to create some best practices for people with different beliefs to live together in peace, which I say requires everyone to have an opportunity to share ideas, cast an equal vote, segregate themselves with others of like mind to some degree, and respect the rights of the minority.
I agree that we can derive our own moral values from real life experience, and would also recommend studying moral philosophy and religious texts in order to develop a moral system. The golden rule seems pretty universal, but my wife likes to be spanked and I do not, so taking even that simple rule still requires some modification.
I think God would have to be the final word on universal, but if even one person disagrees (freewill) then it’s not really universal. That’s why I think God’s approval depends on both what I think about myself and what God knows about the pain I may have caused others through my actions. If I regret something later, that may be a mitigating factor; but if I never feel sorry, then that might be what really screws me. In the end, what I am calling morality is basically me doing my best to live without causing harm, but also without being oppressed or oppressing myself.
While I cannot speak directly to God, I think we’ve been given plenty of information all around and inside of us to get a sense of what God considers right and wrong, but it must be very much open to interpretation, otherwise we would have more concrete confirmation. As you say, religions are problematic because they try to claim that we do have heaven sent laws on stone tablets and from the lips of prophets. Given the multitude of religions and after so many fraud preachers, the evidence indicates that God does not communicate in a human language, which is why Science seems a pretty good source for some believers, like me.
Bottom line, I do my best to be what I believe is good, and hope God forgives my ignorance enough to love me and give me an eternal life of happiness with my loved ones, and without bad people, but I also just want to explore more of this crazy universe than I can see from this vantage point. If there is no God, oh well, at least I wasn’t a member of the Inquisition.
A final simple example:
I’m arguing politics with a Trump supporter. He says people like me stole the election and nothing I say has convinced him the election was fair. He pulls a gun, claims he’s doing good by killing a traitor like me and now I’m dead. Might makes right, or two wrongs don’t make a right, or ignorance is bliss; either way, everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Hopefully, he is arrested and justice for me is served, but his buddies will see injustice, and the cops are just trying to keep him from killing anyone else. There’s just no final definite and universal morality here, unless you assign it to a God with absolute moral authority, who hasn’t yet explained it to us; but even then, I say it is a part of the design of existence that we not be given too much information to prevent us from thinking for ourselves, exercising free will. Why? I ultimately believe that we and everything else exists simply to be what we are, as we are. The more we try to tie ourselves to a man made foundation, the more we blind ourselves to what little truth we are capable of grasping. Yes, I believe in truth. I just don’t believe we can ever fully know it. This, the reason a good God would give us room to make mistakes and measure out some amount of forgiveness.
How could someone not be sure morality exists?
There are many ways. The most obvious way is by being uncertain of exactly what is meant by "morality", since that is a highly controversial word with much debate about its meaning. We can't be sure whether morality exists until we at least know what morality is supposed to be. Once we've settled upon what exactly we're talking about, there will most likely be ways to doubt the existence of whatever we settle upon. Some people will say that morality comes from God or is a part of God,, and in that case we need merely doubt the existence of God in order to doubt the existence of morality.
Humanist would say that morality comes from humans and how humanity can prosper or suffer, but in that case we can doubt the existence of humanity. Remember the movie The Truman Show where Truman unknowingly lives in a reality TV show from birth and has no awareness that all the people around him are actors and nothing he understands about the world is real. What if we're living in some version of that? Giving to charity is not good, because the charity doesn't really exist. When your boyfriend cries because you broke up with him, that's not bad, because he's not really sad; he's an actor forcing himself to cry because that's his job. Nothing we do is bad or good if it's all just pretend. If the world were fake, how would we ever discover the truth? Since we can't know, the only reasonable choice we have is to doubt.
Life is short. If there is no afterlife, live and let die I say!
@@Ansatz66 Thank you that was an interesting read. Never occured to me that the definition of morality was in contention. Skepticism is hard haha. I'm taken so much for granted.
@@tryphonkorm If there was an afterlife would that change things?
@@Ansatz66 And if the whole reality is exactly a simulation, however, unlike the truman show, in fact, the purpose of this simulation is to make us doubt. In fact, everything is as it is, except for the fact that they planted in our heads the capacity to doubt trying to make us stop enjoying the reality due to fictions that we created by doubting what is evident
I like the human H.
He should do anti-humanism.
agreed
Humanism says there is no life after death- correct? Why should I do good for others ? Why shouldn’t I try to live a life for my own self satisfaction until I disappear into nothingness? Who cares about the next door neighbour if this is the only life? Get real,doing good for others can be camouflaged by an underlying aim to get personal satisfaction by whatever method. You Humanists want to live a “Christian life “ without God. Go the whole hog and stuff what your neighbour thinks,get pleasure for yourself. But hey, you can’t live like that can you ,you live in God’s world,even though you are rebelling against Him ,you still know His truth in your heart.
Humanists do not want to live a Christian life. Christians are the ones that rape children, oppress gay people, and start wars in the name of their religion. Humanists want to be good people. Many Christians preach hate and use the idea of an afterlife to justify immoral actions. So no, Humanists do not want the Christian life, because following the Bible is immoral. You can skim over the passages that encourage slavery, genocide, and the oppression of women, but deep in your heart you know that your religion encourages hate and oppression.
Why should we do good if we don't receive a reward in an afterlife? Is that really the only reason you don't go around raping children or committing genocide? Because you are afraid of hell? It is no wonder that people are worried about whether Christians are even capable of being moral (czcams.com/video/3Pd5GWAE_Z4/video.html). Nowhere in the Bible does it say that slavery is wrong, but you probably think it is wrong to own slaves. It is because deep down you believe in a morality that has nothing to do with religion.
Yes, it is possible to have morality without Religion but unfortunately you have no Ultimate ground to account for life, values and meaning of life.... And lastly Destiny.
What does it mean to have an ultimate ground for life, values, and meaning of life? If a lack of religion would mean we don't have such an ultimate ground, is that meant to suggest that we could have an ultimate ground to account for those things if we did have religion? How could a religion supply such an ultimate ground even though nothing else could?
@@Ansatz66 yes, sir. To support may argument further, the Question of life itself, why we here? How can account for origin of life? If there is no Creator, God. How this mystery solved by humanistic view? My question is how can account this fundamental issue? Hoping for your reply. Godbless
@@reydemayo8906 "How can account for origin of life?"
Humanism is more about ethics than biology, but most likely most humanists would go along with the scientific understanding of this question and describe some of the current ideas around abiogenesis which describe how life could arise from chemistry in the early history of the Earth. There are tide pools, undersea thermal vents, and so on through many, many highly technical theories regarding how various steps toward the development of life may have occurred. Whole textbooks could easily be filled discussing all the details.
@@Ansatz66 let's formally the debate the issue about the origin of life.....
God doesn't have an ultimate ground either, and if you think that the concept of God has an ultimate ground with which it can be based on, then I would like you to demonstrate that. What is your argument for God being a faith that is non-axiomatic?
You cannot have the Good without a God. You can only have systems of power. Those systems of power, be they cultural or social, cannot do anything but install a authoritative 'good' but will be referred to from here one as Morality.
To put it another way, if Good is to exist then there must be a God to define it. That is to say, It must come externally or be intrinsic to the world to be otherwise. If its not then its not 'good' in the sense we talk about it. Its simply social bounds of others on our behavior, dictated by their whims. *Note: define was a bad word choice here, it caused a lot of confusion. I was not thinking in terms, 'he writes the rules' more in 'without his existence Good has no meaningful definition.*
If the whims change then 'good' would change with it. Which it does in people that share this view. Which I'll refer to such good as Morality.
Note: This originally used different terms definitions than the rest of this conversation. I've edited it to make this clearer.
"If Good is to exist then there must be a God to define it."
Why God in particular instead of good being defined by something else? There are serious difficulties involved in defining good by God, so it may not be the best choice. How are we to know what is good unless God appears and tells us?
"If the whims change then good would change with it."
Don't we have the exact same issue when good is defined by God? When God's whims change then good would change with it?
@@Ansatz66 Good is used to refer to a transient morality. That is to say a morality that is correct no matter the context.
This would differ from morality which is created by social negotiation and is culturally specific.
Notice I used God with a capital G. Using it to refer to the singular God of the abrehamic religions.
This at least is how I'm using them.
"How are we to know what is good unless God appears and tells us?"
Theoretically you can't. God is said to have come down and have given us a moral code but knowledge of Good and Evil was inheriant to being self aware. Through the common understanding and the religious texts you can say that Good is the actions that produce the least suffering or long term happienss, contentment and meaning. Evil to contrast is the acceptance of an imediate pleasure at the sacrifice of a long term good.
What to say is good in every exact situation? There are to many situations to codify Good in that way. The book would literally be bigger than our planet.
You are taught Morality, but you learn of Good. We call knowing it in the moment wisdom.
"When God's whims change then good would change with it?"
Short answer, no. Not if we are using the Noun God referring to the singular concept of God from the abrehamic faiths.
To say it long however. The God of the abrehamic religions is unchanging. He speaks of Good as an absoulte and teaches us how to learn it from ourselves. That is to say. God teaches you good through your lifes path if you are a christian. Guiding you throuhg unseen dangers but imparting wisdom. Otherwise you only learn good through trial and error, and you are likely to not know it when you have it. Discarding the good for the pleasurable in the now not realizing the concequences later.
IF though we are refering to a generic god then no you can't define morality off of them. They are just anouther aspect of the world. The abrehamic God is something much much more greater than that.
He seeks a personal relationship.
I'm pretty tierd, so I might not have said this very well. Let me know if I was able to clarify.
@@mr.stargazer9835 "Through the common understanding and the religious texts you can say that Good is the actions that produce the least suffering or long term happiness, contentment and meaning."
We could say that, but couldn't we be wrong? Isn't common understanding just another way of saying popular opinion? Can't anyone write religious texts? The truth of morality depends entirely upon God, and we have no access to that, so doesn't that make morality unknowable?
"The God of the Abrahamic religions is unchanging."
How do we know that God is unchanging? Even if God has never yet changed, perhaps God might change tomorrow. How would we even know if God had changed? Isn't Jesus supposed to be God and doesn't Jesus change? Jesus wasn't like a statue.
@@Ansatz66
Are you operating outside of the definitions I prescribed? If so communicating this will be impossible. You use Morality and Good interchangeably in this responce.
You seem to not get what I'm saying. We cannot describe good because its situationaly specific and complex. The above description is simply what the religious text indicates in the broadest terms. Even then it doesn't describe good.
That is to say Good is in the doing, not in the scripting. You can't describe good in scripting terms because the definition would be too complex. There is billions of actions that could be good given the context and many many more that would be Evil.
"How do we know that God is unchanging"
Because the God of the abrahamic religions is described as such. He is described in the bible as a nonlinier time entity that simply Is in any context you speak about him in. Jesus though is described as a linear expression of a nonlinear God. He claimed that
'before Abraham was I am'.
To clarify, I'm refering to Gods charecter/personality. Jesus got older, and did live as a man growing for a young boy to adulthood.
@@mr.stargazer9835 "Because the God of the abrahamic religions is described as such."
Surely God is a real being who has some properties regardless of how we describe God. If we described Joe Biden as being 10 feet tall, that would not mean we know Joe Biden is 10 feet tall, because Joe Biden is not really 10 feet tall. The description doesn't make a thing true. There's only one situation in which a description makes a thing true. When Sherlock Holmes is described as enjoying his violin, that description becomes truth and we know this about Sherlock Holmes, but this only possible because Sherlock Holmes is not real; he has no properties aside from the properties we give him in description.
"I'm referring to Gods charecter/personality. Jesus got older, and did live as a man growing for a young boy to adulthood."
Did Jesus's personality never change? Was Jesus already a preacher as a baby? Did the young Jesus have the mind of an adult from the very beginning and never enjoy childish things or cry the way babies usually cry for attention? Was Jesus able to speak from the very first day out of the womb?
If God changes in some ways but not in other ways, how can we determine which ways God may change, and which ways God must remain fixed?