When Worlds Collide

Another shorty before work...

I’m prompted by the continuing conversation about morality with commenter nedbrek to touch on ‘Euthyphro’s dilemma’, from the Platonic dialogues. Summed up in modern English, the argument goes something like this (from Wiki): "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?" The reader can study the ramifications of the so-called dilemma, as well as the rejoinders for her/himself, but what it all boils down to for the theistic worldview is that ‘real’, or ‘perfect’ morality originally proceeds from God. It logically follows that a person is moral only so far as his personal morality aligns with God’s. Simple enough.

But what about when one’s personal morality conflicts with God’s? This is where the show becomes interesting. Ostensibly, it seems the only allowable route to take is for a theist to relinquish one’s own moral sense, and adopt his/her god’s. However, and as I’ve pointed out before, the biblical god is somewhat of an asshole on many fronts, and anybody who follows His edicts to the letter is apt to find himself ostracized, shunned, beleaguered, and otherwise distanced from the moral milieu of the culture she/he lives in. Joining an inwardly referencing cult is one answer, I suppose. At least, the dissonance is self contained, although the group dynamic in place to insure stability can taste like pretty nasty medicine in its own right. But cults aren’t for everybody.

Another answer is to split God’s morality down the middle. There’s God’s realm of action, and then there’s humankind’s. The problem with this, though, is that God has this annoying habit of working out His will at the hands of human beings. So when a person does something particularly despicable, such as murdering an employee of Planned Parenthood, who’s to say that his is not a moral act? Or maybe if I decide to steal a new car...hey, ultimately God owns everything, right? Who’s to say what God might be whispering in my ear? Maybe the former owner was a Unitarian.

However, far and away the favorite way of reconciling GOD’S WILL with ‘god’s will’, is to simply re-interpret God’s morality in light of more modern sensibilities. This mean’s that when God says to murder all the men, women, children and animals of a neighboring city- EXCEPT, of course, the young women, who are free to be raped and forced into a faux-marriage servitude- this is all done FOR THE GOOD i.e. how are the women going to survive out there without their homes and families? Sort of a reverse take on the joke about the boy who murders his parents, then defends himself on the grounds that he’s an orphan. Also, the same sort of rationalization the Inquisitors used; because, after all, torture in the name of Christ was meant to get the victim to recant of his evil deeds, thereby winning a spot in the celestial paradise. The pain equals gain approach e.g. it’s ALL good! :)

Conversely, the flip side of this approach is to claim that God’s morality really DOES line up with modern moral sensibilities, and that critics are simply misinterpreting what the bible actually says, to make it seem, like, evil and twisted, or sumpin’. So when Paul says that the women should stay in the back of the church and keep their mouths shut, that actually means...well, you know them gals! Oh, you know what I mean, girlfriend! :) Or when Jesus says to sell all you have and give to the poor, that means...that means...well, I’m not sure exactly what it means, but He’s CERTAINLY not telling me to give up my Tuesday afternoon nail appointments, or to downgrade to a Yugo. And when Jesus threw the moneychangers out of the temple, that sure doesn’t mean that you can’t have moneychangers selling schlocky Christian bling in a store CONNECTED to the temple...does it?

And on...and on...and on...

Peace out, folks! Gotta go flip some burgers, maybe go do some tithing at the Church of the Holy Brunswick after work. Hey! At least I get some recompense for my buck! And they have holy water on tap!!!