mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86 
|
Post by mcc1789 on Jan 5, 2016 3:19:55 GMT
It seems clear that according to traditional Christian theology, humans have instincts that lead to sin. We desire more people sexually than monogamous spouses, or in ways traditionally disclaimed (e.g. homosexual attraction, etc). Yet, if God is the creator of all things as has also been claimed, why do we have such instincts? They are directly at odds with divine commands, traditionally defined.
|
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jan 10, 2016 15:52:46 GMT
It seems clear that according to traditional Christian theology, humans have instincts that lead to sin. We desire more people sexually than monogamous spouses, or in ways traditionally disclaimed (e.g. homosexual attraction, etc). Yet, if God is the creator of all things as has also been claimed, why do we have such instincts? They are directly at odds with divine commands, traditionally defined. I want to clarify ahead of anything else that I don't think same-sex relationships or sexual activity are evil or sinful. So I disagree with traditional theology on that matter (and on several other subjects) and I certainly don't think the traditional view should be defended hook, line, sinker. Far from it, actually. That said, I don't deny the premise that humans have instincts that lead to sin. Selfishness seems a good example of an evolved trait, with its (limited) evolutionary uses, that may certainly be called instinctive. But it's only one of our instincts that seems at odds with the totality of our moral intuitions if taken beyond a limited level. So it appears to involve a double standard somewhere down the line. And let's be clear, we are not the slaves of our instincts. Whatever your views on free will, we do seem to be able to override them with our (apparent) consciousness. So my answer would be that we are able to draw from a balance of powers of our instincts which should limit excesses and that overstepping would be a freely made ethical decision of our own. Some instincts seem inevitable from our evolutionary origins (a bit of self-interest and lewdness are clearly needed to keep the whole chain of being running!), others could well be gratuitous and the result of the (contingent) pathway our evolutionary line took. What ultimately matters to me is that consistent, rational and not self-serving extrapolation of our moral instincts appear to produce an approximately ethical way of living. tl;dr: yes, wrong instincts exist, but its the totality of our intuitions that matter to meI think it is an interesting question, that gave me an opportunity to evaluate my beliefs from another angle. Thanks for it. Modification: Rereading this, it seems a bit wafflish, but I think the differences in our approaches lie in that your focus is on instincts individually, whereas my focus is on the entire set. If you want to reply to something I wrote (e.g. on the justification of either approach), that difference seems good to keep in mind. |
|
mcc1789
Bachelor of the Arts
Posts: 86
|
Post by mcc1789 on Jan 10, 2016 19:27:34 GMT
That's a good clarification on homosexuality, certainly. However, how do you justify that in view of the Biblical view?
I agree this all makes perfect sense from the standpoint of natural, unguided evolution. However, it does not seem so if you posit a creator that desires certain behaviors above others. What is the double standard in this case?
I don't mean to ignore the totality of instincts. It is simply that I don't think they make sense from the perspective of divine creation.
|
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Jan 10, 2016 21:41:57 GMT
That's a good clarification on homosexuality, certainly. However, how do you justify that in view of the Biblical view? I don't intend to give a full account here, which also involves some very specific theological hairsplitting, but feel free to ask in a new topic of via PM. But crucial for my view is that I don't regard the Bible as an infallible, inerrant or even morally perfect book. The Bible's role is to justify faith and explain doctrine on matters that are far less open to examination by Reason than religious liberals want to believe, but it cannot enforce us to believe the immoral (about God) or the contradictory. I think that it is important that God's goodness has objective meaning for morality, so I shy away from nominalistic interpretations on that front. Also, even when one believes that the Bible is the Word of God (which I do), we are still ourselves responsible for how we interpret the Bible and for the effects our interpretations have on our conduct. By now you may wonder why I believe in the Bible at all, but I think that the case for the Resurrection is more probable than the alternative explanations. I agree this all makes perfect sense from the standpoint of natural, unguided evolution. However, it does not seem so if you posit a creator that desires certain behaviors above others. What is the double standard in this case? Mind you, for me evolution in the development of moral intuitions is the mechanism, not the justification. It's justification would in my opinion lie in its correspondence with the nature of God. For me it's not clear at all that unguided evolution could give us a morality that we could use as a sound basis for proscribing some things and prescribing other things. Ethology gives plenty examples of evolved behaviours that we (would) find extremely unimpressive in humans, after all. I understand that not all of those are probable for a social animal like us, but I don't see why we would find. It's less important to me that all of our instincts are morally all right and more that our innate sense of morals offers a way to work a way towards getting things right, on the assumption that we can't simply assume ourselves to be superior to others (which would be a self-serving double standard). A lot of evil in human existence involves the dynamics of in groups and out groups, whereas my intuition is that a lot of that is very difficult to justify once you can't cheat your way to the preferred outcome by means of double standards. I didn't intend to imply a specific double standard, but if my view is tenable there must be at least one involved. I think a kind of naïve, exclusively self-regarding selfishness would fail by having a sense of entitlement that the people who suffer from the naïve egoist's actions apparently don't have in his/her view. The egoist probably wouldn't think it would be right for him or her to suffer what others have to stomach. That doesn't really debunk Randian prescriptive selfishness (for the sake of argument we can oversimplify it as "everyone should be selfish and only be altruistic for selfish reasons"), but I think the problem with that is 1) Rand's view is not rationally self-evident, unlike her claims, and 2) it seems to fly in the face of our intuitions, as people are often quite pleased to be altruistic to their in group. (To be clear, this doesn't define at all to what degree the pursuit of self-interest is wrong or right. I think that's a different debate.) I don't mean to ignore the totality of instincts. It is simply that I don't think they make sense from the perspective of divine creation. Fair enough. I think that may be described as a difference in focus, though, or weighting if you prefer that term. It seems quite difficult to cogently argue for either this focus or that weight to either the whole or its parts. |
|
|
|
Post by gnosticbishop on Feb 12, 2016 18:53:44 GMT
As my favorite bishop says, religion is all about creating guilt. That is where the money is. Religions do not care if they have to lie to us about God. They are in the lying business. www.youtube.com/watch?v=SF6I5VSZVqcRegards DL |
|
