On the Position of Divinities
Let us consider the place of divinity in ethics. There are many different concepts of the divine of course; we may believe in a pantheon of beings, or one all-powerful entity or simply some form of nebulous, but potent, spirit. All such concepts normally postulate that we are created by these higher powers and are also somehow subordinate to these powers; due to their might, wisdom or simply the fact that we were created either later or, more generally, by such beings.
I argued previously that someone who believes in a divine spirit may be able to answer many ethical questions with surety and to their own satisfaction; it seems rational indeed to say that a certain action is right because it has been vindicated by a being of more wisdom than ourselves, indeed, it may be said that human legalism is such a process; we generally bow to the opinion of those individuals of wisdom who are trained to be judges by our educational establishments; those individuals entrusted with the duty of passing judgements, based on venerable precedent, overseen by a body of impartial laymen. The legalism of laymen is a different thing entirely from the oversight of divinity however; the former rests on the aegis of our equals whom we recognise have an unbiased interest in the pursuit of law and, more importantly, justice.
If we take divinity in its most undiluted and extreme sense; the monotheistic worship of God the Father in Christianity, we are confronted by a different situation entirely however. Just as the judge may be of greater wisdom in matters of law and justice than the common man, and perhaps also wiser than average so, certainly, is the Creator of the Universe, He who is immanent in all things; possessed of greater wisdom than all the judges under the sun. Unlike the judge God is not under the observation of impartial men who are the equal of the defendant however and this must be a cause for concern; would we trust power to be rendered unto a great human, a person possessed of intelligence, beauty and wisdom? An individual unbound by law, constraint and oversight? Even if this person was possessed of all the wisdom on Earth most of us would baulk at the prospect; the reason that we have juries to oversee judges is due to the fact that it generally considered offensive by humanity to be ruled over by others, particularly others who have no limits on their authority.
God is not on Earth however or merely under the sun; He is all things at all times, and so those who have a literal faith in religion would argue that His judgements are a special thing beyond concerns about autonomy; God would provide us with wisdom beyond our understanding, wisdom that we would accept without question, commands that are just even if we ourselves fail to see the justice; God is the divine centre, the measure, the cornerstone by which all such things as justice, good and bad, black and white, are measured from. Perhaps I am churlish however, but I personally don't want to do something simply because I am told that it is right but because it actively seems right to me; the clichéd argument for this objection is perhaps the best; I am told that the murder of an innocent is for the greater good, I am ordered to take this life in cold blood because it is deemed by someone of a grander intelligence and beauty than myself to have a good end, one I am incapable of seeing. I have no reason not to trust the truth of this claim but would that be an overriding reason to commit an action that violates one of our most essential qualms; the taking of life.
Consider that God never makes his existence obvious moreso than we are told by those with a faith that He has already; by the world itself. All we have then in that case is a series of prohibitions in ancient documents; often these are fairly sound prohibitions; as mentioned earlier many religious books offer sage wisdom to the reader. My arguments hitherto may be accepted with little loss therefore, the believer may well say; 'I certainly accept that humanity has the right to choose its own destiny, these are rights and abilities God-given in point of fact, but you seem to claim that God should expect us to audit his affairs, to scrutinise his decrees; decrees you have accepted have much logic behind them, isn't that a ludicrous contention?' If I did say that we should scrutinise God then certainly it would be; it is not for me to second-guess the Creator but, consider, the issue from another angle.
The idealised view of childbirth is that two people, who love each other, conceive a child together in this spirit and henceforth love the child. A child is born lacking speech, knowledge and skill; these things all develop on their own, to a degree, but we help the infant along; we set boundaries out of a spirit of stewardship and may also punish in the same spirit, all for the greater good of the infant. The Christian God is like this; and in the same way that my parents had no oversight over their own actions except their conscience then neither has God. As the child finds their own mind then this stewardship chafes and eventually parents give up their control over their own child, a child that goes on in the fullness of time to have children of its own and teaches them the same lessons all over again. Most children maintain a warm relationship with their parents, even though they chafed under their domination; we do not resent this stewardship on reflection but we have no wish to be placed under it again and, if it was extended indefinitely, we would rebel violently against it. This is not due to any hatred of our parents but because we are possessed of free will; stewardship is the process of turning children into adults capable of exercising free-will rationally. Surely our Creator wishes us to be adults, wishes us to argue, wishes us to dispute; to say that we were given free will simply to give Him added satisfaction when we follow His rules is akin to arguing that we are given life by our parents simply because they enjoy our affection. We would consider parents who had children out of such a spirit questionable; we find it offensive in general when parents seemingly have children only due to wanting an animate doll, some form of fashion accessory or extension of themselves; it would seem strange to consider such motivations as being those possessed by the Creator.
If the Creator is vain and venal then I see no reason to have undue attachment to Him, only a healthy respect due any vague and slightly embarrassing parent. If the Creator is wise and goodly then He would surely wish us to exercise the abilities we are given. It seems strange to argue that a parent owns us all our life, perhaps God is not to be contrasted with any earthly concept; isn't it not strange to willing suspend disbelief in perpetuity however? Should society follow rules given to us that, though often sound, are not based on rational philosophy but on the diktat of some uncommunicative Creator? Should we accept, as sound, commands given to us that cannot be explained or argued for by the enunciator? I say that such a thing would seem an affront to God; to take ones own abilities, given to us as a gift and dowry, and to cast them aside; God grants us an opportunity every day to think and breath for ourselves; to breath for oneself is surely the highest commandment.
I argued previously that someone who believes in a divine spirit may be able to answer many ethical questions with surety and to their own satisfaction; it seems rational indeed to say that a certain action is right because it has been vindicated by a being of more wisdom than ourselves, indeed, it may be said that human legalism is such a process; we generally bow to the opinion of those individuals of wisdom who are trained to be judges by our educational establishments; those individuals entrusted with the duty of passing judgements, based on venerable precedent, overseen by a body of impartial laymen. The legalism of laymen is a different thing entirely from the oversight of divinity however; the former rests on the aegis of our equals whom we recognise have an unbiased interest in the pursuit of law and, more importantly, justice.
If we take divinity in its most undiluted and extreme sense; the monotheistic worship of God the Father in Christianity, we are confronted by a different situation entirely however. Just as the judge may be of greater wisdom in matters of law and justice than the common man, and perhaps also wiser than average so, certainly, is the Creator of the Universe, He who is immanent in all things; possessed of greater wisdom than all the judges under the sun. Unlike the judge God is not under the observation of impartial men who are the equal of the defendant however and this must be a cause for concern; would we trust power to be rendered unto a great human, a person possessed of intelligence, beauty and wisdom? An individual unbound by law, constraint and oversight? Even if this person was possessed of all the wisdom on Earth most of us would baulk at the prospect; the reason that we have juries to oversee judges is due to the fact that it generally considered offensive by humanity to be ruled over by others, particularly others who have no limits on their authority.
God is not on Earth however or merely under the sun; He is all things at all times, and so those who have a literal faith in religion would argue that His judgements are a special thing beyond concerns about autonomy; God would provide us with wisdom beyond our understanding, wisdom that we would accept without question, commands that are just even if we ourselves fail to see the justice; God is the divine centre, the measure, the cornerstone by which all such things as justice, good and bad, black and white, are measured from. Perhaps I am churlish however, but I personally don't want to do something simply because I am told that it is right but because it actively seems right to me; the clichéd argument for this objection is perhaps the best; I am told that the murder of an innocent is for the greater good, I am ordered to take this life in cold blood because it is deemed by someone of a grander intelligence and beauty than myself to have a good end, one I am incapable of seeing. I have no reason not to trust the truth of this claim but would that be an overriding reason to commit an action that violates one of our most essential qualms; the taking of life.
Consider that God never makes his existence obvious moreso than we are told by those with a faith that He has already; by the world itself. All we have then in that case is a series of prohibitions in ancient documents; often these are fairly sound prohibitions; as mentioned earlier many religious books offer sage wisdom to the reader. My arguments hitherto may be accepted with little loss therefore, the believer may well say; 'I certainly accept that humanity has the right to choose its own destiny, these are rights and abilities God-given in point of fact, but you seem to claim that God should expect us to audit his affairs, to scrutinise his decrees; decrees you have accepted have much logic behind them, isn't that a ludicrous contention?' If I did say that we should scrutinise God then certainly it would be; it is not for me to second-guess the Creator but, consider, the issue from another angle.
The idealised view of childbirth is that two people, who love each other, conceive a child together in this spirit and henceforth love the child. A child is born lacking speech, knowledge and skill; these things all develop on their own, to a degree, but we help the infant along; we set boundaries out of a spirit of stewardship and may also punish in the same spirit, all for the greater good of the infant. The Christian God is like this; and in the same way that my parents had no oversight over their own actions except their conscience then neither has God. As the child finds their own mind then this stewardship chafes and eventually parents give up their control over their own child, a child that goes on in the fullness of time to have children of its own and teaches them the same lessons all over again. Most children maintain a warm relationship with their parents, even though they chafed under their domination; we do not resent this stewardship on reflection but we have no wish to be placed under it again and, if it was extended indefinitely, we would rebel violently against it. This is not due to any hatred of our parents but because we are possessed of free will; stewardship is the process of turning children into adults capable of exercising free-will rationally. Surely our Creator wishes us to be adults, wishes us to argue, wishes us to dispute; to say that we were given free will simply to give Him added satisfaction when we follow His rules is akin to arguing that we are given life by our parents simply because they enjoy our affection. We would consider parents who had children out of such a spirit questionable; we find it offensive in general when parents seemingly have children only due to wanting an animate doll, some form of fashion accessory or extension of themselves; it would seem strange to consider such motivations as being those possessed by the Creator.
If the Creator is vain and venal then I see no reason to have undue attachment to Him, only a healthy respect due any vague and slightly embarrassing parent. If the Creator is wise and goodly then He would surely wish us to exercise the abilities we are given. It seems strange to argue that a parent owns us all our life, perhaps God is not to be contrasted with any earthly concept; isn't it not strange to willing suspend disbelief in perpetuity however? Should society follow rules given to us that, though often sound, are not based on rational philosophy but on the diktat of some uncommunicative Creator? Should we accept, as sound, commands given to us that cannot be explained or argued for by the enunciator? I say that such a thing would seem an affront to God; to take ones own abilities, given to us as a gift and dowry, and to cast them aside; God grants us an opportunity every day to think and breath for ourselves; to breath for oneself is surely the highest commandment.