Sorry I haven’t responded in a while been a bit busy. But here goes.
Dunamis,
I didn’t catch on to the misscommunication at first, but I think I see the problem now. I am not implying that there is a teleological end created by God. The statement which you quoted is with regard to a universal (an ethics) which is independent of teleos and God(s).
However, I do concede your point [on the teleological] and will refine my argument accordingly. Since you have demonstrated an alternative way of concieving things in the world, as an unfolding, I will withdraw the teleological, and limit the argument to this:
The rejection of God, due to the problem of evil, cannot be maintained if there is no universal (ethics, morality).
Therefore:
Either A) There is an ethics, to which we thinkers ought to put forth our energy in order to try to understand the nature of,
Or B) We cannot maintain the argument that an omnibenevolent God cannot exist because of the problem of evil.
So it logically follows that holding one position, nessesarly implies the rejection of the other, and vice versa.
Uniqor,
[Remember this is just a hypothesis]
When I speak of morality or ethics – I don’t speak of it, or think of it, in deontological terms. Nor do I think of ethics in terms of a religious morality (anymore anyway). So, in my opinion, Nietzsche may have hit the nail on the hammer, or came pretty darn close, when he described the genesis of religious morality.
However, in my opinion, a moral person, someone who accepts ethical claims, has a conscience, ect., develops this conscience, not because religion indoctrinates it within them (though later on, if one places faith and love into God, it will serve to indoctrinate a lot of a person’s morality), but because they know, or have known, love.
A childs love for his syblings, mother, father, grandparents, causes the child pain. For example, if a child does something displeasing to them, offends them or hurts them, by the very fact that the child loves them, the child ends up hurting itself.
In relation to that, I want to bring up Levinas’s idea that “to be human is by definition to be in relation to the other” --and the child, is more than in mere relation to the other, they are in a loving relation, which, I think, enables them to develop that “conscience,” that moral right and wrong. For, the child itself will be in pain when it hurts that whom it loves.
For example, stealing is not a part of a childs ethics, the child has no knowledge of it being right or wrong, that is, until the child steals something and then observes the embaressment it causes his or her parents. Then the parents teach the child that it is wrong to steal – and the moral conscience, that pain which, if not after the first time, sooner or later, will become a part of that child’s being.
What happens then is, I think, a child, out of love, internalizes their parents, and later on God, and fears not their punishment, but fears their dissapointment because of the belief that the parents, and God, love the child. Holding this belief [parents and god loving the child], they accept what is taught to them by their parents, and God, for they believe it is for their own best interest. So it is a twofold proccess: First, the child is dissapointing them who the child loves [and believes loves the child], and second, the child is acting to his or her own moral disadvantage by disobeying [for the belief is that the commandments, comming from a loving place, are for the child’s own best interest]. I also think, that the fear of Hell, plays a role in Christian morality, but their are conscientious people who grow up without the idea of Hell.
Furthermore, one has to, I think, understand the nature of a childs world. A child is a lot more in-the-world than us theoretical farts. They are able to have such strong vicarious experiences, where the difference between a movie and real life, to the child, is almost non-existent. What can be inferred from this? The child’s world, the ego dominated and centered world, is a lot more emotionally connected to the world. Because whatever enters a child world, the child seems to think of it as an extension of themselves. At least in very early childhood. For instance, a child can believe that people who die on t.v. actually die.
So, when injustice is percieved by the child – which the child merely judges in terms of how they would feel in that situation – morality is created. In other words, Kant’s a big baby looking to rationally justify his childhood moral sense of right and wrong.
All deontological principles, on the other hand, are built into society to protect the weak from the strong; and to help society flourish and prosper.
That’s my 3 cents anyway. I’d be interested in hearing yours, or anyone elses thoughts on the matter, if you guys wish to share.