Nichomachian Ethics and the Search for God

[WorldlingWatcher]

In his work Nichomachian Ethics, Aristotle made the following assertion:

It is the mark of an educated mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision that the nature of the subject admits, and not seek exactness when only an approximation is possible.

Should Aristotle's proposition inform our approach in a search for God, and if so, what degree of precision is necessary in the conduct of that search?

[Matt]

Great question, WorldlingWatcher!

I think it begs a question, though. Can God be known through rational inquiry, or is revelation necessary? Many Christians would argue that God's distinction from creation makes rational inquiry into his existence fruitless and that our knowledge of Him must come from God himself. Others would say a similar thing--that God theoretically can be deduced from reason and observation, but that humanity is too corrupt to understand God from these things.

Romans 1:18–32 and 1 Corinthians 1:18–2:16 are keys texts for Christians wrestling with the relevance of "natural theology."

Denying natural theology, however, is a conversation-stopper when it comes to Christian-atheist dialogue.

[humanguy]

In his work Nichomachian Ethics, Aristotle made the following assertion:

It is the mark of an educated mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision that the nature of the subject admits, and not seek exactness when only an approximation is possible.

Should Aristotle's proposition inform our approach in a search for God, and if so, what degree of precision is necessary in the conduct of that search?

Interesting. I find the idea of Christians searching for God to be interesting, and also somewhat puzzling. Could you explain in greater detail what searching for God means to a Christian?

[WorldlingWatcher]

Could you explain in greater detail what searching for God means to a Christian?

For the purposes of applying this quote of Aristotle's, I was considering the standards people adopt for themselves when forming an opinion about the existence of God. For example, if one were to reach for an evidentiary standard, should it be "preponderance of the evidence", "beyond a reasonable doubt", or "beyond any doubt", and why?

[humanguy]

Could you explain in greater detail what searching for God means to a Christian?

For the purposes of applying this quote of Aristotle's, I was considering the standards people adopt for themselves when forming an opinion about the existence of God. For example, if one were to reach for an evidentiary standard, should it be "preponderance of the evidence", "beyond a reasonable doubt", or "beyond any doubt", and why?

Well, since the only evidence, if you want to call it that, that we have for the existence of the Christian God is what was written by a few human beings a couple of thousand years ago, and considering that there is absolutely no verifiable account of God having ever been witnessed by anyone, then I'd say that it would fall within the realm of reasonable doubt to conclude that God is a human fabrication. Anyway that's how I look at it.

Why does that work for me? Because everyone, Christian and atheist alike, agrees (with very good reason I think) that all those old pagan Gods, the ones people worshiped before the Christian God came along, were the fabrications of primitive cultures, no matter how much the ancient people who worshiped those Gods and Goddesses may have been convinced that they truly existed. Case closed as far as I'm concerned.

But to go back to my question, what would cause a Christian to feel the need to search for God? This is what I find puzzling.

[WorldlingWatcher]

Well, since the only evidence, if you want to call it that, that we have for the existence of the Christian God is what was written by a few human beings a couple of thousand years ago....

Testimony's not evidence? Has anyone told Emery? And only recent evidence should be considered valid? How did you arrive at these conclusions?

Because everyone, Christian and atheist alike, agrees (with very good reason I think) that all those old pagan Gods, the ones people worshiped before the Christian God came along, were the fabrications of primitive cultures, no matter how much the ancient people who worshiped those Gods and Goddesses may have been convinced that they truly existed.

This is an argument from popularity, no?

As for your question about a need to search for God, I have some ideas, but it's off-topic. I recommend you PM me or start another thread if you wish to discuss further.

[humanguy]

Well, since the only evidence, if you want to call it that, that we have for the existence of the Christian God is what was written by a few human beings a couple of thousand years ago....

Testimony's not evidence? Has anyone told Emery? And only recent evidence should be considered valid? How did you arrive at these conclusions?

Because everyone, Christian and atheist alike, agrees (with very good reason I think) that all those old pagan Gods, the ones people worshiped before the Christian God came along, were the fabrications of primitive cultures, no matter how much the ancient people who worshiped those Gods and Goddesses may have been convinced that they truly existed.

This is an argument from popularity, no?

As for your question about a need to search for God, I have some ideas, but it's off-topic. I recommend you PM me or start another thread if you wish to discuss further.

But why is it off-topic? However it's not really mine to question since this is your thread and I respect that.

Allow me, though, to be off-topic for just a bit longer.

Testimony is not evidence, no. I can say that I saw something, anything, but that by itself does not constitute evidence. To me that seems obvious. If I was a shill at a game of Three-card Monte would you trust my testimony about how easy it is to win?

The Argument From Popularity reference, well that could easily be applied to Christianity, couldn't it? And I'm certain, as sure as I know that I'm typing this on my computer, that you don't believe in Zeus and that it would never occur to you to go searching for him.

[WorldlingWatcher]

But why is it off-topic? However it's not really mine to question since this is your thread and I respect that.

I'm open to arguments of why it might be within the topic. It seems to me a Christian has already settled on an amount of precision required to come to a conclusion, though.

Testimony is not evidence, no. I can say that I saw something, anything, but that by itself does not constitute evidence. To me that seems obvious. If I was a shill at a game of Three-card Monte would you trust my testimony about how easy it is to win?

We deprive people of liberty and property all the time based on testimony.

The Argument From Popularity reference, well that could easily be applied to Christianity, couldn't it?

People do make that claim about Christianity, but I don't accept it as sufficient.

[WorldlingWatcher]

Can God be known through rational inquiry, or is revelation necessary?

I'm presuming you're referring to special revelation, or direct communications from God to individuals; if not, let me know.

From that perspective, if one can get to the conclusion that there is a God without resorting to personal claims of interaction with God, I think one can draw conclusions about God by observation of the universe. For instance, if you were to accept the cosmological argument, it seems to me you should be able to conclude God is quite powerful, intelligent and inventive.

[humanguy]

The Argument From Popularity reference, well that could easily be applied to Christianity, couldn't it?

People do make that claim about Christianity, but I don't accept it as sufficient.

Then why should I accept it as being sufficient when you say that my statement about people no longer believing in the ancient pagan gods is just an example of the Argument From Popularity? Why, in fact, would you even use that tactic at all if you don't accept it as being sufficient? Sauce for the goose, you know.

[Matt]

Why does that work for me? Because everyone, Christian and atheist alike, agrees (with very good reason I think) that all those old pagan Gods, the ones people worshiped before the Christian God came along, were the fabrications of primitive cultures, no matter how much the ancient people who worshiped those Gods and Goddesses may have been convinced that they truly existed. Case closed as far as I'm concerned.

If you think you can make a compelling case for the existence of a god other than YHWH, I am willing to entertain it.

[humanguy]

Why does that work for me? Because everyone, Christian and atheist alike, agrees (with very good reason I think) that all those old pagan Gods, the ones people worshiped before the Christian God came along, were the fabrications of primitive cultures, no matter how much the ancient people who worshiped those Gods and Goddesses may have been convinced that they truly existed. Case closed as far as I'm concerned.

If you think you can make a compelling case for the existence of a god other than YHWH, I am willing to entertain it.

I have no such case to make. As I said, those gods were the fabrications of relatively primitive cultures and I'm quite sure that everyone agrees with that, including you.

Now, if you think you can make a compelling case for the non-existence of Dionysus then I am more than willing to entertain that. What do you think, would you be able to make a compelling case against the existence of Dionysus?

[Exrev]

In his work Nichomachian Ethics, Aristotle made the following assertion:

It is the mark of an educated mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision that the nature of the subject admits, and not seek exactness when only an approximation is possible.

Should Aristotle's proposition inform our approach in a search for God, and if so, what degree of precision is necessary in the conduct of that search?

Well what would merit such a search for a god or god(s)? I don't see any cause or reason to search for a god or even to think that such a thing exist outside the fantasies of men. It like proposing a search for pink unicorns.

[Matt]

I have no such case to make. As I said, those gods were the fabrications of relatively primitive cultures and I'm quite sure that everyone agrees with that, including you.

Now, if you think you can make a compelling case for the non-existence of Dionysus then I am more than willing to entertain that. What do you think, would you be able to make a compelling case against the existence of Dionysus?

Well, you're not giving me much to go on here. Tell me about Dionysus. Is he your cable guy? Is he the supreme creator of the universe? Who is Dionysus, and what would it mean for him to "exist"? How would the world, history, and my life be different if Dionysus existed? If I am going to argue against a claim, I need to know what that claim is.

[humanguy]

I have no such case to make. As I said, those gods were the fabrications of relatively primitive cultures and I'm quite sure that everyone agrees with that, including you.

Now, if you think you can make a compelling case for the non-existence of Dionysus then I am more than willing to entertain that. What do you think, would you be able to make a compelling case against the existence of Dionysus?

Well, you're not giving me much to go on here. Tell me about Dionysus. Is he your cable guy? Is he the supreme creator of the universe? Who is Dionysus, and what would it mean for him to "exist"? How would the world, history, and my life be different if Dionysus existed? If I am going to argue against a claim, I need to know what that claim is.

There isn't much to go on except for everything in Greek mythology that mentions Dionysus, all of which is nonsense, of course. Anyway I'm convinced that it is. His father was Zeus, the creator of the universe, and his mother was a mortal woman, the daughter of some king, and Dionysus was the god of wine. It's all there in Greek mythology.

Now surely there's no way you believe in Dionysus, is there? I mean, who could? I certainly don't. And who could believe that Dionysus' father, Zeus, is the king of gods who rules over the universe?

Now as far as I know all that could be absolutely true. But I very much doubt it, in fact I'm quite sure that it's all made up, just a bunch of ancient myths. Wouldn't you agree?