fredag 24 juni 2011

How is God feeling today?

I just read this article by my new favorite philosopher, Sam Harris. Without as of yet having read his new book, The Moral Landscape, this is the clearest account I've come across of his view of morality. I won't repeat the argument here; suffice to say that he argues that questions of morality can only have meaning in the realm of consciousness, specifically the well-being of conscious creatures.

Harris:Link
...all the people who claim to have alternative sources of morality (like the Word of God) are, in every case that I am aware of, only concerned about wellbeing anyway: They just happen to believe that the universe functions in such a way as to place the really important changes in conscious experience after death (i.e. in heaven or hell).
I've heard Sam argue this point in debates against people of faith. They have immediately objected that one doesn't believe in God out of self-interest; that is, because you want to go to heaven and are afraid to go to hell.

As an ex-Christian, I recognize Harris' argument and I (still) believe the objection is, to a large extent, justified. I find there is a complementary view that could explain a monotheistic morality within the context of Harris' objective morality:

Could monotheists' "morals" be unconsciously based on the imagined well-being of God's consciousness? It may sound far-fetched, but entertain the thought for a moment.

If one imagines God as being pleased by human sacrifice, and his consciousness as being vastly more advanced than our own (to the point of omniscience), then the act of human sacrifice would, in this at once grandiose and claustrophobic world view, increase the amount of conscious well-being in the universe. "Mysterious Ways", and so on.

This seems to make psychological sense to me. To imagine the creator of the universe to have human traits is to imagine him as having a consciousness, which must have a greater or lesser measure of well-being. I seem to recall there being more than one instance in the Bible where God is attributed with very human emotions, and not just anger. Doesn't he even "weep for every sinner", or something? (Or was that a song?)

If Harris should find this complementary view interesting, I'm picturing it being useful in debates with believers, to put them slightly less on the defensive. It's a fair point, and it's consistent with his message. It may be unorthodox, but that hasn't stopped Harris before.

On the other hand, of course, he doesn't exactly seem to mind putting believers on the defensive.

Inga kommentarer:

Skicka en kommentar