Skip to main content

The Trouble with Using an Infinite God As the Measure of Morality

For all of the talk by various self proclaimed "moral" authorities about  "moral absolutism," the truth is that every human on the planet is necessarily and inescapably a moral relativist. And this is because finite things can only be compared in any meaningful way to other finite things, because to compare them to infinite things makes them all equally inferior. As such, every "moral" comparison, a long with every other comparison, is necessarily "relative" to what it is being compared too, which includes any comparison to the infinite. 

This then illustrates the glaring problem with the idea that God is "infinite" and "eternal," as well as being all powerful and all knowing. That problem is that if he is all of these things, then he cannot be used in anyway as a standard for any system of morality that could be applied to finite human beings. And this is because there is no way to compare an eternal and infinitely large orange to an apple that is smaller than an atom that lasts for only a nanosecond, except to point out that the two are as opposite as any two things can possibly be.  

But a system can only be comprised of things that have comparative commonalities, otherwise it is like trying to design a system of "right" thinking by comparing calculus to colors.
 
When measured agaisnt an infinite yardstick of God, then, all actions - no matter how good or bad by our own standards - become equally neutral, because they would all be equally inferior by comparison.  The number 10, in other words, is no "closer" to infinity, than the number 10 trillion, and the number 652 is no further from infinity than the number 5.

Comparing any two numbers as "values" or "quantities"  to infinity, then, which is basically what we are doing when we compare ourselves to an "infinite God," only illustrates how both are equally deficient. Infinity, in short, makes everything equally finite.

Hence, anyone who claims to "know" more about God is like a person claiming to know more about infinity than someone else, which is like one person claiming to have gotten closer to counting to infinity than a person who has never even learned how to count. 

In this same way, any act of "evil" a finite human being can commit, would necessarily be equal to any act of "good" they can commit, when both of those acts are only measured agaisnt an infinite scale. It is only when those acts are compared to each other, and measured agaisnt our finite nature, that we can begin to qualify each as one or the other.

Hence, any act of "evil" would still be infinitely better than an infinite number of greater evils that were possible, just like any act of "good" would likewise be infinitely worse than an infinite number of greater possible "goods." And for this reason, anything that can be measured or compared by finite beings, must necessarily be relative.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Christianity is More Unnatural Than Homosexuality

I grew up in a family that is about as homophobic as Phil Robertson and the Westboro Baptists, only they're not quite as boisterous about it; at least not in public anyway. They have also conveniently convinced themselves  that their homophobia is really just their unique Christian ability to "hate the sin, but love the sinner" (even though these very same Christians adamantly refuse to accept that people can "hate Christianity, but love the Christian").  The sexual superiority complex necessarily relied on by such Christians is, of course, blanketed beneath the lambs wool of the Christian humility of serving "God." They interpret their fear of those who are different, in other words, as simply proof of their intimate knowledge and love of God. And the only thing such Christians are more sure about than that their own personal version of "God" exists, is that such a "God" would never want people to be homosexual - no matter how ma...
  The world changes according to the way people see it, and if you alter even by a millimeter the way people look at reality, then you can change it.” James Baldwin   

Why Are Republicans Pro Life?

Most people don't realize that the Supreme Court has been in the hands of the Republican party since at least 1970! In fact, even in the landmark case of Roe v Wade that legalized abortion, SCOTUS was inhabited by 6 Republicans and 3 Democrats, and the vote was 7 to 2. One of the reasons is that the Republican Party has absolutely ZERO desire to win on the abortion issue. And that's because abortion gives the GOP a clear focal point with potentially unlimited organizing power. And it's an even simpler message to sell than religion, since we are "pro-life." (if that was true, however, they wouldn't be actively trying to repeal healthcare for up to 30 million Americans, nor would they be so pro-gun, pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro welfare cuts, pro- social security cuts, pro- drone strikes, etc). The Republican party officially became "pro-life" in 1976, thanks to Jesse Helms (R-NC). The only reason no serious challenge was brought within the pa...