Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

I think you're missing Philiogos' point. The existence of objective right and wrong does not depend on who accepts them or not - by definition that would make them subjective rather than objective.

Hmm, do you see how your use of the word 'reasonable' involves a recognition that such standards are indeed objective?

Ok. give me some examples of these objective rights and wrongs.

pauldla

philologos wrote: »

The the absence of any objective standard of good and evil as most atheists will say. Ethics is a matter of preference preference. It is entirely subjective, and in theory what is good is what I think is good, and what is evil is what I think is evil.

If there is a God who has declared what is good and evil to us through His word, then morality isn't subjective any longer. It's objectively binding on all irrespective of whether or not they believe.

So you are suggesting a 'big stick' theory of ethics, based on a supreme supernatural being?

You bad child. What impulses you must be surpressing.

So how is it then that many, many human societies develop a theory of ethics that is, in broad strokes (reverence for the dead, some form of the Golden Rule, etc), quite similiar?

And if the Creator is indeed the source of all morality, why does he seem to be just as much in thrall to, and confused by, good and evil as the rest of us?

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

Ok. give me some examples of these objective rights and wrongs.

It is wrong to torture babies to death for the fun of it. Now, you can view that statement in one of two ways:

a) It describes a moral absolute. That means that torturing babies to death as a recreational activity is always wrong, and always will be wrong, irrespective of any circumstances. That is objective morality.

b) It describes a social construct that has evolved to aid the survival of our species. That means that, because of our particular circumstances, we don't like the concept of torturing babies to death as a recreational activity. But, since morality is subjective, it is perfectly possible that another society might find it biologically useful to treat babies in such a manner. And, if that society does come to such a conclusion, then their position is no more right or wrong than ours. Since there is no objective morality, their behaviour towards children is, essentially, a matter of preference such as whether we open our boiled eggs at the pointy end or the rounded end. That is subjective morality.

Now, you might complain that I have chosen an extreme example. Of course, I have, that is how we best determine 'big' ethical questions such as whether morality is objective or not. If anyone's championing of subjective morality cannot cope with extreme cases then it is pointless and dishonest to use it as a concept to discuss more ambiguous cases.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

It is wrong to torture babies to death for the fun of it. Now, you can view that statement in one of two ways:

a) It describes a moral absolute. That means that torturing babies to death as a recreational activity is always wrong, and always will be wrong, irrespective of any circumstances. That is objective morality.

b) It describes a social construct that has evolved to aid the survival of our species. That means that, because of our particular circumstances, we don't like the concept of torturing babies to death as a recreational activity. But, since morality is subjective, it is perfectly possible that another society might find it biologically useful to treat babies in such a manner. And, if that society does come to such a conclusion, then their position is no more right or wrong than ours. Since there is no objective morality, their behaviour towards children is, essentially, a matter of preference such as whether we open our boiled eggs at the pointy end or the rounded end. That is subjective morality.

Now, you might complain that I have chosen an extreme example. Of course, I have, that is how we best determine 'big' ethical questions such as whether morality is objective or not. If anyone's championing of subjective morality cannot cope with extreme cases then it is pointless and dishonest to use it as a concept to discuss more ambiguous cases.

I don't think there is any difference between a and b other than saying one is objective and the other subjective, and so long as their is any human intervention then there must be subjectivity.

Furthermore I don't think it is the extreme examples and particularly the one you have given, are the ''big'' ethical questions , it is the more nuanced ones - the death penalty or the use of torture for example.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Christians say that objective morality comes from God, the bible , sacred texts, the wisdom of faithful, whatever , is that so ?

And if so - where is it ? The 10 commandments ? Is it derived from the texts ? and if so who derives it and why is that not subjective ?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

It is wrong to torture babies to death for the fun of it. Now, you can view that statement in one of two ways:

a) It describes a moral absolute. That means that torturing babies to death as a recreational activity is always wrong, and always will be wrong, irrespective of any circumstances. That is objective morality.

b) It describes a social construct that has evolved to aid the survival of our species. That means that, because of our particular circumstances, we don't like the concept of torturing babies to death as a recreational activity. But, since morality is subjective, it is perfectly possible that another society might find it biologically useful to treat babies in such a manner. And, if that society does come to such a conclusion, then their position is no more right or wrong than ours. Since there is no objective morality, their behaviour towards children is, essentially, a matter of preference such as whether we open our boiled eggs at the pointy end or the rounded end. That is subjective morality.

Given that some people do torture babies to death for fun it would seem that b) is closest to reality, would it not?

You can argue that these people are wrong beyond simply you believing they are wrong, but I would be very interested in how you demonstrate this objectively to them.

Zombrex

marienbad wrote: »

who derives it and why is that not subjective ?

Let me save you the trouble -

Theist - You poor atheists, you have no idea what is truly right or wrong, you just go with what ever you think yourselves, what ever makes sense to you personally.

Atheist - As opposed to what?

Theist - Well I know objective morality exists, and God has communicated it to us through his words. We know what is truly right and truly wrong.

Atheist - And you know this because it is written in your holy book?

Theist - Correct, and God has written it in our conscience.

Atheist - You know God did this how?

Theist - Well it is what we believe.

Atheist - And you believe it why?

Theist - Well I evaluated many religions and Christianity is the one that made the most sense to me. It just fits with what I feel is true .... oh I see what you did there ....

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Given that some people do torture babies to death for fun it would seem that b) is closest to reality, would it not?

No, not in the slightest. That would simply indicate that some people have a warped and wrong idea of what is moral.

You can argue that these people are wrong beyond simply you believing they are wrong, but I would be very interested in how you demonstrate this objectively to them.

Hmm, maybe I'll learn by observing how you've spent years in the Creationism thread trying, and failing, to objectively demonstrate to Wolfsbane that evolution is true. Which, if I follow your logic, would make it appear that Creationism and evolution are simply subjective options rather than either of them being objectively true.

Or, of course, it could simply be the case that objective truth remains objective truth, irrespective of whether someone chooses to believe it or not?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No, not in the slightest. That would simply indicate that some people have a warped and wrong idea of what is moral.

What is the tangible different between a world where some people follow what they think is the objective moral standard (with no way of objectively determining it is), and a world where there is no objective moral standard and people just follow what they think is subjectively right?

PDN wrote: »

Hmm, maybe I'll learn by observing how you've spent years in the Creationism thread trying, and failing, to objectively demonstrate to Wolfsbane that evolution is true. Which, if I follow your logic, would make it appear that Creationism and evolution are simply subjective options rather than either of them being objectively true.

That doesn't answer my question. I can show Wolfsbane what the measurements supporting evolution are, and he can carry out the same experiments and see if he arrives at the same results. The fact that he doesn't want to is not relevant to whether he can or not.

How do you or I determine or assess what is or isn't the correct objective moral standard? We can then present this to the baby killer and they can carry out the same process and arrive at the same objective outcome. It is then up to them whether they follow this or not.

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

Let me save you the trouble -

Theist - You poor atheists, you have no idea what is truly right or wrong, you just go with what ever you think yourselves, what ever makes sense to you personally.

Atheist - As opposed to what?

Theist - Well I know objective morality exists, and God has communicated it to us through his words. We know what is truly right and truly wrong.

Atheist - And you know this because it is written in your holy book?

Theist - Correct, and God has written it in our conscience.

Atheist - You know God did this how?

Theist - Well it is what we believe.

Atheist - And you believe it why?

Theist - Well I evaluated many religions and Christianity is the one that made the most sense to me. It just fits with what I feel is true .... oh I see what you did there ....

Except that's not how the discussion has ever gone.

I've explained on numerous occasions that the mechanics of ethical behaviour clearly show that humans work with an objective moral framework rather than a subjective one. Far from saying "Well it is what we believe".

As a portrayal, that's quite dishonest given how many discussions we've ended up with on this subject.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

What is the tangible different between a world where some people follow what they think is the objective moral standard (with no way of objectively determining it is), and a world where there is no objective moral standard and people just follow what they think is subjectively right?

The tangible difference is that people make a genuine effort to discover what is right and what is wrong - not as convenient social constructs based on popularity, but as objective truths that are worth sacrificiong for and working for.

Without this you have no Martin Luther King. He stood up for civil rights because it was a moral good - not because it was utilitarian. For King, a society without segregation was good in an objective sense, just as a society with segregation was objectively bad. These were not mere preferences - like whether you wear a blue shirt or a red shirt - they were objective moral truths.

In practice, of course, people who believe in a subjective morality often live and talk as if there is objective good and evil. They may do this because they are fooling themselves, or in order to fool others. But deep down there is nothing to stop them, if they feel the circumstances permit, from deciding to murder, rape or torture babies. Their actions in doing so might be 'different' or 'unpopular', but they would not, unless they contradict themselves, be 'wrong'.

That doesn't answer my question. I can show Wolfsbane what the measurements supporting evolution are, and he can carry out the same experiments and see if he arrives at the same results. The fact that he doesn't want to is not relevant to whether he can or not.

No, it doesn't answer your question, but it does show your question up to be a deliberate attempt at evasion and distraction.

Evolution is either true or false. At one time people were unaware of it even as a possibility - but that did not change it's objective status as true or false. It remains objectively true, or false, irrespective of whether the evidence you present to Wolfsbane is convincing or not.

The reason I didn't answer your question is for the same reason that a tree that falls in the forest still makes a noise, irrespective of whether anyone is there to hear it or not.

How do you or I determine or assess what is or isn't the correct objective moral standard? We can then present this to the baby killer and they can carry out the same process and arrive at the same objective outcome. It is then up to them whether they follow this or not.

That is a smokescreen.

If there is no correct objective moral standard then it is pointless to search for one. Torturing babies is as equally good from a moral standpoint as is volunteering to nurse lepers.

If there is a correct objective moral standard then we seek to discover it. That is a discussion I am very happy to have with anyone, Christian or not, who actually cares about moral goodness and shares the quest to attain it.

It would, of course, be pointless to have such a discussion with someone who does not believe that there is a real moral goodness to which we should aspire, who is simply looking for an argument, and who thinks that under certain circumstances it can be morally OK to torture babies to death.

That would be akin to discussing scientific methodology with someone who doesn't actually believe that the pursuit of scientific truth is possible and who is just looking for a point of disagreement so they can say, "Yah boo! I told you it is all rubbish - we should all just believe whatever we want and if I believe that snow is made by leprachauns in the clouds then that is my truth and it's just as good as your truth."

marienbad

I ask you again then PDN can you give me some examples of this ''objective moral standard'' and how it is arrived at .

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

I ask you again then PDN can you give me some examples of this ''objective moral standard'' and how it is arrived at .

I've already given you one, Marien. How many is enough? Two? Four? Six?

1. Torturing babies to death for fun is wrong.
2. Deliberately discarding food and stamping it into the ground in front of a starving man is wrong.
3. Mocking and bullying a disabled child because of their disability is wrong.
4. Killing a baby because it's crying annoyed you is wrong.
5. Raping someone is wrong.
6. Stealing a blind man's guide dog is wrong.

These are all examples of things that are objectively wrong. They are not preferences such as what colour of shirt you wear. They are actions which, under any circumstances and in any time or place, are objectively wrong.

They remain wrong even when some people choose to do them, and even when some people think that they are OK. Objective morality does not depend on a popular vote. Even if an entire society thought one of the above was OK, that would not alter the fact that it is objectively wrong.

How is this objective moral standard arrived at? By several ways:
a) By revelation. Either by God Himself or by people we trust.
b) By conscience. Although our faculties are marred by sin we still retain, as humans made in the image of God, some innate sense of right and wrong.
c) By discussion. As we interact with others who are interested in doing right, we examine arguments concerning morality and ethics. This often causes us to re-evaluate our morality in one respect or another.

Sindri

PDN wrote: »

I've already given you one, Marien. How many is enough? Two? Four? Six?

1. Torturing babies to death for fun is wrong.
2. Deliberately discarding food and stamping it into the ground in front of a starving man is wrong.
3. Mocking and bullying a disabled child because of their disability is wrong.
4. Killing a baby because it's crying annoyed you is wrong.
5. Raping someone is wrong.
6. Stealing a blind man's guide dog is wrong.

Why are they wrong? In what way do they each transgress ethical standards?

PDN wrote: »

These are all examples of things that are objectively wrong. They are not preferences such as what colour of shirt you wear. They are actions which, under any circumstances and in any time or place, are objectively wrong.

They remain wrong even when some people choose to do them, and even when some people think that they are OK. Objective morality does not depend on a popular vote. Even if an entire society thought one of the above was OK, that would not alter the fact that it is objectively wrong.

How is this objective moral standard arrived at? By several ways:
a) By revelation. Either by God Himself or by people we trust.
b) By conscience. Although our faculties are marred by sin we still retain, as humans made in the image of God, some innate sense of right and wrong.
c) By discussion. As we interact with others who are interested in doing right, we examine arguments concerning morality and ethics. This often causes us to re-evaluate our morality in one respect or another.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

I've already given you one, Marien. How many is enough? Two? Four? Six?

1. Torturing babies to death for fun is wrong.
2. Deliberately discarding food and stamping it into the ground in front of a starving man is wrong.
3. Mocking and bullying a disabled child because of their disability is wrong.
4. Killing a baby because it's crying annoyed you is wrong.
5. Raping someone is wrong.
6. Stealing a blind man's guide dog is wrong.

These are all examples of things that are objectively wrong. They are not preferences such as what colour of shirt you wear. They are actions which, under any circumstances and in any time or place, are objectively wrong.

They remain wrong even when some people choose to do them, and even when some people think that they are OK. Objective morality does not depend on a popular vote. Even if an entire society thought one of the above was OK, that would not alter the fact that it is objectively wrong.

How is this objective moral standard arrived at? By several ways:
a) By revelation. Either by God Himself or by people we trust.
b) By conscience. Although our faculties are marred by sin we still retain, as humans made in the image of God, some innate sense of right and wrong.
c) By discussion. As we interact with others who are interested in doing right, we examine arguments concerning morality and ethics. This often causes us to re-evaluate our morality in one respect or another.

Ok , is taking human life always wrong , and rather that cloud the issue I am not referring to just wars, self defence etc, more like the death penalty.

(b) and (c) are no different that any subjective method of arriving at at moral code - so that just leaves
(a)How does revelation work ? As soon as there is a human involvement subjectivity must come into it ?

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

Ok , is taking human life always wrong , and rather that cloud the issue I am not referring to just wars, self defence etc, more like the death penalty.

'More like' is extremely vague.

No, I would not argue that taking human life is always wrong. Allthough I am in general a pacifist and anti-capital punishment, I can envisage scenarios where taking someone's life would not necessarily be wrong.

An example would be one of my heroes, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was executed by the Nazis for his involvement in a plot to kill Hitler.

(b) and (c) are no different that any subjective method of arriving at at moral code - so that just leaves
(a)How does revelation work ? As soon as there is a human involvement subjectivity must come into it ?

I thought you would confuse yourself in this way.

You are muddling two very different concepts.

a) The existence of an objective truth - something that remains true irrespective of whether anyone believes in it or not.

b) The subjective processes by which we try to know truths.

If you stop to think about this a bit more logically, then you will realise that we apprehend all truths by subjective means. For example, the boiling point of water is an objective fact. But the ways we know that (by looking at a thermometer, or by reading it in a textbook) are subjective.

But, here is the rub. You don't turn around and say, "All our methods of achieving scientific knowledge are subjective, therefore there is no such thing as an objective scientific fact." You recognise that objective facts exist and, even if we learn them by subjective means, it is still worth striving after scientific truth.

Therefore, it is logically inescapable that objective truth is not lessened by our subjective understanding or misunderstanding of it. Think again of the tree falling in the forest. People may disagree about whether it made a sound when it felll or not. But that subjective disagreement does not alter the objective fact that it did make a sound when it fell.

Now, if we discard the idea of an objective truth, then any attempt to discover such a truth becomes meaningless.

If we say that the sound of a tree falling in a forest has no objective reality beyond our perception, then it is pointless to discuss the matter further.

If we say that objective scientific truths are not real, then there is no point in engaging in scientific research and discovery. Your results will bear no more significance than if you say you prefer the colour red to the colour blue.

If we say that there is no objective truth, then there is no point in discussing what is morally right or wrong. It simply boild down to what you prefer or what you can get away with. Such a nietzschean philosophy leads to the conclusion that anything is OK if you have the power to back it up. That leads to Auschwitz. And, if you reject objective morality, then perhaps there's nothing wrong with that. Auschwitz is no more immoral than nursing a leper.

marienbad

Sorry you have lost me there re Bonhoeffer - are you saying he took life or it was ok to take his life ?

I am in a rush now so I can't reply in detail to your second paragraph , but just a quick response .

I don't think I am confused at all. An objective truth if you want to compare it to the boiling point of water or 2+2=4 should mean that that truth is the same it all places and at all times irrespective of what people think it is. Is that correct ?

The subjectives processes by which we arrive at the conclusion are made objective by the fact that no matter who when or where carries out the experiment the result is always the same and even then only so long as some new scientific discovery renders them incorrect- or so my friends in advanced physics tell me.

Can you say the same for any moral truth ? Can you give me any moral precepts that have been the same for all time and in all places - which if you want to retain the boiling point of water as a comparision - must be the case .

philologos

I think people are getting confused between moral absolutism, and moral objectivism. They are not the same thing. Moral absolutism means that something is wrong in every situation. Moral objectivity means that in every situation there are right and wrongs irrespective of human opinion.

One can hold to moral objectivity while understanding that different situations well, differ. In terms of Judaism and Christianity, bearing false witness against your neighbour is wrong (see Exodus 20 or Deuteronomy 5 for the Ten Commandments). However, lying to save someone from an enemy as was the case with Rahab in the book of Joshua, is not wrong (see Joshua 2, or Hebrews 11).

With the help of Wikipedia:

Moral absolutism is not the same as moral universalism (also called moral objectivism). Universalism holds merely that what is right or wrong is independent of custom or opinion (as opposed to relativism), but not necessarily that what is right or wrong is independent of context or consequences (as in absolutism). Moral universalism is compatible with moral absolutism, but also positions such as consequentialism

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

Sorry you have lost me there re Bonhoeffer - are you saying he took life or it was ok to take his life ?

He plotted (and failed) to take a life (Hitler's). That IMHO would be a case of takking a human life that would not be morally wrong. So i would not argue that it is always wrong to take a human life.

I don't think I am confused at all. An objective truth if you want to compare it to the boiling point of water or 2+2=4 should mean that that truth is the same it all places and at all times irrespective of what people think it is. Is that correct ?

Exactly. Even if people misread the thermometer, or they have a brain condition that causes them to think that 2+2+48, that does not alter the objective truth that water boils atr a particular temperature and that 2+2+4. The same would apply to what lies in the centre of a black hole. Although we have no way currently to answer that question, the answer remains the same irrespective of our ability to know that answer.

The subjectives processes by which we arrive at the conclusion are made objective by the fact that no matter who when or where carries out the experiment the result is always the same and even then only so long as some new scientific discovery renders them incorrect- or so my friends in advanced physics tell me.

No, that isn't actually true. The conclusions may vary depending on subjective factors. For example, if your thermometer is faulty then you might come up with the wrong temperature for water. Or you may misread the data and therefore produce a faulty conclusion.

While your friends in advanced physics might do their best to make their processes as objective as possible, they will never be completely successful. The human involvement inevitably brings an element of subjectivity. It can be minimised, but never eliminated entirely.

Can you say the same for any moral truth ? Can you give me any moral precepts that have been the same for all time and in all places - which if you want to retain the boiling point of water as a comparision - must be the case

.
And you claim not to be confused?

You are managing to miss the point spectacularly. The fact that people interpret something differently does not in any sense whatsoever mean that there is no objective truth to it. If you can't grasp that very basic logical principle then we'ew both wasting our time.

Think again of the black hole. Scientists may disagree about what lies at the centre of a black hole. Does that mean that there is no actual objective answer to the question of what lies at the centre of a black hole?

You are arguing the same kind of logic that says that a falling tree doesn't make any sound unless someone is there to hear it. That is post-modern subjective slush. The fact is that the falling tree made a particular noise - and that truth remains unaltered even if nobody heard the noise, or even if someone's mental condition caused them to hallucinate so that they thought the falling tree actually sounded like an ice cream van's chimes.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

He plotted (and failed) to take a life (Hitler's). That IMHO would be a case of takking a human life that would not be morally wrong. So i would not argue that it is always wrong to take a human life.


Exactly. Even if people misread the thermometer, or they have a brain condition that causes them to think that 2+2+48, that does not alter the objective truth that water boils atr a particular temperature and that 2+2+4. The same would apply to what lies in the centre of a black hole. Although we have no way currently to answer that question, the answer remains the same irrespective of our ability to know that answer.

No, that isn't actually true. The conclusions may vary depending on subjective factors. For example, if your thermometer is faulty then you might come up with the wrong temperature for water. Or you may misread the data and therefore produce a faulty conclusion.

While your friends in advanced physics might do their best to make their processes as objective as possible, they will never be completely successful. The human involvement inevitably brings an element of subjectivity. It can be minimised, but never eliminated entirely.

.
And you claim not to be confused?

You are managing to miss the point spectacularly. The fact that people interpret something differently does not in any sense whatsoever mean that there is no objective truth to it. If you can't grasp that very basic logical principle then we'ew both wasting our time.

Think again of the black hole. Scientists may disagree about what lies at the centre of a black hole. Does that mean that there is no actual objective answer to the question of what lies at the centre of a black hole?

You are arguing the same kind of logic that says that a falling tree doesn't make any sound unless someone is there to hear it. That is post-modern subjective slush. The fact is that the falling tree made a particular noise - and that truth remains unaltered even if nobody heard the noise, or even if someone's mental condition caused them to hallucinate so that they thought the falling tree actually sounded like an ice cream van's chimes.

Whew, condescend much ! I am not arguing any such thing about falling trees etc.

We both agree that an objective anything must be the same for all people in all places and all times , correct ? any such thing as faulty equipment incorrect readings I fully agree have nothing to do with the issue as the boiling point dos'nt change. We agree on that .( that is of course until the boiling point does change)

I am having difficulty relating that to a moral truth , you keep giving examples of perception - the falling trees etc - but I am not making the leap you are and relating that to how a objective morality is found.

By the way I agree with you on Bonhoeffer , though I suspect Kant would'nt - but that is a different discussion.

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

Whew, condescend much ! I am not arguing any such thing about falling trees etc.

Yes you are. You are muddling the objectivity of a truth with the subjectivity with which we try to apprehend a truth. And until you stop comitting such a basic error we won't get very far.

We both agree that an objective anything must be the same for all people in all places and all times , correct ?

No - I am saying that an objective anything must be the same irrespective of the opinions of any people in any time.

I am having difficulty relating that to a moral truth , you keep giving examples of perception - the falling trees etc - but I am not making the leap you are and relating that to how a objective morality is found.

How an objective anything is found is a totally separate issue from whether the objective anything exists in the first place.

Unless we believe that an objective anything exists, then we have no motivation to discover what that objective anything is.

This, incidentally, is why Christians such as Bacon, Copernicus and Galileo were so instrumental in the development and early application of the scientific method. They fervently believed that the world was ordered by God rather than being chaotic and unpredictable. Therefore, they reasoned, if objective truths existed then it was worth expending the time, effort and money to discover what those objective truths were.

The same is true in the area of morality. If we believe objective moral standards exist, then we are prepared to ask the hard, and often uncomfortable, questions involved in the study of ethics. But if such objective moral truths do not exist, then why bother trying to discover what doesn't exist. In that case it makes more sense to create your own morals based on your preferences and what you can get away with.

That is why, in my opinion, truly consistent atheists end up embracing a position similar to Nietzsche. In the absence of objective morality all that really matters is will and power. Of course, if you're not careful, such a philosophy can make you go crazy.

In practice, however, most atheists live and act as if there was an objective morality, because deep down they know that the alternative is too awful to contemplate. This, of necessity, involves a certain amount of cognitive dissonance.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

Yes you are. You are muddling the objectivity of a truth with the subjectivity with which we try to apprehend a truth. And until you stop comitting such a basic error we won't get very far.


No - I am saying that an objective anything must be the same irrespective of the opinions of any people in any time.



How an objective anything is found is a totally separate issue from whether the objective anything exists in the first place.

Unless we believe that an objective anything exists, then we have no motivation to discover what that objective anything is.

This, incidentally, is why Christians such as Bacon, Copernicus and Galileo were so instrumental in the development and early application of the scientific method. They fervently believed that the world was ordered by God rather than being chaotic and unpredictable. Therefore, they reasoned, if objective truths existed then it was worth expending the time, effort and money to discover what those objective truths were.

The same is true in the area of morality. If we believe objective moral standards exist, then we are prepared to ask the hard, and often uncomfortable, questions involved in the study of ethics. But if such objective moral truths do not exist, then why bother trying to discover what doesn't exist. In that case it makes more sense to create your own morals based on your preferences and what you can get away with.

That is why, in my opinion, truly consistent atheists end up embracing a position similar to Nietzsche. In the absence of objective morality all that really matters is will and power. Of course, if you're not careful, such a philosophy can make you go crazy.

In practice, however, most atheists live and act as if there was an objective morality, because deep down they know that the alternative is too awful to contemplate. This, of necessity, involves a certain amount of cognitive dissonance.

No,i am not muddling anything, I accept what you are saying that the objective truth is true even if there is no one to perceive it.

Forget about Copernicus etc - we have no way of knowing why they were as they were , no more than the Oppenheimer generation - as a race we have always searched for knowledge for myriads of reason.

My issue is how you find that objective moral truth, how do you know ?
When ever anyone puts that kettle on - it will always boil at 100 c.
What is the equivilent for a moral truth and will the same moral dilemma yield the same answer to all peoples in all places and at all times ?

PDN

marienbad wrote: »

Forget about Copernicus etc - we have no way of knowing why they were as they were , no more than the Oppenheimer generation - as a race we have always searched for knowledge for myriads of reason.

Fair enough, but is it OK for me to quote this everytime you, or any other atheist, jump to conclusions as to what motivated the Inquisition or the Crusades? After all, if you have no way of knowing why people were the way they were, then that must cut both ways. I'm sure you won't try to have your cake and to eat it - will you?

My issue is how you find that objective moral truth, how do you know ?
When ever anyone puts that kettle on - it will always boil at 100 c.
What is the equivilent for a moral truth and will the same moral dilemma yield the same answer to all peoples in all places and at all times ?

If you concede that an objective moral truth exists then I'll gladly get into a discussion as to how we find it. But that would be in a different thread since that is not an Atheist/Christian dispute.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

Fair enough, but is it OK for me to quote this everytime you, or any other atheist, jump to conclusions as to what motivated the Inquisition or the Crusades? After all, if you have no way of knowing why people were the way they were, then that must cut both ways. I'm sure you won't try to have your cake and to eat it - will you?


If you concede that an objective moral truth exists then I'll gladly get into a discussion as to how we find it. But that would be in a different thread since that is not an Atheist/Christian dispute.

I have no problem with you quoting me to me at all, other atheists can answer for themselves. And in a sense those two issues - the inquisition and the crusades do go to the heart of the discussion as I presume those men in those times believed as you do that there was an objective morality and it was on their side ? And that it not a cut at Christians all men for the most part in all disputes have believed the same or convinced themselves so.

How can I concede an objective moral truth exists and still be a card carrying atheist and surely it goes to the heart of the Atheist/Christian dispute.

But you have already shown me how you think it can be found on post 4423.

But , and I genuinely mean you no disrespect , the answer in that post means it is whatever you or any individual says it is, unlike the boiling point of water.

philologos

I'm not sure if you understand the distinction that PDN is trying to make.

He's drawing a distinction between reality, and what is apprehended by the human mind.

It is possible that there is truth, that is not apprehended by humans. Just because it is not apprehended does not make it true. Truth is not something that is dependant on the mind. Something can be true, irrespective of whether or not I understand it as true.

Most atheists are quite good at determining that truth lies outside of the human mind. It is the reason why they believe that Christians are deluded.

What Christianity puts forward about morality, is that in the same way as there are objective truths out there such as the earth not being flat, there are objective truths about what is good, and what is evil. You could say that Christianity presents a form of moral realism.

Wikipedia will help us a little more I think:

Moral realism is the meta-ethical view which claims that:

Ethical sentences express propositions.

Some such propositions are true.

Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of subjective opinion.

It doesn't matter what we believe to be true or false. Some things are real, and some things are mere fiction. Likewise, it doesn't matter what we think, some things are good, and some things are downright evil.

Christianity goes that step further where atheism never really does. It says logically if there are objective truths in existence, there are also objective truths concerning morality. If there are objective truths concerning morality, there must be an objective moral source from which this is derived. This is why I believe the moral objectivity argument points towards a holy, just and sovereign God.

The moral objectivity argument also points us to the cross. It tells us why Jesus needed to die on our behalf.

tommy2bad

marienbad wrote: »

I have no problem with you quoting me to me at all, other atheists can answer for themselves. And in a sense those two issues - the inquisition and the crusades do go to the heart of the discussion as I presume those men in those times believed as you do that there was an objective morality and it was on their side ? And that it not a cut at Christians all men for the most part in all disputes have believed the same or convinced themselves so.

How can I concede an objective moral truth exists and still be a card carrying atheist and surely it goes to the heart of the Atheist/Christian dispute.

But you have already shown me how you think it can be found on post 4423.

But , and I genuinely mean you no disrespect , the answer in that post means it is whatever you or any individual says it is, unlike the boiling point of water.

Not really, morality can be objectively real without a God or gods to impose it. Human morality is a product of being human not a condition of being human. your moral because your human not human because your moral.
As to Gods part in this well.. if their is a God then as humans we have a relationship with Him and our morality is part and parcel of that relationship.
(Intermittent Internet at the moment so apologies if I dont reply to anyone.)

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

I'm not sure if you understand the distinction that PDN is trying to make.

He's drawing a distinction between reality, and what is apprehended by the human mind.

It is possible that there is truth, that is not apprehended by humans. Just because it is not apprehended does not make it true. Truth is not something that is dependant on the mind. Something can be true, irrespective of whether or not I understand it as true.

Most atheists are quite good at determining that truth lies outside of the human mind. It is the reason why they believe that Christians are deluded.

What Christianity puts forward about morality, is that in the same way as there are objective truths out there such as the earth not being flat, there are objective truths about what is good, and what is evil. You could say that Christianity presents a form of moral realism.

Wikipedia will help us a little more I think:


It doesn't matter what we believe to be true or false. Some things are real, and some things are mere fiction. Likewise, it doesn't matter what we think, some things are good, and some things are downright evil.

Christianity goes that step further where atheism never really does. It says logically if there are objective truths in existence, there are also objective truths concerning morality. If there are objective truths concerning morality, there must be an objective moral source from which this is derived. This is why I believe the moral objectivity argument points towards a holy, just and sovereign God.

The moral objectivity argument also points us to the cross. It tells us why Jesus needed to die on our behalf.

I understand the distinction perfectly philologos, I just don't agree with the train of though that you and PDN outline is objective , I refer you back to post 4423 by PDN on how an objective moral standard standard can be arrived at .


''How is this objective moral standard arrived at? By several ways:
a) By revelation. Either by God Himself or by people we trust.
b) By conscience. Although our faculties are marred by sin we still retain, as humans made in the image of God, some innate sense of right and wrong.
c) By discussion. As we interact with others who are interested in doing right, we examine arguments concerning morality and ethics. This often causes us to re-evaluate our morality in one respect or another.''


(a) can be whatever you want it to be
(b) and (c) are the same for any person - just exclude God in (b) and use Society , Nurture ,The Party, whatever instead.

That is why down through history witch burning , crusades, inquisition, ekateringburg, gulags, death camps have all been justified as taking the right moral choice.



__________________

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

I understand the distinction perfectly philologos, I just don't agree with the train of though that you and PDN outline is objective , I refer you back to post 4423 by PDN on how an objective moral standard standard can be arrived at .

Of course you don't. The reason you don't is because you don't acknowledge God's existence. However, if you reject objective morality, speaking in terms of good and evil are pointless. Human rights and other concepts are useless. They can be trampled upon by anyone and they are just subjective rusings.

The reality is that people don't regard morality as objective. When people are wronged, they claim that they have been objectively wronged and seek justice.

Reality suggests that morality is not a subjective matter. The question is why do humans behave in this way? - Is it because there is an objective standard of right and wrong that is binding on all men? - If so, how can this be the case.

The onus is on you and other atheists to explain either:
1) How human morality works on a subjective basis, and how this can be explicable to others in the way that we commonly see.
or 2) How does morality work on an objective basis in the absence of an objective authority concerning good and evil?

This is a huge reason why I find atheism fundamentally unconvincing on this issue, because simply put, it doesn't engage with the reality of ethical behaviour.

The point is given this moral reality, how can we best explain it. This is one of the evidences that there is for God's existence in the world around us. This very clearly points to an intelligent being that cares for the universe and in so doing gave us objective moral laws.

marienbad wrote: »

''How is this objective moral standard arrived at? By several ways:
a) By revelation. Either by God Himself or by people we trust.
b) By conscience. Although our faculties are marred by sin we still retain, as humans made in the image of God, some innate sense of right and wrong.
c) By discussion. As we interact with others who are interested in doing right, we examine arguments concerning morality and ethics. This often causes us to re-evaluate our morality in one respect or another.''


(a) can be whatever you want it to be
(b) and (c) are the same for any person - just exclude God in (b) and use Society , Nurture ,The Party, whatever instead.

A) No. If God is real, and God has revealed His standard. It can't be anything we want it to be. If God is real, and if God is going to judge, people contriving things in His name will stand before Him in judgement.

The question is why our consciences work the way they do using an objective framework of ethical behaviour. This points to an objective standard of good and evil that binds all men.

C) Discussion is pointless. There's no criteria for determining what is good or evil in the case of C. A majority can tolerate despicable things.

I think God has revealed His character to us as in A (this doesn't allow for subjectivity ultimately if God brings everyone to account), and B a tool which can lead us to the revelation in A if we listen to it sincerely.

marienbad wrote: »

That is why down through history witch burning , crusades, inquisition, ekateringburg, gulags, death camps have all been justified as taking the right moral choice.

These are actually a result of denying any form of objective authority. Treating human rights as garbage, and treating objective good and evil as garbage.

In the absence of an objective authority on good and evil as Dostoyesky famously put it, anything is permissible.

If good and evil are just whatever the heck we want them to be as atheism leads us to conclude. Then there is no good, there is no evil. There's no reason why we would say that massacre is objectively wrong, and there is no way that we can conclude this without an objective authority of good and evil.

Trying to do this would be having your cake and eating it too.

Sonics2k

Just so I can clear this up, as I'm in a bit of rush and don't have time to read over the last few pages.

Are people here actually claiming that you need to be religious to have proper morals and separate good from evil, and right from wrong?

philologos

Sonics2k wrote: »

Just so I can clear this up, as I'm in a bit of rush and don't have time to read over the last few pages.

Are people here actually claiming that you need to be religious to have proper morals and separate good from evil, and right from wrong?

Nobody has said that so far. Perhaps you should read the posts. Joining midway without understanding the context of the discussion isn't going to help things.

marienbad

''Of course you don't. The reason you don't is because you don't acknowledge God's existence. However, if you reject objective morality, speaking in terms of good and evil are pointless. Human rights and other concepts are useless. They can be trampled upon by anyone and they are just subjective rusings.''


I could'nt have put it better myself Philologos, the above describes the world for most of its history exactly as we find it. There is no objective morality and human rights are constantly trampled into the dust. Even the best of the best of us have had a skewed morality fashioned by the times we lived in- Jefferson owning slaves , the rights of women ,for example.

Those were absolutely objective moral standards one would have thought if ever there were such a thing, but they wer'nt so absolute or objective after all. That is the reality - we progress by default.

Now I do understand your yearning for an objective morality and that yearning leads you to believe that it must exist- when all comes to all that is all the proof you have - you find the absence of a benign father an ''appalling vista'' and so like the Lord Justice you refuse to face it.


Concepts such as good, evil, right, wrong are purely human constructs and vary from place to place , time to time and person to person, and even within the same person, place or time . We are responsible for our triumphs and our crimes .Such is life