Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

philologos

Except the evidence shows there to be an objective moral framework in human ethical activity. For example, the innate reaction in humanity to being wronged isn't to say "Ah well, maybe it's right for him", it's to seek justice.

This is why the notion of subjective morality seems to be fiction. It is what makes it difficult for me to subscribe to the nihilistic Nietzscheism that is argued for.

Why would we demand what is right for others if we have no real standard for determining what is good and evil?

Why would you even begin to tell me that something was good, or something was evil if I had no terms of reference for understanding you? It would be a pointless, and absurd exercise.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

Except the evidence shows there to be an objective moral framework in human ethical activity. For example, the innate reaction in humanity to being wronged isn't to say "Ah well, maybe it's right for him", it's to seek justice.

This is why the notion of subjective morality seems to be fiction. It is what makes it difficult for me to subscribe to the nihilistic Nietzscheism that is argued for.

Why would we demand what is right for others if we have no real standard for determining what is good and evil?

Why would you even begin to tell me that something was good, or something was evil if I had no terms of reference for understanding you? It would be a pointless, and absurd exercise.

The evidence shows nothing of the kind ,I would'nt even call it evidence ! You are just giving a series of statements and in the absence of any answer saying it must be objectively morally correct. Your proof consists of no more than a series of hypotheses, to which the answer is always -it can't be this so it must be that, And this and that will always vary according to who is posing the question , nothing objective about it at all.

You are just describing an ideal world view than has simply never existed.

Lets take one of your hypothesis above and see how much objectivity we can get out of it.

''For example, the innate reaction in humanity to being wronged isn't to say "Ah well, maybe it's right for him", it's to seek justice.''

Take just ''being wronged'' and ''seek justice'' - understanding of these would vary from every person to the next . And based on that type of reasoning the scolds bridal , the thumbscrew have been manufactured advocated and used by the most moral of people.

philologos

If people when they were wronged commonly said it might be right for him on a regular basis. I might agree with you. Since people don't and since people do object to people on the grounds of something being clearly wrong, then I would say that the mechanics of right and wrong aren't based on subjectivity. The evidence from these situations points us to an objective standard.

By and large, I think most people would agree with what "being wronged" or "justice" means. In the vast majority of cases and in the vast majority of cultures.

It's not simply "an ideal world system". It's how human beings very clearly work if you look at it.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

If people when they were wronged commonly said it might be right for him on a regular basis. I might agree with you. Since people don't and since people do object to people on the grounds of something being clearly wrong, then I would say that the mechanics of right and wrong aren't based on subjectivity. The evidence from these situations points us to an objective standard.

By and large, I think most people would agree with what "being wronged" or "justice" means. In the vast majority of cases and in the vast majority of cultures.

It's not simply "an ideal world system". It's how human beings very clearly work if you look at it.

But ''by and large'' won't cut it Philologos - objectivitiy is the same in all places and times and in all examples- otherwise it is not.

you give the game away with expressions like ''most people'' and ''vast majority'' . In fact you are proving my point - that concepts such as right and wrong vary form culture to culture and time to time.

To use PDN's example water dos'nt boil sometimes at 100 c and other times at 90 or 80 - it always boils at 100 everywhere and everytime .

philologos

Again, you're making the same mistake that I pointed out on a previous point.

It is possible logically that something can be true even if nobody apprehended it. If something is true, it is true irrespective of what people think.

All I'm doing is taking this position, and saying if it is true that something is right, and something is wrong, it is right or it is wrong irrespective of what people think.

Atheists seem to be happy to accept the first statement, but not the second. This is inconsistent because both statements are based on the same logic.

If something is objective, it is not required that all or even a majority of people subscribe to it. Thanks to our consciences however, it is likely that we will be convicted with guilt if we do what is clearly wrong.

The reality is, that how we deal with ethical disputes, is based on appeals to objectivity. If you've wronged me, you've wronged me. If it was a subjective wrong I would be referring to, there would be no point in rebuking you because there's no guarantee that you should know better. Why would I expect you to?

I don't agree that morality does vary hugely between cultures or between time. I believe that many of the things that people are trying to justify as acceptable in this age, are clearly wrong. The same is true of some of previous ages. Humans are prone to error and wrongdoing, but that doesn't mean that it isn't error, or that it isn't wrongdoing.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

Again, you're making the same mistake that I pointed out on a previous point.

It is possible logically that something can be true even if nobody apprehended it. If something is true, it is true irrespective of what people think.

All I'm doing is taking this position, and saying if it is true that something is right, and something is wrong, it is right or it is wrong irrespective of what people think.

Atheists seem to be happy to accept the first statement, but not the second. This is inconsistent because both statements are based on the same logic.

If something is objective, it is not required that all or even a majority of people subscribe to it. Thanks to our consciences however, it is likely that we will be convicted with guilt if we do what is clearly wrong.

I am not making that mistake at all Philologos, from my point of view it is quite irrelevant to the discussion, otherwise we will be bogged down in Plato and such.

If there is such an ideal form , then it up to you to prove and not for me to disprove it. In a way it is a subset of the existance of God debate .

I fully comprehend what you are saying - that something can be true no matter the number of people that believe/disbelieve it. The boiling point of water , the existance of America ( before Columbus) , the flat earth.

But we can prove the objectivity of all those notions- that is what makes them objective, and everyone that want to do so can prove it and the result will always be the same , and if it is not we can find the mistake in the proof.

But in the case of objective morality you are stating the conclusion and working backwards to find the proof and you have yet to do so. There are caveats and vague concepts all over the place - most people, some people, justice, right wrong, this is all things to all men stuff.

Forget the extreme examples - burning babies, raping women - this is not the quotidian- it is the small incidents in life , is it ever ok to lie ? to steal ? to cheat on a spouse? . An objective morality would give the same answer to all examples and people and times - in can not do so.

You can not give me one ( just one) realistic example that has applied to all people in all places and at all times . And even in the most unrealstic examples I will be able to find a culture that at some time approved of that practice.

In the meantime water will boil at 1oo, America exists , and the earth is round

philologos

How is it irrelevant to the discussion to note that there is a clear difference between truth, and understanding? - It's the focal point of it actually.

For the umpteenth time, I'm not referring to any ideals I'm simply saying that people when they get into ethical disputes, appeal to objective authority, not subjective.

People even the most strident arguers of subjective morality don't really believe in it. It's simply put not real. It's fiction.

The very fact that people operate with an objective moral framework, is evidence against moral subjectivity in the world.

You claim that "extreme" examples such as rape, and torturing children can't be used. Why? - Because they prove all the more that humans subscribe to an objective moral framework.

There's more confusion I think. You think because people do what is evil that this reinforces a subjective position on morality. Rather, the uncomfortable truth is that the fiction of subjective morality reinforces evil. The position that says anything I like is good, and anything I like is evil is dangerous.

The very fact that humans work by viewing ethical disputes objectively, leads me to conclude that there must be a reason for this. This truth, flies in the face of atheism and moral subjectivism. This truth makes it evident that there is an objective moral standard and an objective moral law giver.

This evidence I will concede isn't absolute proof. When absolute proof comes it will be too late to decide whether or not to put ones trust in King Jesus. God's judgement is the final proof of objective morality.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

How is it irrelevant to the discussion to note that there is a clear difference between truth, and understanding? - It's the focal point of it actually.

For the umpteenth time, I'm not referring to any ideals I'm simply saying that people when they get into ethical disputes, appeal to objective authority, not subjective.

People even the most strident arguers of subjective morality don't really believe in it. It's simply put not real. It's fiction.

The very fact that people operate with an objective moral framework, is evidence against moral subjectivity in the world.

You claim that "extreme" examples such as rape, and torturing children can't be used. Why? - Because they prove all the more that humans subscribe to an objective moral framework.

There's more confusion I think. You think because people do what is evil that this reinforces a subjective position on morality. Rather, the uncomfortable truth is that the fiction of subjective morality reinforces evil. The position that says anything I like is good, and anything I like is evil is dangerous.

The very fact that humans work by viewing ethical disputes objectively, leads me to conclude that there must be a reason for this. This truth, flies in the face of atheism and moral subjectivism. This truth makes it evident that there is an objective moral standard and an objective moral law giver.

This evidence I will concede is absolute proof. When absolute proof comes it will be too late to decide whether or not to put ones trust in King Jesus. God's judgement is the final proof of objective morality.

Where to begin ?? the difference between truth and understanding !
This is just more of the same wolly phraseology that means all things to all men.

For starters- define truth .

Of course people when they get into disputes ethical or otherwise call on outside authority - you call it objective , I call it the law , society , ones own experience and sense of fairness . Now we may call it objective in the sense that it is derived from a source outside ourselves , but in the sense of an unchanging universal moral code equally applied - forget it - dos'nt exist and never will .

And for the most part they don't operate within a moral framework - they operate within a legal framework and I thank God ( if I may be so bold) for it. Just look at Darfur Afganistanetc when that legality is removed.

And humans don't view disputes objectively , the best of them try to do so but by definition there is a degree of subjectivity involved. That is why we agggregate those attempt at objectivity and create laws .

And back to the extreme examples, I am not ruling them out, I just don't think thay add to the discussion, but if you disagree no probs - include them in. Now give me a list of objective morals that have applied for all time to all people and in all places and I will show you examples where in did'nt apply.

Now you may reply- even so there is a moral code than even if never lived up to does exist - so what ? That can be anything any individual wants it to be, The divine right of kings , the decrees of Stalin , The infallible Popes , The schoolyard bully. At its best it is all just well meaning aspirational stuff and at its worst it is a tyrants charter.

philologos

The difference between understanding, and reality is hugely significant to this discussion. We can't fob it off or ignore it at any juncture.

A quick definition of truth - what is real irrespective of human opinion. We don't need to open the Oxford dictionary to get into truth.

It's not merely an outside authority. It is an objective authority that people appeal to. If you wronged me, and I got into an argument with you about what you did. I would say "You should know better". Why would I expect you to "know better"? Simple. I would expect you to know better because I expect you to know what is objectively wrong from what is objectively right.

Subjectivity will never explain what is happening in that situation satisfactorily.

It's a good thing that you brought law into this, because law can help me out on this issue. Law is different from morality. States legislate in order to sustain order, and state law is binding on any individual that happens to rest in the borders of that State. What I'm arguing is that there is an objective moral standard, human behaviour attests to it, and this objective standard is objective in the same way that the law of the State is, precisely because that law will be judged upon.

The extreme examples are important, because they prove my point. They show objectivity. The majority of ethical issues are what you call "extreme". Most people will agree on most ethical issues. I agree there is confusion on a minority, but nonetheless this does not mean that there is no objective standard - rather, it points to the flawed nature of humanity. Running away from how humans work in respect to morality is dishonest in this debate. You still have the awkward truth that most humans when they are wronged default to debating it on an objective rather than a subjective basis. This is why I think the atheist position on morality is fiction.

Moral standards can't be anything any individual wants them to be, precisely because ultimately something is true. You don't seem to understand that X is right, is the same as a factual claim about something. If I said that the earth is round, and you said that the earth is flat. We can't both be right. Whether or not the earth is round is not a matter of human interpretation. What I'm saying is actually in the light of objective morality, whether or not X is right or wrong is not a matter of human interpretation. Ethical truths have already been declared to us, and ethical truths are what inform the conscience, and much in the same way as law - they will be judged.

That's how we'll ultimately know. Jesus at the end of time will judge humanity. At the present, we have evidence through looking at humans work. God has given us reason to trust in His goodness through the world around us. So Stalin, the "infallible" Popes, the schoolyard bully. All these people if they do not repent and trust in Jesus, will be condemned just as any other man will be for their clear rejection of God.

Nothing aspirational. This all has to do with reality.

As for a "tyrants charter". This is absurd. If anything the fiction of subjective morality is infinitely more harmful. Telling people that good and evil are whatever the heck they want it to be. Ultimate accountability is better by a hundredfold. The idea that morality is not determined by human authority. That you can't twist it to your own goals no matter how much you might like to. And ultimately, the idea that wrongdoing will be ultimately dealt with.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

The difference between understanding, and reality is hugely significant to this discussion. We can't fob it off or ignore it at any juncture.

A quick definition of truth - what is real irrespective of human opinion. We don't need to open the Oxford dictionary to get into truth.

It's not merely an outside authority. It is an objective authority that people appeal to. If you wronged me, and I got into an argument with you about what you did. I would say "You should know better". Why would I expect you to "know better"? Simple. I would expect you to know better because I expect you to know what is objectively wrong from what is objectively right.

Subjectivity will never explain what is happening in that situation satisfactorily.

It's a good thing that you brought law into this, because law can help me out on this issue. Law is different from morality. States legislate in order to sustain order, and state law is binding on any individual that happens to rest in the borders of that State. What I'm arguing is that there is an objective moral standard, human behaviour attests to it, and this objective standard is objective in the same way that the law of the State is, precisely because that law will be judged upon.

The extreme examples are important, because they prove my point. They show objectivity. The majority of ethical issues are what you call "extreme". Most people will agree on most ethical issues. I agree there is confusion on a minority, but nonetheless this does not mean that there is no objective standard - rather, it points to the flawed nature of humanity. Running away from how humans work in respect to morality is dishonest in this debate. You still have the awkward truth that most humans when they are wronged default to debating it on an objective rather than a subjective basis. This is why I think the atheist position on morality is fiction.

Moral standards can't be anything any individual wants them to be, precisely because ultimately something is true. You don't seem to understand that X is right, is the same as a factual claim about something. If I said that the earth is round, and you said that the earth is flat. We can't both be right. Whether or not the earth is round is not a matter of human interpretation. What I'm saying is actually in the light of objective morality, whether or not X is right or wrong is not a matter of human interpretation. Ethical truths have already been declared to us, and ethical truths are what inform the conscience, and much in the same way as law - they will be judged.

That's how we'll ultimately know. Jesus at the end of time will judge humanity. At the present, we have evidence through looking at humans work. God has given us reason to trust in His goodness through the world around us. So Stalin, the "infallible" Popes, the schoolyard bully. All these people if they do not repent and trust in Jesus, will be condemned just as any other man will be for their clear rejection of God.

Nothing aspirational. This all has to do with reality.

As for a "tyrants charter". This is absurd. If anything the fiction of subjective morality is infinitely more harmful. Telling people that good and evil are whatever the heck they want it to be. Ultimate accountability is better by a hundredfold. The idea that morality is not determined by human authority. That you can't twist it to your own goals no matter how much you might like to. And ultimately, the idea that wrongdoing will be ultimately dealt with.

Again Philogos - where to begin , I have never ignored understanding and our perception of reality for one instant in this discussion. My whole argument is rooted in the world as we find it and not as we would like to find it.

So lets take that definition of truth then and apply it - ''what is real irrespective of human opinion''. What is real is only what we can prove to be real. The roundness of the earth ,the boiling point of water , longitude latitude . Now there may well be a galaxy far far away that we know nothing about that just because we know nothing about it does not negate its existance - but so what, as soon as it impinges on our reality or our truth we will adjust our truth.

In this way the earth was flat and we adjusted as soon as we received new information, or we discovered America in 1492 even though it was there all along- and we adjusted our ''truth'' accordingly.

Virtually everything else is subjective- truth, beauty, right, wrong, art, good , evil. All subjective concepts .

Your points about people arguing and appealing to an higher or objective authority are meaningless , no matter what they call it- it is not objective.
That is why we have moved to the rule of law .

Objectibe morality is just as much a tyrants charter as subjectibe morality
.
That is why we moved to a law based society.

More later got to rush

philologos

I disagree. The fact that there are objective standards that convict us of what is wrong are more a defender of liberty than those who ignore those objective standards to further their own ends (tyrants, schoolyard bullies, abusive clergy, mass murderers, serial rapists, the list goes on and on.)

The fact that what is wrong and what is right is not dependant on human opinion frees us from this issue. Focusing on Almighty God rather than the words of men, is liberating. The Gospel that Jesus proclaimed can free us from despotic leaders much in the same way as it can free us from vain philosophy, and the wages of all rebellion against God (sin). I'd rather that than the slavery of sin, the slavery of following mere men in respect to ethical truths. Objective morality in a Biblical sense teaches that morality is not in the preserve of clerics, morality is not in the preserve of any man. Even the Pope.

Oh and proof only lies in the realm of mathematics, so if you want to base ethical beliefs on "proof" you're going to be stuck.

You present an absurd dichotomy between a" law based society" (What the heck is that even?) and a morality based one. That's a dysfunctional dichotomy. Laws have existed since the beginning of time and will exist until the end of time. Christianity affirms the idea that states should have laws and rulers have been given authority over their subjects (Romans 13). Christianity however also says that they do not have absolute authority. God Almighty does. And King Jesus will judge the secrets of men.

You do understand that law is not the same thing as morality, don't you?

As for subjectivity. Not virtually everything is subjective. If it were, I wouldn't understand a word of what you were saying. Hermeneutics and common interpretation would go out the window. Good and evil are objective. Simply because the truth is that human disputes are based on objective authority. The atheist is inconsistent, because saying that X is good, or Y is evil is practically the same thing as making a truth claim about the earth.

Christianity actually has a much more consistent approach to ethics than atheism does. Christianity says that if you are to say X is evil, one must be held to account on that principle. The law based society actually works on a similar principle. If something is illegal, one must be held to account for it. A subjective moral system would say that wrongdoers shouldn't be held to account at all in any meaningful way. After all, how could I know what is wrong? What's wrong about me going fieldshooting humans on a Sunday lunchtime? If I enjoy it, who are you to tell me otherwise.

The problem for the atheist moral subjectivist / moral nihilist is that one can't give me a good reason as to why that should be wrong objectively. Subjective morality means that you must concede that actually it might be right for someone to go fieldshooting humans.

After all, the atheistic moral subjectivist / moral nihilist view logically concludes that right and wrong are whatever I want them to be.

That's dangerous, and it's an idea that should be opposed by any reasonable person.

philologos

If I was to sum up my argument in a simplified form:

1. If there were truly no God, there would be no possible objective standard for good and evil.
2. Humanity seems to work on the basis of an objective moral standard when ethical disputes arise in reality.
3. Therefore it it is reasonable to conclude that there is an objective moral standard, and as a result there has to be a moral law giver (God).

Andrewf20

Has anybody seen the following videos from qualiasoup. I thought they were very interesting.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

If I was to sum up my argument in a simplified form:

1. If there were truly no God, there would be no possible objective standard for good and evil.
2. Humanity seems to work on the basis of an objective moral standard when ethical disputes arise in reality.
3. Therefore it it is reasonable to conclude that there is an objective moral standard, and as a result there has to be a moral law giver (God).

1, there is no objective standard for good and evil
2, Humanity does not work on the basis of an objective moral standard, it works somewhere on a continuum between the law of the jungle and the rule of law ( Stalins law , Democratic law ,- take your pick)
3, Therefore it is reasonable to conclude there is no God and no moral law giver. We are all alone.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

I disagree. The fact that there are objective standards that convict us of what is wrong are more a defender of liberty than those who ignore those objective standards to further their own ends (tyrants, schoolyard bullies, abusive clergy, mass murderers, serial rapists, the list goes on and on.)

The fact that what is wrong and what is right is not dependant on human opinion frees us from this issue. Focusing on Almighty God rather than the words of men, is liberating. The Gospel that Jesus proclaimed can free us from despotic leaders much in the same way as it can free us from vain philosophy, and the wages of all rebellion against God (sin). I'd rather that than the slavery of sin, the slavery of following mere men in respect to ethical truths. Objective morality in a Biblical sense teaches that morality is not in the preserve of clerics, morality is not in the preserve of any man. Even the Pope.

Oh and proof only lies in the realm of mathematics, so if you want to base ethical beliefs on "proof" you're going to be stuck.

You present an absurd dichotomy between a" law based society" (What the heck is that even?) and a morality based one. That's a dysfunctional dichotomy. Laws have existed since the beginning of time and will exist until the end of time. Christianity affirms the idea that states should have laws and rulers have been given authority over their subjects (Romans 13). Christianity however also says that they do not have absolute authority. God Almighty does. And King Jesus will judge the secrets of men.

You do understand that law is not the same thing as morality, don't you?

As for subjectivity. Not virtually everything is subjective. If it were, I wouldn't understand a word of what you were saying. Hermeneutics and common interpretation would go out the window. Good and evil are objective. Simply because the truth is that human disputes are based on objective authority. The atheist is inconsistent, because saying that X is good, or Y is evil is practically the same thing as making a truth claim about the earth.

Christianity actually has a much more consistent approach to ethics than atheism does. Christianity says that if you are to say X is evil, one must be held to account on that principle. The law based society actually works on a similar principle. If something is illegal, one must be held to account for it. A subjective moral system would say that wrongdoers shouldn't be held to account at all in any meaningful way. After all, how could I know what is wrong? What's wrong about me going fieldshooting humans on a Sunday lunchtime? If I enjoy it, who are you to tell me otherwise.

The problem for the atheist moral subjectivist / moral nihilist is that one can't give me a good reason as to why that should be wrong objectively. Subjective morality means that you must concede that actually it might be right for someone to go fieldshooting humans.

After all, the atheistic moral subjectivist / moral nihilist view logically concludes that right and wrong are whatever I want them to be.

That's dangerous, and it's an idea that should be opposed by any reasonable person.

Philologos, it seems to be that you cannot conceive of a world without the existance of God and all that that entails including a objective moral code. Ok good luck to you , but desire is not proof .

When asked you are unable to give any examples of this objective moral code and the process seems to work backwords , I believe so my actions must be guided by objective morality kind of thing.

Than is all well and good when you believe in a benign God and you are a nice person , What if you are not ? What if you are a suicide bomber , a member of the kkk , or any other nut job that thinks posting an image is worthy of death. But it is ok because I believe.

I fully understand that law is completely different than morality, and every day I am grateful that it is so. Sex outside marriage, masturbation, false idols , certain images, all images, blasphemy , divorce , contraception, miscegenation, music , nudity, homosexuality , infidelity,charging interest, the list is endless ( astonishing the obsession with sexuality though), are all immoral according to someones objective list of right and wrong or good and evil . Thankfullu none of them are illegal in the world in which I live and long may it continue and to spread elsewhere.

As for the fieldshooting of humans - that is perfectly acceptable - just not on a Sunday:) Of course it is wrong , but not because it is good or evil but because at its most basic if we don't stop it , we could be next,. Which brings me nicely your next to your

'' After all, the atheistic moral subjectivist / moral nihilist view logically concludes that right and wrong are whatever I want them to be.''

And when you strip away all the niceties this is fundamentally correct. And the story of humanity has been the long and uneven journey from that truth to the realization that we either choose to survive together or hang separately.

F12

philologos wrote: »

If I was to sum up my argument in a simplified form:

1. If there were truly no God, there would be no possible objective standard for good and evil.
2. Humanity seems to work on the basis of an objective moral standard when ethical disputes arise in reality.
3. Therefore it it is reasonable to conclude that there is an objective moral standard, and as a result there has to be a moral law giver (God).

Morality, as a sense of living within or creating a system of evaluating and determining what is just and fair, can only be correctly formed according to the quality of reasoning applied to that end. That's the issue: the quality of the reasoning process which can create the operation of the morality itself, according to realities, not wished for and unbalanced thinking by which unavoidable harm will undoubtedly occur.

Reason itself operates according to the quality of knowledge used to explore possibilities and arrive at conclusions, so if the initial ideas that form the basis of the intended moral system are not based on good and sound principles, then the outcome will always end up with injustice, which, I think we might possibly agree, is not what morality is supposed to be about. The laws of cause and effect must be looked at.

Some of the questions we might ask ourselves are, for example:

What is the purpose of having a particular system of morality?
Are there identifiable benefits?
Is there a cost?
What is the price of having such a system?
What is the cost of not having one?

How will we decide on what is moral or not?

Do we have any knowledge of any other existing or previous systems of morality that may provide some indicators of what works well according to best practice? In other words, what works well already? Can we learn from others' experiences?

Do we have examples of systems of morality that have been shown to have failed, and if so, why did they fail? What was the outcome? Can we, yet again, learn from others?

Is the aim of this proposal to ensure, as far as is reasonably possible, a fair and just system whereby the good of the individual and the larger populace can be kept in balance? or

Will this system be merely a system of expediency, to serve the interests of the few over the many, thus ensuring predictably unjust outcomes?

Man, according to his capacity to reason, or lack thereof, determines what is acceptable to his sense of morality. The quality of the fruits of his mind is determined by the thinking process of his mind, so has he the capacity, the knowledge, the logic and the reason to ensure a good harvest, or will the crop be poor?

Determining what is moral according to selective interpretation of what a god or gods may or may not find offensive, is not a reasoned basis for a morality that is based on sound principles, as the initial presumption that the will of the gods can be determined is not something that can be ensured. History readily shows us that this does not work well, so why repeat the process when we already have experience of repeated outcomes? Is this a reasonable way to proceed?

Just a few ideas.

F

HamletOrHecuba

"19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:."

St Paul, Romans Chapter 1.

If God has manifested the truth of His existence so that they are without excuse in denying His existence, does anyone really think that they can give better arguments or make things clearer than God can? Is not arguing with atheists immense dangerous pride?

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and tear you."

Christ Himself, Matthew 7:6.

F12

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and tear you."

Christ Himself, Matthew 7:6.

But is that not at the core of the problem Hamlet, that all the thousands of sects in the world all claim to be the ones that are 'holy' to the exclusion of all others, giving them excuse to denigrate them? They all claim to hold the 'pearls' of wisdom, and consider other to be 'pigs', if even metaphorically, if the views of those other believers vary only slightly from their own supposedly moral perspective?
Are they all not guilty of the wanton pride that they claim to detest so much in others, by judging them unworthy, and by making judgement that is contrary to the very teachings in their holy books? Where, do you think, is the morality in that way of thinking or behaving?

philologos

F12 wrote: »

But is that not at the core of the problem Hamlet, that all the thousands of sects in the world all claim to be the ones that are 'holy' to the exclusion of all others, giving them excuse to denigrate them? They all claim to hold the 'pearls' of wisdom, and consider other to be 'pigs', if even metaphorically, if the views of those other believers vary only slightly from their own supposedly moral perspective?
Are they all not guilty of the wanton pride that they claim to detest so much in others, by judging them unworthy, and by making judgement that is contrary to the very teachings in their holy books? Where, do you think, is the morality in that way of thinking or behaving?

You don't understand Christianity if you think that Christianity suggests that anyone can be holy in their own power. We are all sinners before a holy and righteous God (Romans 3:23). I'm no more a sinner than anyone else is.

It is only by God's mercy and grace by giving His Son Jesus to die the death I should have died, that I can be forgiven.

To be holy, in Greek hagios, or in Hebrew kadosh. Literally means to be separate. Christian living should be distinctive, we live by grace in utter thankfulness for God's mercy and we strive to live for Him and serve Him in all that we do. This is what should mark the Christian off as being distinct from the non-Christian.

The Christian perspective teaches us that we should long to inform others of the Gospel. It also informs us that we shouldn't treat it cheaply.

I'll come back to the argument on morality again soon enough. I'm still not convinced that atheism provides a more robust alternative to morality than Christianity or indeed that moral subjectivism is actually real in practice.

F12

philologos wrote: »

I'll come back to the argument on morality again soon enough. I'm still not convinced that atheism provides a more robust alternative to morality than Christianity or indeed that moral subjectivism is actually real in practice.

Fair enough, but I'm not suggesting that an 'atheist' morality is better or worse than 'Christian' morality, as it all depends on the individual's mind works. It's the quality of the humane aspect that determines the attitude and the resultant outcome.
I've met both atheists and Christians who were a mixed bunch when it came to dealing fairly with others. The only main difference between the two 'types', for want of a better word, was that one assumed that correct and fair conduct was bestowed by the will of their particular deity, and the other didn't. The same principle applied to many of the polytheists I've met, so on a case by case basis they acted according to what their natures allow and their culture. As different religions teach different things as regards what's moral, it all depends on the culture and example given by and to the people living in it. Western Christian culture today is not the same as it was say 300 years ago, when slavery was considered moral.

philologos

F12 wrote: »

Fair enough, but I'm not suggesting that an 'atheist' morality is better or worse than 'Christian' morality, as it all depends on the individual's mind works. It's the quality of the humane aspect that determines the attitude and the resultant outcome.
I've met both atheists and Christians who were a mixed bunch when it came to dealing fairly with others. The only main difference between the two 'types', for want of a better word, was that one assumed that correct and fair conduct was bestowed by the will of their particular deity, and the other didn't. The same principle applied to many of the polytheists I've met, so on a case by case basis they acted according to what their natures allow and their culture. As different religions teach different things as regards what's moral, it all depends on the culture and example given by and to the people living in it. Western Christian culture today is not the same as it was say 300 years ago, when slavery was considered moral.

This is an example of why I argue for objective morality. It's because we see commonalities in human ethical behaviour. Deep down ultimately we know what is right, and we know what is wrong, and we always have done. Your previous post mentions different moral systems. I'm not hugely convinced that there are major differences in how humans understand morality.

I'm not convinced that Christians are guaranteed to act any better than non-Christians. What I am convinced of, is if there is an objective system of morality and the evidence seems to point to this - what is a reasonable explanation for this other than there being an ultimate law giver for this objective moral law that informs our consciences?

Oh, and before we get into slavery. You'd do well to realise that colonial slavery is an entirely different beast to what was legislated for in ancient Israel. See this thread I posted in 3 years ago.

HamletOrHecuba

F12 wrote: »

But is that not at the core of the problem Hamlet, that all the thousands of sects in the world all claim to be the ones that are 'holy' to the exclusion of all others, giving them excuse to denigrate them? They all claim to hold the 'pearls' of wisdom, and consider other to be 'pigs', if even metaphorically, if the views of those other believers vary only slightly from their own supposedly moral perspective?
Are they all not guilty of the wanton pride that they claim to detest so much in others, by judging them unworthy, and by making judgement that is contrary to the very teachings in their holy books? Where, do you think, is the morality in that way of thinking or behaving?

The question however in this thread is the very existence of God though, not which revelation or philosophical understanding about Him is correct necessarily; I would not consider discussion with a Muslim or a Zoarastrian casting pearls before swine. There is also a difference in judging as in condemning, and judging as in discriminating. If as I believe God manifests the fact of His existence to all men and yet some refuse to acknowledge that, than my trying to make them to accept it is futile. The revealed Truths of Christianity on the other hand are not clearly manifested.

Also discussions where people share little or no common ground usually dont prove very fertile and indeed descend quickly into shouting matches; what is the profit for anyone in that?

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

Philologos, it seems to be that you cannot conceive of a world without the existance of God and all that that entails including a objective moral code. Ok good luck to you , but desire is not proof.

It's not desire. It's following simple logic. It's seeing how things work in the world around us. I've shown you extensively the reasoning behind that position. You choose to ignore what evidence we present as "extreme" examples. Yet, those examples are what point to objective good and evil.

You can either run away from the truth or you can acknowledge it. I hope you acknowledge it actually, but I can't force you to.

It's difficult to conceive a world without a sovereign and a holy God, because such a world would be illogical and such a world would be a different world from the one we actually live in.

marienbad wrote: »

When asked you are unable to give any examples of this objective moral code and the process seems to work backwords , I believe so my actions must be guided by objective morality kind of thing.

PDN and I have given you dozens of examples over the last few pages.

We've given you clear examples. What you are saying isn't true.

marienbad wrote: »

Than is all well and good when you believe in a benign God and you are a nice person , What if you are not ? What if you are a suicide bomber , a member of the kkk , or any other nut job that thinks posting an image is worthy of death. But it is ok because I believe.

Again! - PDN and I have explained this to you already. Morality is distinct from human opinion, much as truth claims are. I would even argue that many of those who don't hold to a benign God (whatever that is) would still hold the same ethical principles as most of us when push comes to shove in the vast majority of cases. Ethical conflict is resolved using an objective framework. People appeal to an objective source of ethics when conflict arises. It's a part of who humans are.

marienbad wrote: »

I fully understand that law is completely different than morality, and every day I am grateful that it is so. Sex outside marriage, masturbation, false idols , certain images, all images, blasphemy , divorce , contraception, miscegenation, music , nudity, homosexuality , infidelity,charging interest, the list is endless ( astonishing the obsession with sexuality though), are all immoral according to someones objective list of right and wrong or good and evil . Thankfullu none of them are illegal in the world in which I live and long may it continue and to spread elsewhere.

I am glad that God will judge. I'm glad that I believe in a God who hates evil. I'm glad that there are objective moral standards. I'm glad that God in His mercy has given us an opportunity to know Him and follow Him.

Many in the West treat morality as a curse word, but morality is only concerned with our wellbeing and our own good.

marienbad wrote: »

As for the fieldshooting of humans - that is perfectly acceptable - just not on a Sunday:) Of course it is wrong , but not because it is good or evil but because at its most basic if we don't stop it , we could be next,. Which brings me nicely your next to your

You say "of course it is wrong". Indeed. It is! Why is it obvious that fieldshooting humans is wrong?

This is objective morality marienbad. If it was subjective you would have no grounds for objecting to that kind of behaviour.

That is my point. That's what I've been trying to show you.

marienbad wrote: »

'' After all, the atheistic moral subjectivist / moral nihilist view logically concludes that right and wrong are whatever I want them to be.''

And when you strip away all the niceties this is fundamentally correct. And the story of humanity has been the long and uneven journey from that truth to the realization that we either choose to survive together or hang separately.

This contradicts what you just said though marienbad. That's my problem with the atheistic subjective / nihilistic view of existence. It's just a million miles away from moral reality.

marienbad

Philologos, I think we are just going round and round the houses here, but lets just recap.

- You say you have shown proof from the real world for this objective moral code- not a bit of it ! What you are doing is using questions and observations to reach a conclusion that it must be this way. Anyone can do that and come up with a different answer -and that is the fundamental point- the answer must always be the same -and it never is ! Proof consists of a process whereby anyone anywhere any time will arrive at the same conclusion, just like boiling that water .

As for examples you have given - not so- you are just picking extreme cases- knowing that after thousands of years civilisation most people would find them utterly wrong - that is until they don't find them so wrong after all - indiscriminate bombing of cities ,buildings, tube stations,knee cappings, beheading on television,genital mutilation of babies and children- the list is endless .

As for your argument that we can hold the same ethical principles irrespective of beliefs - so what. You again jump to the conclusion that their is some objective morality at play- not at all . Humans have always done that - copied and pasted to suit their own notions of right, wrong, efficient,ineffecient. For some abortion is ok , others the death penalty is ok., others still abortion and the death penalty are ok. It is no different that say the internet, invented one place and soon it is everywhere but modified to suit national, tribal, or religious dictats.

As for field shooting humans being wrong and my apparent contradiction - not so. I am using right and wrong as we are having a conversation. But in reality there is nothing ''wrong'' with it at all , just so long as you are the shooter and not the shootee and that is purely from a self- preservation level.

It is no more right or wrong moral or immoral that my neighbour pouring boiling water on an ants nest.

As I said previously , we came to the realisation eons ago that being one of the weaker mammals we either survived together or hang separately. And how we have succeeded ! The first 5 minutes of 2001 A space Odyssey will tell you all you need to know of the human condition and all set to glorious music. ( And not the music of the spheres either- just a lowly manmade tune)

Everthing else follows from that- our notions of justice,truth, beauty. And we even discuss these thing as if there were objective standards - but that does not make it so , as even the briefiest glimpse outside of our cosy living rooms will show that the law of the jungle is just lurking beneath the surface.

If I could make a comparision with notions of beauty - another human construct- is there an objective scale of beauty ?

Fanny Cradock

marienbad wrote: »

As for field shooting humans being wrong and my apparent contradiction - not so. I am using right and wrong as we are having a conversation. But in reality there is nothing ''wrong'' with it at all , just so long as you are the shooter and not the shootee and that is purely from a self- preservation level.

It is no more right or wrong moral or immoral that my neighbour pouring boiling water on an ants nest.

And there you have it!

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

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".

And as has been explained to you many times in response, that is a silly argument, to which you proceed to explain that you think it is clear that Christianity is the true objective morality, to which when pressed you back up with subjective opinion.

Just because a human thinks that their moral opinion is objective, or in line with an objective moral framework, has no bearing on whether it actually is or not, or even if there is an objective moral framework in the first place.

You don't even have to reject moral objectivity to see this, there are plenty of people who hold moral positions that are mutually exclusive to other moral opinions held by others. Even if objective morality exists some of these people must be wrong, yet they continue to think they are right. Thinking you are right doesn't mean you are right, any more than thinking that morality is objective means it is.

Appealing to the fact that a lot of people subscribe to moral objectivity to support moral objectivity is like appealing to the existences of Muslims to support the truth of Islam.

Your point also ignores my last point, which is that even if you believe that there is an objective moral framework you have only your subjective opinion as to what that is. Your morals are as subjective as mine since before you can even start appealing to an objective moral framework you have to subjectively pick one.

philologos wrote: »

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

Clearly you never read any of the actual replies to these many discussions we've ended having on this subject.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

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.

Given that people could equally be making a genuine effort to discover what is objectively right and wrong in a universe where there is no objective moral standard, they just don't know it, I don't see that as a tangible difference.

You seem to be suggesting that if we were in a universe with out an objective moral standard no one would believe there was one. I see no reason to believe that.

PDN wrote: »

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.

Well no. He stood up for civil rights because he believed it was moral good. He could believe that in a universe where it actually is objectively morally good, and he could equally believe it in a world where there is no objective moral good, he just thinks there is. At no point was Rev. King or anyone else for that matter, able to objectively demonstrate it was actually good or not, not that I think they would have particularly cared.

Given no one mentioned anything about utilitarianism I'm going to side step that attempt to drag us down that rabbit hole.

PDN wrote: »

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.

And given that Rev. King's personal beliefs don't determine the nature of reality I'm at a loss as to what relevance you think that has?

I doubt it even had much relevance to Rev. King. Imagine for example that there does exist an objective moral standard and it actually says that black people should not have civil rights. Do you think Rev. King would have cared? Would he have gone "Oh, I guess I was wrong, better give all this up". Would you have cared? I doubt it. I wouldn't have.

PDN wrote: »

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'.

And what stops a mass murdering baby rapists who believes in objective morality and thinks everything he is doing is objectively moral?

PDN wrote: »

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.

And objective morality either objectively exists or it doesn't. It is either real or it isn't. If it isn't it isn't no matter how many Christians proclaim that it is. If it is it is no matter how many atheists proclaim that it isn't.

So, again, can you can you give an objective measurement to support the concept that it is objectively real?

PDN wrote: »

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.

Thank you for neatly demonstrating my point. It would be pointless of course because all you have is the subjective opinions of those people having the discussion.

I can show Wolfsbane the evidence, the objective measured evidence, for evolution. He can ignore it if he likes, but they will still exist objectively contradicting his views.

You cannot do that with me or anyone else. Even if objective morality does actually exist you still have to convince me to subjectively accept your assertion of the existence of objective moral standard. It is an appeal to subjectivity. You don't say "Look at the laser pointer, the moon is 65 million kms away" You say well doesn't it make sense to you that morality should be objective?

It would be like me trying to convince Wolfsbane of evolution by just saying "Well doesn't it make sense to you personally that animals evolve?" and then claiming we were some how "discovering" objective truth.

The reality is that you have no evidence morality is objective other than your belief that it is. You have no evidence which of the claims to the objective moral standard is the actual true one other than your subjective acceptance of one.

You are, in reality, living in exactly the same situation as if morality is entirely subjective. You just believe it is. There is again no tangible difference between each version of such a universe. They work exactly the same way, you believe what you believe and act accordingly and I believe what I believe and act accordingly.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Given that people could equally be making a genuine effort to discover what is objectively right and wrong in a universe where there is no objective moral standard, they just don't know it, I don't see that as a tangible difference.

You seem to be suggesting that if we were in a universe with out an objective moral standard no one would believe there was one. I see no reason to believe that.



Well no. He stood up for civil rights because he believed it was moral good. He could believe that in a universe where it actually is objectively morally good, and he could equally believe it in a world where there is no objective moral good, he just thinks there is. At no point was Rev. King or anyone else for that matter, able to objectively demonstrate it was actually good or not, not that I think they would have particularly cared.

Given no one mentioned anything about utilitarianism I'm going to side step that attempt to drag us down that rabbit hole.



And given that Rev. King's personal beliefs don't determine the nature of reality I'm at a loss as to what relevance you think that has?

I doubt it even had much relevance to Rev. King. Imagine for example that there does exist an objective moral standard and it actually says that black people should not have civil rights. Do you think Rev. King would have cared? Would he have gone "Oh, I guess I was wrong, better give all this up". Would you have cared? I doubt it. I wouldn't have.



And what stops a mass murdering baby rapists who believes in objective morality and thinks everything he is doing is objectively moral?



And objective morality either objectively exists or it doesn't. It is either real or it isn't. If it isn't it isn't no matter how many Christians proclaim that it is. If it is it is no matter how many atheists proclaim that it isn't.

So, again, can you can you give an objective measurement to support the concept that it is objectively real?



Thank you for neatly demonstrating my point. It would be pointless of course because all you have is the subjective opinions of those people having the discussion.

I can show Wolfsbane the evidence, the objective measured evidence, for evolution. He can ignore it if he likes, but they will still exist objectively contradicting his views.

You cannot do that with me or anyone else. You have to convince me to subjectively accept your assertion of the existence of objective moral standard.

The reality is that you have no evidence morality is objective other than your belief that it is. You have no evidence which claim to the objective moral standard is the actual true one other than your acceptance of one.

You are, in reality, living in exactly the same situation as if morality is entirely subjective. You just believe it is. There is again no tangible difference between each version of such a universe. They work exactly the same way, you believe what you believe and act accordingly and I believe what I believe and act accordingly.

I wasn't presenting anything as proof for an objective moral standard.

I was pointing out the difference between believing in an objective moral standard or not, and the consequences of being consistent in those beliefs.

If you actually read what I posted properly then you could have saved yourself a lot of needless typing and goalpost shifting.

Pushtrak

Zombrex wrote: »

I doubt it even had much relevance to Rev. King. Imagine for example that there does exist an objective moral standard and it actually says that black people should not have civil rights. Do you think Rev. King would have cared? Would he have gone "Oh, I guess I was wrong, better give all this up". Would you have cared? I doubt it. I wouldn't have.

This is a very important point. With moral subjectivity, a discussion can be had on the pros and cons. If civil rights were an objective wrong, then it would try to act as a conversation closer. With subjectivity we can iron out reasoning for why something is good or bad for society and make laws to that effect. So, reality.

We can have discussion on particulars of morality, and bring up points about why it it is right or wrong, and that is a worthy discussion to have. "It is this way because it is objective" to me seems a conversation stopper, and a thought process stopper. Gets nowhere.

Things that are bad can be ironed out with justifications. And exceptions. For instance, assuming killing is objectively wrong, you add a disclaimer like except in self defence. If it were objectively wrong, this disclaimer wouldn't be accepted would it? Or is objective not as objective as proposed. Examples like this need to be addressed. Not the appeal to emotion examples like the torture of a child. In my subjective opinion, of course.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And there you have it!

PDN wrote:

I was pointing out the difference between believing in an objective moral standard or not, and the consequences of being consistent in those beliefs.

For posterity, I'll point out that there is no operational difference between a moral realist and a moral nihilist. Both act the same way in any given situation. I.e. The difference is on a meta-ethical level, not an ethical level. There are no adverse consequences of one position that would not also be present in the other.