Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

muppeteer wrote: »

I would have thought it was fairly obvious from this field that all human emotion/personality is centered in the brain. I'm unaware of any alternative that is seriously considered.

I tell you in advance you happen to be going into a field of which myself and other academic collagues have interdisciplinary knowledge. i refer to sociologists psychotherapists educationalists and psychologists specializing in cognitive neuroscience as well as in assessment of cognitive disorders.
I dont argue from authority I am just telling you in advance so you can mark the cards.

the link you offer begins with 3rd sentence

Cognitive neuroscience relies upon theories in cognitive science ...

so if the theory comes from there what is that when it is at home?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science
3rd sentence again

Cognitive science consists of multiple research disciplines, including psychology, artificial intelligence, philosophy, neuroscience, linguistics, anthropology, sociology, and education.

In the criticism section you find
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science#Criticism
you find a link to:

Can psychology be a science of mind?
By Skinner, B. F.
American Psychologist, Vol 45(11), Nov 1990, 1206-1210.

Ill save you paying for it you will find it here:
http://www.isac.psc.br/wp-content/uploads/skinner/Skinner_%281990%29_Can_Psychology_Be_a_Science_of_Mind.pdf

Now in that paper skinner makes all the arguments underlying psychology as a "hard" objective science -physicalism- and opposed to the epistemology of introspection (which ironically is being proposed by relativists here in terms of morality and "whatever you are having yourself" morals) and the philosophy of "mind". but at the bottom right of page 1209 havinfg attackd the problems with creationists opposing evolution being taught in US schools he says

Cognitive science is the creation science of psychology, as it struggles to maintain the position of a mind or self

this was then and is today a continuing problem in the field.
this guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers
would have a lot to say about it

then there are these arguments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism#Arguments_against_physicalism

also i have pointed to the chinese room before
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29#Criticism

Absolutely, humans are a social animal, not just a genetically predetermined lump. We evolved certain traits that help us live in social groups such as empathy, altruism, jealousy. We also learn and expand on these things by interacting in a society. Without a social group we loose most of what we would call uniquely human. So we are both biological and social combined.

Skinner would delineate "natural selection" "operand control " and "operand conditioning"
But there isnt a reductionist physicalism which is capable of deconstructing sociology. Even in biology while the concept is entertained it is not fully underpinned by empirical evidence.
Which is the problem you seem to think does not exist.
You seem to think the war is over and that science can explain not just the mind in terms of the physical brain, but all of society as well.

I think you may have picked me up wrong here. Maybe satisfactory was the wrong word to use. I think that creating our own ethics is 1)necessary as I don't have a choice of having them handed down to me, and 2)A nice effect of something I can't change. For example it is like me saying it is a nice effect that the Pythagorean theorem is elegant in it's simplicity. But I would never try to use the fact that I find that nice/satisfactory as a proof of the theorem being correct.
It's the same with subjective ethics, I find a nobility in it, but I would never claim that as any kind of proof that it is correct.

Well you cant if you claim introspection is invalid. which leaves philosophical relativism with respect to morality in a very sticky position.

I think you have picked me up wrong here too.
I could not and did not say Christians are not responsible for their own actions. They are as much as me.
I would say that humans with subjective ethics are responsible for creating our own ethics. As such we can take credit for creating ethics that we see as bettering humanity.

Aha! but then you are only responsible to yourself and not to the law or anything objective and outside yourself.

Whereas a Christian is given their ethics from an outside source. A Christian can take credit for following those handed down ethics but I doubt you would/could take credit for what you would see as Gods work.
1)See above as to why I don't appeal to noble ethics as any kind of evidence.
2)Well Christianity is inconsistent as I see it as you are subject to subjective assessment of what you think is an objective morality. As a relativist I can't demonstrate that practical Cristian ethics are any more valid than mine. But I can poke holes in the justification you use for them.

All you are saying here is you cant tell a Christian they are wrong. which destroys your position. because all sorts of things are always wrong irrespective of your or anyone else saying or even believing they are not.

If you are going to take a wrong does like a child abuser and say you cant say their actions are wrong then you clearly have a problem.

himnextdoor wrote: »

Why not though? From the moment you were born, your parents, priests, teachers, the police have been shaping your morality.

If morality is God-given, how come we have to teach our children not to pull the wings off butterflies?

Thats a good question, why didn't God make us perfect instead of just good?
I don't think morality is God given, something is moral because we are human, it's more a property of being human than an imposition on humanity.

tommy2bad wrote: »

I wouldn't say I feel that my morals or ethics were given to me,

Why not though? From the moment you were born, your parents, priests, teachers, the police have been shaping your morality.

If morality is God-given, how come we have to teach our children not to pull the wings off butterflies?

Originally Posted by muppeteer;
I would say that humans with subjective ethics are responsible for creating our own ethics. As such we can take credit for creating ethics that we see as bettering humanity.
Whereas a Christian is given their ethics from an outside source. A Christian can take credit for following those handed down ethics but I doubt you would/could take credit for what you would see as Gods work.

I wouldn't say I feel that my morals or ethics were given to me, more found outside of myself. It's a small distinction but an important one. If God hands down the ethics and we only have to follow them or ignore them then morality as so defined is nothing but a set of rules for children. I don't think God would do something so simplistic. God calls us to more than following rules, we are supposed to learn and think as well. Love one another and everything follows from this. Yes their is a strain of Christians who appeal to authority rather than engage with the issue but thats true of all people, atheist included.
I know I'l draw flac from several other Christian posters for this but.. I don't think it works if we only think of God in terms of rules, laws and do's and don'ts.
I'm not sure how it works but I think it's worth trying to understand rather than giving up and falling back on the do's and don'ts.

ISAW wrote: »

... i mean look what happened to those who used biological "evolution" and applied it to sociological "evolution".

Nonsense; in what way is biological evolution qualitatively different to sociological evolution?

Morality has followed an evolutionary path too; different societies evolved different moral codes through a process which is similar in character to the processes of 'speciation' that occurs in biology.

A kind of 'cross-pollination' can occur when when society incorporates the morality of another society into its moral framework.

It can even be argued that all social animals observe a moral code within their own societies; lions and hyenas see each other as evil and lions are morally obliged to take out hyenas when they can.

Morality isn't just a human thing, humans only apply it to humans, wolves apply it to wolves, lions to lions, etc.

If morality comes from God then why do lions and hyenas hate each other?

ISAW wrote: »

Where is the evidence that the mind and emotions are wholly biological in nature. Medicine is still divided o this issue.

I would have thought it was fairly obvious from this field that all human emotion/personality is centered in the brain. I'm unaware of any alternative that is seriously considered.

But there is a whole field of medical science which suggests effecton non solid things.
It is a quite complex argument that when someone speaks the words are just random babble and you decipher ht emeaning as you hear them. surely interactions with others affects language. If a person is isolated from birth they not only fail to develop language but also to fit into society. How is that biologically predetermined? It is sociological.

how can you show such things to be wholly biological?

Absolutely, humans are a social animal, not just a genetically predetermined lump. We evolved certain traits that help us live in social groups such as empathy, altruism, jealousy. We also learn and expand on these things by interacting in a society. Without a social group we loose most of what we would call uniquely human. So we are both biological and social combined.

so it is okay for you to be happy with your blind faith but not for a religious person even if their faith isnt blind?

I think you may have picked me up wrong here. Maybe satisfactory was the wrong word to use. I think that creating our own ethics is 1)necessary as I don't have a choice of having them handed down to me, and 2)A nice effect of something I can't change. For example it is like me saying it is a nice effect that the Pythagorean theorem is elegant in it's simplicity. But I would never try to use the fact that I find that nice/satisfactory as a proof of the theorem being correct.
It's the same with subjective ethics, I find a nobility in it, but I would never claim that as any kind of proof that it is correct.

where does Christianity say people are not responsible for their own actions?
So the Christian position is at least equal to yours in this respect?

I think you have picked me up wrong here too.
I could not and did not say Christians are not responsible for their own actions. They are as much as me.
I would say that humans with subjective ethics are responsible for creating our own ethics. As such we can take credit for creating ethics that we see as bettering humanity.
Whereas a Christian is given their ethics from an outside source. A Christian can take credit for following those handed down ethics but I doubt you would/could take credit for what you would see as Gods work.

1. If the Niechean nobel ethics argument isnt apt why appeal to it? -you contradict yourself here.

2. Above you dont illustrate hos Christianity is in-viable. It comes across at least equal if not a better position.

1)See above as to why I don't appeal to noble ethics as any kind of evidence.
2)Well Christianity is inconsistent as I see it as you are subject to subjective assessment of what you think is an objective morality. As a relativist I can't demonstrate that practical Cristian ethics are any more valid than mine. But I can poke holes in the justification you use for them.

Phil: I'll get back to you later as I'm a little stuck on time.

ISAW wrote: »

I suggest you are careful about using Information technology terminology associated with data bases (absolute /relative/ relational) and applying the same definitions to morality. if that is your intent. i mean look what happened to those who used biological "evolution" and applied it to sociological "evolution".

If something in in relation to gods or God then I would argue, though context changes the situation it is in relation to an absolute.

No intention of going down the memes route ISAW.

IF you change the last bit to "If something is in relation to/with God then I would agree" Then I agree.

philologos

muppeteer wrote: »

If I understand you you wish to understand the nature of an absolute. Should you wish to use your God as the ultimate author of the objective anything, then what we think of as the absolute/God is important. I would say that it still does not matter if it is about morals, Gods will or his wishes as we still cannot know in an objective manner what this absolute is, as we are still just subjective beings.

It's not important insofar as irrespective of what you, I or anyone else happens to think. Ultimately something is true irrespective of thought. Truth is mind-independent. I also believe that ethical truth as to what is good and evil is mind-independent for a number of reasons that I've already shown you. Just as much as people can skew the truth or lie, people can skew ethical truth and lie about it.

muppeteer wrote: »

Considering you believe in a god it is somewhat reasonable from your position to think what he says goes.
I have already dealt with how this is still a problem for objective ethics because you yourself are not a god you cannot know the objective moral standard. And as such you use your subjective assessment to determine what the objective standard is.
Here is how I explained it previously in regard to ethics:

I don't believe it is a problem for objective ethics. If this is God's universe and we live in it. He's perfectly entitled to legislate on the basis of what He has created. Also, as I mentioned about truth, if ultimately we all come before Jesus in judgement (2 Corinthians 5) then ultimately God's standard will be binding, it will be the only ethical standard worthy of our consideration.

You say that if God sets the standards concerning ethics it is subjective. It is subject to Him, but objective to us. However, if we extend that logic from a Christian point of view, logically it makes a number of implications for your position as well. Christians believe that the laws of physics are subject to God's will. When God created the world He determined them. Does this mean that they aren't binding on me as an individual? Absolutely not.

muppeteer wrote: »

Assuming a god exists means you can more easily assume an objective morality exists. But you still cannot claim that because an objective morality may exist that any human can operate on objective morals as we are not gods.
The Lucy analogy fails when applied to humans as we and Lucy subjectively think she is not a dog.
It also fails when applied to a god as we can only subjectively interpret the gods will, because we are not gods ourselves.
Hope this makes things clearer.

Not at all. It's the other way around.

Seeing that humans work on an objective ethical basis (and I've clearly explained this in my last few posts) it is more reasonable to see that it is reasonable to suggest that there is a moral law giver over Creation. It is easier to see that there is a God because of how ethical behaviour works.

The Lucy example is fine, because even if you and I have different opinions over God. Ultimately if He has spoken Himself, and ultimately if He is returning to judge. He'll speak for Himself and it would be particularly subjective any more. If not, I'll simply be wormfood by your opinion. Ultimately irrespective of what I may or may not believe, and what you may or may not believe, the objective truth will become clear.

muppeteer wrote: »

This is a decent description of part of a relativist/materialists ethics. The part that may be "off" to you might be the adding of our own values on top of our biological emotion to love our children.

Where is the evidence that the mind and emotions are wholly biological in nature. Medicine is still divided o this issue.

You possibly would prefer something more solid/external to your own opinion? I can see how this would be appealing.

But there is a whole field of medical science which suggests effecton non solid things.
It is a quite complex argument that when someone speaks the words are just random babble and you decipher ht emeaning as you hear them. surely interactions with others affects language. If a person is isolated from birth they not only fail to develop language but also to fit into society. How is that biologically predetermined? It is sociological.

how can you show such things to be wholly biological?

I suppose I find it satisfactory as I like the thought of humanity being responsible for our own ethics.

so it is okay for you to be happy with your blind faith but not for a religious person even if their faith isnt blind?

We can commend ourselves for our ethical triumphs and we must take responsibility for our own failings. This view may help the arbitrariness of subjective ethics seem a little more acceptable.

where does Christianity say people are not responsible for their own actions?
So the Christian position is at least equal to yours in this respect?

Of course there is no viable alternative from my atheistic point view so noble ethics or not I'm stuck with them:).

1. If the Niechean nobel ethics argument isnt apt why appeal to it? -you contradict yourself here.

2. Above you dont illustrate hos Christianity is in-viable. It comes across at least equal if not a better position.

tommy2bad wrote: »

I might have worded it better, 'Other' then; an acceptance that your not the only one.
Morality is neither absolute or relative its relational.

I suggest you are careful about using Information technology terminology associated with data bases (absolute /relative/ relational) and applying the same definitions to morality. if that is your intent. i mean look what happened to those who used biological "evolution" and applied it to sociological "evolution".

If something in in relation to gods or God then I would argue, though context changes the situation it is in relation to an absolute.

lmaopml wrote: »

So too does Christianity make one responsible, but they recognise that ethics didn't just devolop randomly - where in fact, you seem to.

I'm sorry to butt in again but why are you so certain that 'ethics' didn't develop randomly?

'Ethics' are directly related to chances of survival; most people agree to some basic 'moral code' in order to protect themselves. However, some people exploit morality and they are the ones who end up as our 'rulers'.

Don't you see, morality is a way for immoral people to gain control? The unfortunate truth is that morality does not assure the survival of the morally indisposed, it provides a system that ensures the survival of the immoral.

Nice people come last.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yeah I getcha, I think they don't exist outside of us but dose that matter? Dose it make them less absolute?

Yes because morality is always subjective; it depends on how God feels and that is not absolute. God is recorded as moving the goalposts every now and then.

Let me put it this way; if Got said it is okay to wipe out Muslims then I would say, 'No dude, you are wrong.'

Morality isn't about what God says, it's about 'being true to yourself' no matter what is placed before you.

And how many of us wouldn't deny it thrice before the cock crows?

lmaopml wrote: »

Is love of our children something that can be adequately described as building on biology, are we saying that love doesn't exist too? Nothing truely good exists, for the sole reason of goodness?

Sort of. Evolution has selected 'love of children' because it is advantageous to survival of the young. Other animals do it as well.

Love actually emerges from the value you place on yourself. In your mind, you deserve to survive. Love represents a way to be selfish while appearing to be sharing.

Very few of us can afford to be altruistic.

muppeteer wrote: »

This is a decent description of part of a relativist/materialists ethics. The part that may be "off" to you might be the adding of our own values on top of our biological emotion to love our children.

Is love of our children something that can be adequately described as building on biology, are we saying that love doesn't exist too? Nothing truely good exists, for the sole reason of goodness?

You possibly would prefer something more solid/external to your own opinion? I can see how this would be appealing.

Ditto, the same thing applies to Mupetteer no? What we prefer and what is reality is vastly different for both of us, but has constituents that we can talk about - voila Boards..

I suppose I find it satisfactory as I like the thought of humanity being responsible for our own ethics.

So too does Christianity make one responsible, but they recognise that ethics didn't just devolop randomly - where in fact, you seem to..

We can commend ourselves for our ethical triumphs and we must take responsibility for our own failings. This view may help the arbitrariness of subjective ethics seem a little more acceptable.

Well, certainly yes people can be 'content' - being content is nice, but doesn't necessarily mean following a moral law to it's conclusion that 'we' collectively as enlightened individuals bear responsibilty, and are morally responsible for eachother too? I don't think that naturalism, while I think it IS informative, can adequately describe a person fully - neither do I look there for something that seems like a common sense, a basic thing.

Of course there is no viable alternative from my atheistic point view so noble ethics or not I'm stuck with them:).

I know Muppeteer, and I am glad that you are willing to discuss what is on your mind, I'm only discussing what is on mine too.

Originally Posted by lmaopml
It's like saying 'right and wrong' do exist, but they don't at the same time, which is impossible. It's like saying that we sense these obligations, things like loving our children, treating others well, not causing harm etc, but they don't in fact exist, and are only a biological construct in order for the survival of our species. Doesn't this sound just a tad off? Is it satisfactory?

Yeah I getcha, I think they don't exist outside of us but dose that matter? Dose it make them less absolute?

lmaopml wrote: »

It's like saying that we sense these obligations, things like loving our children, treating others well, not causing harm etc, but they don't in fact exist, and are only a biological construct in order for the survival of our species. Doesn't this sound just a tad off? Is it satisfactory?

This is a decent description of part of a relativist/materialists ethics. The part that may be "off" to you might be the adding of our own values on top of our biological emotion to love our children. You possibly would prefer something more solid/external to your own opinion? I can see how this would be appealing.
I suppose I find it satisfactory as I like the thought of humanity being responsible for our own ethics. We can commend ourselves for our ethical triumphs and we must take responsibility for our own failings. This view may help the arbitrariness of subjective ethics seem a little more acceptable.

Of course there is no viable alternative from my atheistic point view so noble ethics or not I'm stuck with them:).

tommy2bad wrote: »

But they don't, their is no right or wrong except in relation to someone else. If their was no one else in the world but you what could you do that would be wrong? What would be right?
We are not so far apart on this, athiests and christians in as much as all morality is based on the presence of others and how we deal with them. The only difference is we christians put an other in the equation, God.

Well yes of course that is the 'function' of morality, that it is in relation to others ( and of course from a Christian perspective, what we 'ought' to do in relation to God too )

However, it seems like a bit of a red herring to describe morality only in the sense of it's function, which is apparent and obvious to both the Christian and Atheist, I agree - and not of it's 'actuality'?

It's like saying 'right and wrong' do exist, but they don't at the same time, which is impossible. It's like saying that we sense these obligations, things like loving our children, treating others well, not causing harm etc, but they don't in fact exist, and are only a biological construct in order for the survival of our species. Doesn't this sound just a tad off? Is it satisfactory?

I don't know, I'm working my way through this, and although I am a Christian and believe in God first and foremost, I also recognise that there is a value in dialogue with others too, and seeking to understand a little better..

ISAW wrote: »

what about morality with respect to non humans? e.g. animals?

I might add if you take "God" or "nature" as the "someone else" in the "relative to someone else" then you have absolute morals and not relative morals.

I might have worded it better, 'Other' then; an acceptance that your not the only one.
Morality is neither absolute or relative its relational.

tommy2bad wrote: »

But they don't, their is no right or wrong except in relation to someone else. If their was no one else in the world but you what could you do that would be wrong? What would be right?
We are not so far apart on this, athiests and christians in as much as all morality is based on the presence of others and how we deal with them. The only difference is we christians put an other in the equation, God.

what about morality with respect to non humans? e.g. animals?
do you regard them as a "person" or a "being"
and what about inanimate objects.
I think Francis of Assisi used to apologise if he bumped into t chair or table because he respected it as a creation of someone elses work. The point being you can still do wrong without anyone else there.

One can extend this motif to the creation of God. it isnt so silly.

I might add if you take "God" or "nature" as the "someone else" in the "relative to someone else" then you have absolute morals and not relative morals.

lmaopml ;
if right and wrong don't in fact exist,

But they don't, their is no right or wrong except in relation to someone else. If their was no one else in the world but you what could you do that would be wrong? What would be right?
We are not so far apart on this, athiests and christians in as much as all morality is based on the presence of others and how we deal with them. The only difference is we christians put an other in the equation, God.

Muppeteer I have to go out, but I will follow up on this later, and follow it with interest. It's a good workout for me, and I need it

- It just seems odd to me that if right and wrong don't in fact exist, than we're very fond of saying when things aren't 'fair' for us as human beings. It seems to me that the objective moral standard is in fact rooted in this being 'fair' thing that most of us don't practise everyday as human animals iykwim. When we say something isn't fair, aren't we directly relating it to something that is?

Anyways, thanks for your thoughts.

lmaopml wrote: »

Ok, but the law of ethics which we form from our sense morality for common good or for a boomerang effect or survival - is in effect and effective, specifically because the 'ought' to do good, or what is right, is in very many cases not part of our nature but also very contrary to it?

We have brains with which to consider and reason above our baser nature. We decide what our "ought to do" is, based on our inherited instincts and refined by our own minds. This means we can go against our evolved nature so to speak.

However, the 'ought to do' is still a reality outside of the material world either way for to achieve what we consider good and healthy things, like love and justice and mercy etc.

I don't see why "ought to do" has to be outside of our material minds at all. We can achieve good healthy things like justice and mercy without appealing to an outside force. I would even think it more noble that we do this for ourselves than having it dictated to us.

If it's only a construct of our material nature, and random survival of the fittest, to form 'ought to be unselfish' rules for example, than why do we as animals recognise it as a 'good thing to be unselfish' even when that very same nature is geared towards being selfish and accumulating individual wealth too? I think I agree with you that the boomerang effect doesn't quite fully explain the existence of morality, but it really is all that evolution can offer.

We recognise it as good because we can relate to other sapient beings in our society. It is also still somewhat selfish given it could still be seen as a boomerang ethic no matter how removed we might be from receiving a reciprocal benefit.

We see in the real world both scenarios, human beings who act according to what they 'ought' to do, or striving to, and also act according to what they 'should not' do - so it doesn't seem to be something that is inscribed by evolution to be kind to others etc., but rather something quite different and outside of a material animal - the 'ought' is more a striving after what we recognise as 'good' - but it's 'there' it has a presence if you like, but is not a 'law' moreso a foundation we look to when making those laws?

I see little difference in the two scenarios, "ought" and "should not do". Both can be reasoned with our minds and informed/helped by our common evolved empathy.

muppeteer wrote: »

The terms are pretty interchangeable as I see it. I wouldn't really have a problem saying I have subjective morals or subjective ethics.
Here's a little article on the two terms.

I do have a tendency to use the word morals when relating to theistic/objective type reasoning and ethics for subjective type reasoning. Its more for clarity more than anything as I find the word moral is used more in religious contexts.

That "ought" can indeed be justified by appealing to a boomerang type reciprocating ethics. Causing "pain to the society" is boomerang based too as you are part of human society.
It would be a good reason to be nice to others but there are many other good reasons too. How we decide something is right or wrong is not simple and, in my view at least, not something we can leave to some divine arbiter.

Ok, but the law of ethics which we form from our sense morality for common good or for a boomerang effect or survival - is in effect and effective, specifically because the 'ought' to do good, or what is right, is in very many cases not part of our nature but also very contrary to it?

However, the 'ought to do' is still a reality outside of the material world either way for to achieve what we consider good and healthy things, like love and justice and mercy etc.

If it's only a construct of our material nature, and random survival of the fittest, to form 'ought to be unselfish' rules for example, than why do we as animals recognise it as a 'good thing to be unselfish' even when that very same nature is geared towards being selfish and accumulating individual wealth too? I think I agree with you that the boomerang effect doesn't quite fully explain the existence of morality, but it really is all that evolution can offer.

We see in the real world both scenarios, human beings who act according to what they 'ought' to do, or striving to, and also act according to what they 'should not' do - so it doesn't seem to be something that is inscribed by evolution to be kind to others etc., but rather something quite different and outside of a material animal - the 'ought' is more a striving after what we recognise as 'good' - but it's 'there' it has a presence if you like, but is not a 'law' moreso a foundation we look to when making those laws?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The resurrection of Christ - or the supposed resurrection of Christ, if you prefer - is an event that happened once in history. How do you propose going about testing this claim or any other historical event?

That the heliocentric model is "verified" is besides the point I was making. Do you understand my point?

Would it be fair to say that Lazarus was resurrected?

But that is not the point. To claim that there was a 'Resurrection Event' that occurred only once is a claim that is totally based on the word of one man; a man with a vested interest in promoting Jesus' death.

Also, the claim is only recorded in the Bible and therefore is reliant on faith in order to have plausibility.

The chain of events from the crucifixion to the resurrection were rushed and chaotic but very well planned. Everything went perfectly in the execution of the fulfillment of prophecy.

The resurrection can't be proved to have happened but if one was to take away the one supernatural element then you are left with a much more plausible narrative that demonstrates the political necessity for Jews to bring about the coming of the Messiah. It was the Jews who needed Jesus, not Christians. Remember, He was rejected by the Jews according to Old Testament Scripture.

I think that the Jewish intention was to 'design' Jesus to lead the gentiles away from God.

Judas was the only Jew in the group of disciples and he was in regular contact with the Synagogue. If he betrayed Jesus, mightn't he have lied to them all previous to that?

And yet, although the prophesy could not have been fulfilled without him, Judas is considered to be evil and in league with Satan when actually it was 'good' that he betrayed Jesus. I think he was a fall-guy.

Obviously Judas was working for the Synagogue but it could be that Jesus was too. This does make sense in the context of the information provided by the Bible plus a little care in how it is interpreted.

And Satan, he blew it didn't he? I mean, surely Satan would have rather had the prophesy not fulfilled wouldn't he? All he had to do was leave Judas alone or at least to try and use Judas to screw up the prophecy.

The more I hear about Lucifer, the less wise he seems.

Anyway, the resurrection fails to stand up to scrutiny whereas the idea of a 'faked resurrection' has plausibility and is supported by the text of the Bible even without recourse to supernatural phenomena.

lmaopml wrote: »

Muppeteer, I don't believe that morals and ethics are mutually exclusive, one seems to inform the other, the forerunner of which seems to be morality - but that still doesn't point to anything other than the existence of what we ought to do?

Unless you are saying the reason why we 'ought' to do anything (which is in essence morality ) is because it could have the boomerang effect of coming back on us and causing us pain and this is the motive for formulating 'ethics'? Is this what you are saying? Sorry, just skim read through the chat -

Whereas in the real world people really do say something is 'right' or 'wrong' regardless of whether it has a boomerang effect, that causes pain to the society, or person, and I think this is what Phil is inferring.

Very interesting points of view on both sides here though...

The terms are pretty interchangeable as I see it. I wouldn't really have a problem saying I have subjective morals or subjective ethics.
Here's a little article on the two terms.

I do have a tendency to use the word morals when relating to theistic/objective type reasoning and ethics for subjective type reasoning. Its more for clarity more than anything as I find the word moral is used more in religious contexts.

That "ought" can indeed be justified by appealing to a boomerang type reciprocating ethics. Causing "pain to the society" is boomerang based too as you are part of human society.
It would be a good reason to be nice to others but there are many other good reasons too. How we decide something is right or wrong is not simple and, in my view at least, not something we can leave to some divine arbiter.

muppeteer wrote: »

Certainly not ignoring. I just do not see what you see as obvious.
Each of your explanations, as I read them, gave no reason as to why objective morals operate to the exclusion of subjective ethics. I tried to give examples of why they are just a valid and evident in a subjective ethical world. If you have a problem with a specific example you can point me to it and I will try to expand/clarify if you want. It might save on getting to the bottom of the issue without going through big posts.

Muppeteer, I don't believe that morals and ethics are mutually exclusive, one seems to inform the other, the forerunner of which seems to be morality - but that still doesn't point to anything other than the existence of what we ought to do?

Unless you are saying the reason why we 'ought' to do anything (which is in essence morality ) is because it could have the boomerang effect of coming back on us and causing us pain and this is the motive for formulating 'ethics'? Is this what you are saying? Sorry, just skim read through the chat -

Whereas in the real world people really do say something is 'right' or 'wrong' regardless of whether it has a boomerang effect, that causes pain to the society, or person, and I think this is what Phil is inferring.

Very interesting points of view on both sides here though...

ISAW wrote: »

You use "evolved" in an unscientific way too!
Evolution of a species and evlution of a society are different used of the word!
the idea that authoritarians believe in conforming to authority and may thwart an objective moral has no relation to whether that moral is absolute.
for example in an authoritarian State when the state do not say it is unacceptable would an adult having sex with a child be right?

You are not often right ISAW but you are wrong again.

The evolution of man, the building of societies and the development of law are all part of the same process; random mutation and natural selection have counterparts in law and in society.

Take society; a new scientific discovery would be equivalent to a 'random mutation' and the implemetation of the discovery would be equal to 'natural selection'.

In law; someone causes a moral issue that is not covered by the law, technology may provide an instrument that can be used nefariously but it is so new that no-one saw the possible consequences and no legislation to control it exists. This would be a 'random mutation'. And in order to create a better society, a law will be 'selected' and the loop-hole will be closed.

Technology has evolved too in line with environmental pressures.

Crime has evolved; burglar-alarm technology has caused burglars to 'adapt' to their environment.

All life has evolved in a similar way; change something and if it is beneficial, keep it. All societies have evolved in the same way; change something and if it is beneficial, keep it. It is the same with all law; change something and if it is beneficial, keep it.

Science and technology, crime, religion; all the same.

It is worth mentioning that the tendency to believe in supernatural phenomena has been a human thing for tens of thousands of years. How can you say for certain that their (Ancient humans) Gods didn't speak to them; where do you think they got their 'spiritual knowledge'?

Do you hold the view that all non-Christians who have ever claimed to have been touched by or spoken to by God were suffering from some kind of hallucination?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The resurrection of Christ - or the supposed resurrection of Christ, if you prefer - is an event that happened once in history. How do you propose going about testing this claim or any other historical event?

That the heliocentric model is "verified" is besides the point I was making. Do you understand my point?

Fair enough.

We can't test it directly, which is a shame. So we are left to make an assessment based on similar claims throughout history and what we know about how human bodies work.
Resurrection goes against what we can currently verify about human bodies.
Supernatural events that are similar in their "going against what we can verify about human bodies" have never been verified or have been verified as either mistakes/shams/tricks.
This lends weight to dismissing the event as a similar sham/mistake/trick.

The above is not perfect, and it can never prove that such a thing did not happen just that once. And it is still contingent on our best knowledge of what we know/verify about human bodies/physics/human psychology. So verification does matter, with the proviso that it is not absolute proof or subject to change. But as a reasonable assessment of the claims it seems obvious, as to what is the most likely explanation.