Christians don't believe there's objective morality.

[discordianpope]

Yeah, I know what the is ought problem is. Which is why I was confused when I thought you were saying there wasn't an is-ought distinction, but you seem to be admitting that there is one now, so no worries. The goal strategies you mention only work within a framework of aristotelian teleology. They require a final purpose. Without the teleology there is no way to distinguish between competing oughts. The institutional facts approach has feck all to do with "scientific morality".

As for the psychology/biology stuff, well, what can I say, I assumed that you thought facts about our psychology are facts about our brains, and hence our biology - I apologise, I'll try to remember that you are a dualist from now on.

[Whateverist]

Somethings to consider:

7) You can prove scientifically doing certain actions make us happier, make us feel good, helps our survival as a species, is shared by other animals etc, but you cannot prove objective morals/ethics from science.

It is a bit of a stretch to suppose that what is moral will always be that which will make us happier, make us feel better or be best for our species as a whole over time.

I think we may be trying to stretch morality further than it is fit to go. Perhaps natural morality is really just a proclivity we have as a species toward some pro-social behaviors. These tendencies may fostered by something in our DNA or by cultures or perhaps both are required. It is easy to see the evolutionary advantage of the morality phenomenon. It has gotten us to where we are and perhaps provides some of the glue that permits us to live together amicably in large numbers in close proximity to one another. But why would we think there is anything objective about this?

Put another way, even if there is something objective in natural morality which we could distill .. does it follow that we should all embrace it and try our very best to embody it? This might appeal to some but it certainly doesn't appeal everyone (myself included).

Moral goodness for its own sake certainly seems like a form of self-obsessed vanity to me. Why should it matter if we always act in the morally best way possible in every circumstance? So long as we act within an acceptable range of non-harmful behavior .. screw it, I say. Send your mum a card on her birthday or don't. I don't care. Don't feel like smiling today? Your call, authentic isn't such a bad alternative.

Lets not worry morality to death, okay? Objective? Maybe to some incomplete degree but who really cares? I applaud people who are caring, kind and generous but I don't expect anyone to be so at every moment of their lives. I also applaud people for being authentic and daring to be fully human while all around them others are striving to make the sainthood olympics.

[genkaus]

Yeah, I know what the is ought problem is. Which is why I was confused when I thought you were saying there wasn't an is-ought distinction, but you seem to be admitting that there is one now, so no worries. The goal strategies you mention only work within a framework of aristotelian teleology. They require a final purpose. Without the teleology there is no way to distinguish between competing oughts. The institutional facts approach has feck all to do with "scientific morality".

On the contrary, teleology seeks to apply a purpose and by extension an ought to all things. The goal strategies would work fine even outside the teleological framework. As for the competing oughts, that'd would be one of the problems for the science of morality to solve.

As for the psychology/biology stuff, well, what can I say, I assumed that you thought facts about our psychology are facts about our brains, and hence our biology - I apologise, I'll try to remember that you are a dualist from now on.

I'm not a dualist and not everything in psychology reduces to a biological function.

[Lion IRC]

Ho Ho Ho!!! Sir Greneknight is tickled.

I find the Fundies in this forum extremely hilarious. Some deny I'm a Christian. Others insist I am (and they refuse to debate with Christians) but they do that only because they don't dare to cross swords with me in a debate...

Just for the record, it was the venue not the topic which was the basis for not agreeing to debate you. Christians have been debating important matters of theology and doctrine among themselves for millennia.

...they fear someone who hasn't even reached physical puberty!!!

However, I now find out you are a minor and as such I wouldn’t agree to debate you FULL STOP.

Come back in 7 years…when and if your level of theological insight reaches puberty.

...But if I'm not a Christian, and I'm prepared to debate on the Bible, what's your problem?

If I'm not a Christian...
hock:

What?

But you said you were.

[Minimalist]

What I meant to show is that the apologists like Craig and Zacharias are talking rubbish when they say that the existence of objective morality open their mouths.


(Fixed that for you.)

[greneknight]

Ho Ho Ho!!! Sir Greneknight is tickled.

I find the Fundies in this forum extremely hilarious. Some deny I'm a Christian. Others insist I am (and they refuse to debate with Christians) but they do that only because they don't dare to cross swords with me in a debate...

Just for the record, it was the venue not the topic which was the basis for not agreeing to debate you. Christians have been debating important matters of theology and doctrine among themselves for millennia.

...they fear someone who hasn't even reached physical puberty!!!

However, I now find out you are a minor and as such I wouldn’t agree to debate you FULL STOP.

Come back in 7 years…when and if your level of theological insight reaches puberty.

...But if I'm not a Christian, and I'm prepared to debate on the Bible, what's your problem?

If I'm not a Christian...
hock:

What?

But you said you were.

It's obvious you are a coward, Lion. I suggest you change your name to Pussy_Cat. I've never seen such a timid trembling bloke in my entire life. Sir Greneknight only does battle with worthy knights. Cowardly peasants like you can tend to my battle horse and feed it since there is precious little else you can do. Avaunt, coward!

[Minimalist]

This is now required!

[Lion IRC]

I hope you find a worthy adversary young Sir Greneknight.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

However, I now find out you are a minor and as such I wouldn’t agree to debate you FULL STOP.

Come back in 7 years…when and if your level of theological insight reaches puberty. [quote]

How very patronising of you.


In my opinion,grene shows at least as much theological insight and maturity as most of the Christians apologists on this site,with the rare bonus of being ingenuous.

[Cyberman]

I'd say he shows more maturity than a lot of people I've encountered, online or not (present company not necessarily excepted). If he hadn't revealed information as to his age, I certainly wouldn't have taken him for a 'minor'. Were I feeling uncharitable I might wonder why a person would want to avoid online contact with someone who may not be at the age of majority, but such speculations are beneath me so I won't entertain them.