Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
I did, yes, because there's nothing preventing a society from aligning itself with an objective morality.
We have subjective and disparate motivation to follow any moral schema, objective or not. A persons personal morality can, like a societal morality, align itself with an objective moral schema.
OK agreed that a person or society can align itself with an objective morality
Quote:I think..that you're thinking sloppily, not that you're not thinking at all. More importantly, I can (and have) shown that to be the case.
Ok duely noted. My thinking is probably sloppy and loose because this is just a discussion, you probably have proven that sufficiently but the point is moot because it doesn't speak to the argument, which we apparently agree on
Quote:
OFC the things that society tells us to do is an insufficient objective measure..but no more or less so than the things a god tells us to do or the things that any other rando tells us to do. Nevertheless, it's possible for a society to tell us not to do x for some objective reason. For example..our society tells us that waltzing over to the neighbors yard and beating him to death is wrong because of the harm it causes. This harm is no mere opinion...not of society, not of a god, and not of any individual...though, obviously, we all have opinions about it.
As I've been explaining, your use of every one of these terms is not consistent with their very definitions. Societal morality is not made "other than objective" on account of it being societies morality. Morality is not made subjective on account of people having opinions about it, either. And some being or entity is not made an objective moral authority on account of it existing, or existing outside of and before all the reast of it;s creation.
That's not how any of this works.
K I see your point. What makes Objective morality objective is having mind independent facts of a moral matter, not is particular characteristics or location, n'est-ce pas? This part I could probably agree with as a qualifier if you list some societal mind independent facts of a moral matter that make a societal morality objective with respect to a subjective morality.
Quote:
OFC it is, but moral failure is not in and of itself a barrier to the existence of an objective morality or proof that every moral proclamation -is- an example of moral failure. The christian god is a moral failure..and yet we can still contend that there is an objective moral standard in a universe in which it exists. Repeat again with societies and people. Referencing the moral failures of the past..a huge portion of which have to do with the various gods people have believed in...is just a case in point.
There is, again..just the one thing involved in objective morality. Are there mind independent facts of a moral matter. No matter where we find those..in societies morality, in a persons morality, in the morality of a god...they would be examples of an objective morality. That is -the- objective moral standard. That's the entire premise of objective morality. Would it be nice to have that? Yes, I think so..and I think that we do, even if we don't have a perfect score when it comes to working that out..or, even when we do, acting in accordance with it...and even if possessing it might cause shittiness, at times...like those instances that I point out that the christian god is a moral failure.
k so we agree there could be an objective morality, but it's not necessary. We already have an objective morality to personal morality. That it would be nice if whatever objective morality we use is were consistently proven moral and were communicated clearly and rigorously enough that it stood the test of time and misinterpretation. Is there common ground there at least?
(November 21, 2018 at 3:07 pm)wyzas Wrote: OK, well that's a different take on what I normally hear. And I hear theists talking and quoting a lot of biblical absurdities, which if I understand them right, are used as the word(s) and deed(s) of god. For instance, I hear that it can make pigs suicidally insane and have bears kill children.
I really don't care if you believe, I live in a world of very diverse god(s) believers. I hear contradictory things from different believers on a routine basis. I'd think that the holy spirit and the bible would be communicating the same messages, after all, it is a god.
Maybe you can understand why I find so little validity in the belief itself (and the consequential justifications that get attached), and find more validity in the people, with or without a god influence.
Edit: When you get time I'd like to hear about your experimental observations and any subsequent conclusions.
Yes Min and wyzas, then if you define omnipotent as simply all-powerful or able to create anything then God is not all powerful, I definitely concede that. I appreciate the concern for me painting myself in a corner. I do not believe God is absolutely omnipotent to create or do anything that can be expressed in a string of words even if it's illogical. I believe God can do anything that is possible according to His nature within our universe.
Here's a thought experiment: Close your eyes ad envision a blank page with which to create your drawing. Now I'm going to tell you what to draw and you tell me how it's drawn. I want you to draw a triangular circle. It's logically impossible.
God can create a pig AND a horse, can turn a pig INTO a horse, but can't make a horse that IS a pig, because it would then be a pig.
To your other point, I can see lots of reasons why atheists find very little believability in religious belief. It's confusing as hell, even if we start of with just the sheer variety of opinions and options. I think you should base your validity in something you don't perceive by vetting the principles and people.
I mean I look at it this way. If there were a small isolated tribe of color blind pigmies and they all looked at a big red fire engine they wouldn't believe their definition of Red were any different than a non-color blind pigmy from a neighboring tribe. You'd be hard pressed to get them to believe that their red isn't really red without an outside perspective. As far as my personal experiencesand testimony, that can be for another time and thread, or maybe even PM out of the respect of this being an atheist forum and the recent turmoil. No need to jump right into I believe in fairy tales for X, Y and Z... too soon
ugh my gif skills are rusty
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
I did, yes, because there's nothing preventing a society from aligning itself with an objective morality.
We have subjective and disparate motivation to follow any moral schema, objective or not. A persons personal morality can, like a societal morality, align itself with an objective moral schema.
OK agreed that a person or society can align itself with an objective morality
Quote:I think..that you're thinking sloppily, not that you're not thinking at all. More importantly, I can (and have) shown that to be the case.
Ok duely noted. My thinking is probably sloppy and loose because this is just a discussion, you probably have proven that sufficiently but the point is moot because it doesn't speak to the argument, which we apparently agree on
Quote:
OFC the things that society tells us to do is an insufficient objective measure..but no more or less so than the things a god tells us to do or the things that any other rando tells us to do. Nevertheless, it's possible for a society to tell us not to do x for some objective reason. For example..our society tells us that waltzing over to the neighbors yard and beating him to death is wrong because of the harm it causes. This harm is no mere opinion...not of society, not of a god, and not of any individual...though, obviously, we all have opinions about it.
As I've been explaining, your use of every one of these terms is not consistent with their very definitions. Societal morality is not made "other than objective" on account of it being societies morality. Morality is not made subjective on account of people having opinions about it, either. And some being or entity is not made an objective moral authority on account of it existing, or existing outside of and before all the reast of it;s creation.
That's not how any of this works.
K I see your point. What makes Objective morality objective is having mind independent facts of a moral matter, not is particular characteristics or location, n'est-ce pas? This part I could probably agree with as a qualifier if you list some societal mind independent facts of a moral matter that make a societal morality objective with respect to a subjective morality.
Quote:
OFC it is, but moral failure is not in and of itself a barrier to the existence of an objective morality or proof that every moral proclamation -is- an example of moral failure. The christian god is a moral failure..and yet we can still contend that there is an objective moral standard in a universe in which it exists. Repeat again with societies and people. Referencing the moral failures of the past..a huge portion of which have to do with the various gods people have believed in...is just a case in point.
There is, again..just the one thing involved in objective morality. Are there mind independent facts of a moral matter. No matter where we find those..in societies morality, in a persons morality, in the morality of a god...they would be examples of an objective morality. That is -the- objective moral standard. That's the entire premise of objective morality. Would it be nice to have that? Yes, I think so..and I think that we do, even if we don't have a perfect score when it comes to working that out..or, even when we do, acting in accordance with it...and even if possessing it might cause shittiness, at times...like those instances that I point out that the christian god is a moral failure.
k so we agree there could be an objective morality, but it's not necessary. We already have an objective morality to personal morality. That it would be nice if whatever objective morality we use is were consistently proven moral and were communicated clearly and rigorously enough that it stood the test of time and misinterpretation. Is there common ground there at least?
(November 21, 2018 at 3:07 pm)wyzas Wrote: OK, well that's a different take on what I normally hear. And I hear theists talking and quoting a lot of biblical absurdities, which if I understand them right, are used as the word(s) and deed(s) of god. For instance, I hear that it can make pigs suicidally insane and have bears kill children.
I really don't care if you believe, I live in a world of very diverse god(s) believers. I hear contradictory things from different believers on a routine basis. I'd think that the holy spirit and the bible would be communicating the same messages, after all, it is a god.
Maybe you can understand why I find so little validity in the belief itself (and the consequential justifications that get attached), and find more validity in the people, with or without a god influence.
Edit: When you get time I'd like to hear about your experimental observations and any subsequent conclusions.
Yes Min and wyzas, then if you define omnipotent as simply all-powerful or able to create anything then God is not all powerful, I definitely concede that. I appreciate the concern for me painting myself in a corner. I do not believe God is absolutely omnipotent to create or do anything that can be expressed in a string of words even if it's illogical. I believe God can do anything that is possible according to His nature within our universe.
Here's a thought experiment: Close your eyes ad envision a blank page with which to create your drawing. Now I'm going to tell you what to draw and you tell me how it's drawn. I want you to draw a triangular circle. It's logically impossible.
God can create a pig AND a horse, can turn a pig INTO a horse, but can't make a horse that IS a pig, because it would then be a pig.
To your other point, I can see lots of reasons why atheists find very little believability in religious belief. It's confusing as hell, even if we start of with just the sheer variety of opinions and options. I think you should base your validity in something you don't perceive by vetting the principles and people.
I mean I look at it this way. If there were a small isolated tribe of color blind pigmies and they all looked at a big red fire engine they wouldn't believe their definition of Red were any different than a non-color blind pigmy from a neighboring tribe. You'd be hard pressed to get them to believe that their red isn't really red without an outside perspective. As far as my personal experiencesand testimony, that can be for another time and thread, or maybe even PM out of the respect of this being an atheist forum and the recent turmoil. No need to jump right into I believe in fairy tales for X, Y and Z... too soon
ugh my gif skills are rusty
God being "all powerful" is not our claim, it is yours.
We simply look at the parameters the theists claim, and respond to that bad logic.
Just like it would make no sense to assign the cause of lightening to Thor.
November 23, 2018 at 1:05 am (This post was last modified: November 23, 2018 at 1:15 am by The Grand Nudger.)
(November 22, 2018 at 4:45 pm)tackattack Wrote: k so we agree there could be an objective morality, but it's not necessary. We already have an objective morality to personal morality. That it would be nice if whatever objective morality we use is were consistently proven moral and were communicated clearly and rigorously enough that it stood the test of time and misinterpretation. Is there common ground there at least?
More things that people look for in objective moral systems which are a feature of their religious beliefs (or the beliefs of their counterparts in that discussion) which actually wouldn't be expected if morality were objective.
There is no test of time to stand, there is only the one test. Mind independent facts of a moral matter. Those relevant facts can and do change. Objective moral systems must..in order to remain objective... change with them.
Misinterpretation? Of what? As in would it be nice if people weren't capable of misinterpreting the lay of the field..as it were, those observations which lend themselves to a factual assessment? Probably...but that's not a realistic wish. We have eyes to see. We have thoughts to organize. We have profoundly successful systems to organize them with. Even with all of that, misinterpretations of the kind above (if that's what we're talking about) still occur.
As far as common ground...there's a very good chance that we have no common ground on this subject as a matter of justification or concept..despite the high likelihood of us having all of the ground in common in our everyday moral propositions. That's the core of the comment, really..that launched this thread.
Consider, for a moment, the question above. Those things you were seeking, those things you were asking about, "wouldn't it be nice if". Are they actually components of objective morality, or your religious beliefs conflated with objective morality? Is it possible that the two have become so enmeshed in your mind..that, properly, you were asking me if it would be nice if there were a god? Are those not the things you believe that a god could bring to the table?
After having commented about objective moral systems as they relate to those questions, I'll comment on gods. I'd say lets take a look at their cheat sheets. Have their cheat sheets stood the test of time, or misinterpretation? Doesn't seem to be the case. So, the answer to that question..if that was bubbling under the surface (and you're free to disagree with that, ofc), is..no..I can't see why it would be nice to have their input. We don't need it, they're as bad (or worse) at this as we are, they offer no unique insight, but do offer plenty of confusion and flat out garbage. All of that, and it still gets worse, this isn;t the floor, lol
In the hypothetical of some god clearly not known to man who was significantly better than we are at this..it could only offer us what we could also provide for ourselves. In essence, it would be pointing at a wall that is right there in front of us, as well....and if we truly weren't capable of vouching for that information (because, say, our agency was so vastly inferior with respect to it's own) than we could never legitimately call it objective in the first place. It would be a mystery morality. Things right or wrong for reasons unknown and unknowable to us.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
I haven't had time to attend to this thread. Sorry about that. Carry on. I might stop by some time later, but for now, I'm not going to commit to responding to any outstanding replies.
Here is William Lane Craig struggling with the issue of the slaughter of the Canaanite children:
It is ironic that Craig believes that these children went to Heaven, life eternal, because that is not what the Christian church believed at least until recent times. Since the kiddos were not circumcised, they were born with original sin (Adam & Eve); as such, when they died, they went to Hell.
Good ole lollipop theory of moral atonement. I reckon it outta be kosher to kill any christian one sees, too. Since you'd be sending them to heaven and all.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
(November 22, 2018 at 4:45 pm)tackattack Wrote: k so we agree there could be an objective morality, but it's not necessary. We already have an objective morality to personal morality. That it would be nice if whatever objective morality we use is were consistently proven moral and were communicated clearly and rigorously enough that it stood the test of time and misinterpretation. Is there common ground there at least?
More things that people look for in objective moral systems which are a feature of their religious beliefs (or the beliefs of their counterparts in that discussion) which actually wouldn't be expected if morality were objective.
There is no test of time to stand, there is only the one test. Mind independent facts of a moral matter. Those relevant facts can and do change. Objective moral systems must..in order to remain objective... change with them.
Misinterpretation? Of what? As in would it be nice if people weren't capable of misinterpreting the lay of the field..as it were, those observations which lend themselves to a factual assessment? Probably...but that's not a realistic wish. We have eyes to see. We have thoughts to organize. We have profoundly successful systems to organize them with. Even with all of that, misinterpretations of the kind above (if that's what we're talking about) still occur.
As far as common ground...there's a very good chance that we have no common ground on this subject as a matter of justification or concept..despite the high likelihood of us having all of the ground in common in our everyday moral propositions. That's the core of the comment, really..that launched this thread.
Consider, for a moment, the question above. Those things you were seeking, those things you were asking about, "wouldn't it be nice if". Are they actually components of objective morality, or your religious beliefs conflated with objective morality? Is it possible that the two have become so enmeshed in your mind..that, properly, you were asking me if it would be nice if there were a god? Are those not the things you believe that a god could bring to the table?
After having commented about objective moral systems as they relate to those questions, I'll comment on gods. I'd say lets take a look at their cheat sheets. Have their cheat sheets stood the test of time, or misinterpretation? Doesn't seem to be the case. So, the answer to that question..if that was bubbling under the surface (and you're free to disagree with that, ofc), is..no..I can't see why it would be nice to have their input. We don't need it, they're as bad (or worse) at this as we are, they offer no unique insight, but do offer plenty of confusion and flat out garbage. All of that, and it still gets worse, this isn;t the floor, lol
In the hypothetical of some god clearly not known to man who was significantly better than we are at this..it could only offer us what we could also provide for ourselves. In essence, it would be pointing at a wall that is right there in front of us, as well....and if we truly weren't capable of vouching for that information (because, say, our agency was so vastly inferior with respect to it's own) than we could never legitimately call it objective in the first place. It would be a mystery morality. Things right or wrong for reasons unknown and unknowable to us.
Look man I was simply, pardon the pun, separating the wheat from the chaff. I was just trying to clear what we agreed on so we could reduce the discussion to what we disagree on. Do I have biases that come from my beliefs yes. This isn't a set up and doesn't have a long and thought out apologetic strategy where I'm waiting for the gotcha moment. I would just like some clarity and conciseness and to reach some common ground.
You answered my simple yes or no statement by saying that we'd agree on the ground in common in our everyday moral propositions but no common ground on objective morality as a matter of justification or concept. I'm fine with that, enough said.
To get this back on track
then would you consider yourself a external moral realist? Would you consider yourself a moral rationalist? I'm not sure so I need a hint please.
I'll answer your questions even though you assume too much about me. "Is it possible that the two have become so enmeshed in your mind..that, properly, you were asking me if it would be nice if there were a god? Are those not the things you believe that a god could bring to the table?" No if I wanted to ask you if it were nice if there were a God I'd ask you if you needed Jesus in your life. Are my beliefs integral to my view of reality, yes.There wasn't any questions bubbling under the surface. It's not some game where I move around chess pieces and try and think 10 moves ahead. It's not a debate it's a discussion and my statements, including the OP are reactionary and at the most probe-ative, not plotting.
I disagree that there is no test of time. I agree that there are mind independent moral facts, but I don't believe that mind independent facts are the only thing that can justify a moral stance. I don't believe facts change, a fact is a truth statement. Our understanding of it's implications and our explanations may change but a fact is simply true. The fact that misinterpretations in the lay of the land occur is exactly the reason this conversation came about, that's not good enough. Our subjective perspectives, with all their biases included, are not enough to justify something as right or wrong.
Feel free to answer the above statements to take this in a direction without any God concept or see below if you want the direction to go the way towards God. I'm not sure I have the energy for both directions
You're positing that a loving God, if He exists, is bad or possibly worse at morality than us and that if it's not better than what we can do on our own, it's not necessary/beneficial. I agree. Feel free to support your assertion.
You also posit that a creator God, if He exists, would offer no unique insight. I'm going to have to see the reasoning and support before I can agree to this, I don't think I will but I'm open.
If we truly weren't capable of vouching for that information (because, say, our agency was so vastly inferior with respect to it's own) than we could never legitimately call it objective in the first place. It would be a mystery morality. Things right or wrong for reasons unknown and unknowable to us. I can agree to this statement. The question would then be is God knowable or is the morality and revelations He points us to independently verifiable?
Jehanne,
Circumcisions was never believed to be the path to God for Christians, that was the Jews.
I do not ascribe to all the beliefs of the governmental theory of the atonement mainly because it doesn't support original sin.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
November 23, 2018 at 10:24 am (This post was last modified: November 23, 2018 at 10:53 am by The Grand Nudger.)
(November 23, 2018 at 10:05 am)tackattack Wrote: Look man I was simply, pardon the pun, separating the wheat from the chaff. I was just trying to clear what we agreed on so we could reduce the discussion to what we disagree on. Do I have biases that come from my beliefs yes. This isn't a set up and doesn't have a long and thought out apologetic strategy where I'm waiting for the gotcha moment. I would just like some clarity and conciseness and to reach some common ground.
I'm not worried about setups or gotcha moments bud..just getting to the core of difference between our moral concepts, is all.
Quote:You answered my simple yes or no statement by saying that we'd agree on the ground in common in our everyday moral propositions but no common ground on objective morality as a matter of justification or concept. I'm fine with that, enough said.
To get this back on track
[quote]
then would you consider yourself a external moral realist? Would you consider yourself a moral rationalist? I'm not sure so I need a hint please.
External and rational are redundant to moral realism. Yeah, though.
Quote:I'll answer your questions even though you assume too much about me.
Ah, but did I assume wrong?
Quote:"Is it possible that the two have become so enmeshed in your mind..that, properly, you were asking me if it would be nice if there were a god? Are those not the things you believe that a god could bring to the table?" No if I wanted to ask you if it were nice if there were a God I'd ask you if you needed Jesus in your life. Are my beliefs integral to my view of reality, yes.There wasn't any questions bubbling under the surface. It's not some game where I move around chess pieces and try and think 10 moves ahead. It's not a debate it's a discussion and my statements, including the OP are reactionary and at the most probe-ative, not plotting.
It's not about plotting. I was pointing out that your questions indicate more about your religious beliefs than they have to do with objective morality..which..again was the core of the comment that kicked off the thread and another answer to the question you asked in response in the op.
Quote:I disagree that there is no test of time. I agree that there are mind independent moral facts, but I don't believe that mind independent facts are the only thing that can justify a moral stance. I don't believe facts change, a fact is a truth statement. Our understanding of it's implications and our explanations may change but a fact is simply true. The fact that misinterpretations in the lay of the land occur is exactly the reason this conversation came about, that's not good enough. Our subjective perspectives, with all their biases included, are not enough to justify something as right or wrong.[/hide]
There are plenty of ways to justify a given moral stance, but only one way to justify a moral realists stance, and it simply doesn't include a test of time. If the facts of a matter change our moral conclusions must change with them. Moral realism is not moral absolutism or eternalism. That relevant facts can change ought to be apparent. There are things that would have been morally permissible or morally imperative a hundred years ago that no longer are. Similarly, there are things that would have been morally impermissible 100 years ago that are not only permissible..today, but, perhaps..moral imperatives.
A person raising a family on the american frontier could very well have been within the remit of an objective moral appraisal to simply shoot people who approached their home in an untoward manner. The same person, on the same frontier..certainly should -not- have tried some fantastically risky medical procedure. Fast forward to today where one has less or no reason to shoot a person on account of their having knocked on the door at midnight..and where procedures once commonly lethal are now routine and would produce moral failure if they were not immediately carried out in service of that persons care.
A shorter way to say all of this..is that if things were different, things would be different..and moral realism contends that our moral propositions refer to facts of things as they are, not as they once were. Are things different, today, than they once were..yesterday? Well, yes.
Quote:You're positing that a loving God, if He exists, is bad or possibly worse at morality than us and that if it's not better than what we can do on our own, it's not necessary/beneficial. I agree. Feel free to support your assertion.
I' noted that all gods in all magic books are moral failures. Take a look at their cheat sheets. That's the support for my assertion. Their own magic books. Their own statements and positions as contained in those stories which purport to inform people of both their existence and their stance on this or that issue. The OT god is monstrous, the nt god no better. Rinse and repeat with others. I also posited some hypothetical god that is not the god of our various magic books. In this I'll note that in order to even maintain the disparity between us you've posited some other god, that no one knows anything about. Certainly not the one you believe in, and believe to be a moral authority. Loving has no bearing on objective morality. Many loving people fail at and by an objective moral appraisal. Often enough, precisely because of a compelling love. We do some of the worst things we do for that very reason. This is another qualifier which has no bearing on moral realism.
Quote:You also posit that a creator God, if He exists, would offer no unique insight. I'm going to have to see the reasoning and support before I can agree to this, I don't think I will but I'm open.
Correct, because it would not be able to offer us anything that we could not..ourselves, vouch for. If it did, we couldn't call that objective, it would be a mystery, as so much else about god and god knowledge and god propositions and god justifications already are. Creator...like so many other qualiiers bandied about in thread..also irrelevent to an objective morality. Many people create things, this act does not make them a moral authority..and opften enough..those things are created explicitly to perform some immoral x y or z..or the act of that creation was, itself, immoral.
Quote:If we truly weren't capable of vouching for that information (because, say, our agency was so vastly inferior with respect to it's own) than we could never legitimately call it objective in the first place. It would be a mystery morality. Things right or wrong for reasons unknown and unknowable to us. I can agree to this statement. The question would then be is God knowable or is the morality and revelations He points us to independently verifiable?
Then you have seen my reasoning..and agree with it. If the things this hypothetical god that no ones ever heard from..which has no magic book, tells us were not independently verifiable then, see above. If they were...then there would be no need for such a god. Even in the hypothetical case of an unknown god that overcomes the simplest and most apparent objections, rather than what gods exist and are available for reference, gods run a range between useless and actively damaging to an objective moral schema. Between telling us what we ourselves can known, and what is unknowable by us.
I know that these are massive responses to short questions, but I like to be concise.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
More things that people look for in objective moral systems which are a feature of their religious beliefs (or the beliefs of their counterparts in that discussion) which actually wouldn't be expected if morality were objective.
There is no test of time to stand, there is only the one test. Mind independent facts of a moral matter. Those relevant facts can and do change. Objective moral systems must..in order to remain objective... change with them.
Misinterpretation? Of what? As in would it be nice if people weren't capable of misinterpreting the lay of the field..as it were, those observations which lend themselves to a factual assessment? Probably...but that's not a realistic wish. We have eyes to see. We have thoughts to organize. We have profoundly successful systems to organize them with. Even with all of that, misinterpretations of the kind above (if that's what we're talking about) still occur.
As far as common ground...there's a very good chance that we have no common ground on this subject as a matter of justification or concept..despite the high likelihood of us having all of the ground in common in our everyday moral propositions. That's the core of the comment, really..that launched this thread.
Consider, for a moment, the question above. Those things you were seeking, those things you were asking about, "wouldn't it be nice if". Are they actually components of objective morality, or your religious beliefs conflated with objective morality? Is it possible that the two have become so enmeshed in your mind..that, properly, you were asking me if it would be nice if there were a god? Are those not the things you believe that a god could bring to the table?
After having commented about objective moral systems as they relate to those questions, I'll comment on gods. I'd say lets take a look at their cheat sheets. Have their cheat sheets stood the test of time, or misinterpretation? Doesn't seem to be the case. So, the answer to that question..if that was bubbling under the surface (and you're free to disagree with that, ofc), is..no..I can't see why it would be nice to have their input. We don't need it, they're as bad (or worse) at this as we are, they offer no unique insight, but do offer plenty of confusion and flat out garbage. All of that, and it still gets worse, this isn;t the floor, lol
In the hypothetical of some god clearly not known to man who was significantly better than we are at this..it could only offer us what we could also provide for ourselves. In essence, it would be pointing at a wall that is right there in front of us, as well....and if we truly weren't capable of vouching for that information (because, say, our agency was so vastly inferior with respect to it's own) than we could never legitimately call it objective in the first place. It would be a mystery morality. Things right or wrong for reasons unknown and unknowable to us.
Look man I was simply, pardon the pun, separating the wheat from the chaff. I was just trying to clear what we agreed on so we could reduce the discussion to what we disagree on. Do I have biases that come from my beliefs yes. This isn't a set up and doesn't have a long and thought out apologetic strategy where I'm waiting for the gotcha moment. I would just like some clarity and conciseness and to reach some common ground.
You answered my simple yes or no statement by saying that we'd agree on the ground in common in our everyday moral propositions but no common ground on objective morality as a matter of justification or concept. I'm fine with that, enough said.
To get this back on track
then would you consider yourself a external moral realist? Would you consider yourself a moral rationalist? I'm not sure so I need a hint please.
I'll answer your questions even though you assume too much about me. "Is it possible that the two have become so enmeshed in your mind..that, properly, you were asking me if it would be nice if there were a god? Are those not the things you believe that a god could bring to the table?" No if I wanted to ask you if it were nice if there were a God I'd ask you if you needed Jesus in your life. Are my beliefs integral to my view of reality, yes.There wasn't any questions bubbling under the surface. It's not some game where I move around chess pieces and try and think 10 moves ahead. It's not a debate it's a discussion and my statements, including the OP are reactionary and at the most probe-ative, not plotting.
I disagree that there is no test of time. I agree that there are mind independent moral facts, but I don't believe that mind independent facts are the only thing that can justify a moral stance. I don't believe facts change, a fact is a truth statement. Our understanding of it's implications and our explanations may change but a fact is simply true. The fact that misinterpretations in the lay of the land occur is exactly the reason this conversation came about, that's not good enough. Our subjective perspectives, with all their biases included, are not enough to justify something as right or wrong.
Feel free to answer the above statements to take this in a direction without any God concept or see below if you want the direction to go the way towards God. I'm not sure I have the energy for both directions
You're positing that a loving God, if He exists, is bad or possibly worse at morality than us and that if it's not better than what we can do on our own, it's not necessary/beneficial. I agree. Feel free to support your assertion.
You also posit that a creator God, if He exists, would offer no unique insight. I'm going to have to see the reasoning and support before I can agree to this, I don't think I will but I'm open.
If we truly weren't capable of vouching for that information (because, say, our agency was so vastly inferior with respect to it's own) than we could never legitimately call it objective in the first place. It would be a mystery morality. Things right or wrong for reasons unknown and unknowable to us. I can agree to this statement. The question would then be is God knowable or is the morality and revelations He points us to independently verifiable?
Jehanne,
Circumcisions was never believed to be the path to God for Christians, that was the Jews.
I do not ascribe to all the beliefs of the governmental theory of the atonement mainly because it doesn't support original sin.
The whole concept of,original sin arose with Augustine; a lot of the early Hebrews were de facto materialists who did not believe in an afterlife.
![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg)
