Christian morality delusions

[Minimalist]

You win Min I can't think of one, maybe breathing is good?

Unless you are standing on a street corner in San Francisco today.

[Angrboda]

That nature is by definition not arbitrary. His nature is defined in scripture and through experience. His nature constrains his actions no more than your do you. You could never not be you even though who you are changes. It has nothing to do with free will. Volition and choice are free and how we were made in his image.

You don't have to tell me. I agree morals of a determined automaton are not moral nor are arbitrary morals. I agree Morality requires a free agent. You can act morally. God can act morally to. It's not arbitrary, it may not be fully understood (I believe you're heading into the PoE, which would be for another thread) but not arbitrary.

It is asserted by theologians that it is not arbitrary, but by the definition of arbitrary it is. You can't just define a fact into existence. If God's morals do not depend upon anything but himself, that, by very definition, makes them arbitrary. Theologians are simply wrong. If Gods morals are not arbitrary then they would necessarily have to be based on something which would establish that they have an orientation, instead of being random. But since God's morals aren't based upon anything but himself, they are random, and that is the definition of arbitrary. I've had theists repeatedly tell me that God is by definition good, but describing anything as good solely because it has that character is arbitrary, and therefore 'good' in the theist system is a free floating and unconstrained fact. It is simply incoherent to assert that God is good because he is arbitrary, so the theist assertion is simply meaningless posturing.

And no, I'm not headed into POE territory. As an example above, let's suppose that according to God's nature, rape is moral. All the typical arguments you hear then follow. God is still good, by definition. God's morals depend upon his nature, so there is an objective foundation for his morals. And so on. There is no difference whatsoever between a world in which rape is moral because it is consistent with God's nature, and a world in which rape is not moral because of God's nature. There is essentially no way to determine which of those two hypothetical world's we inhabited if in fact we inhabited them, and in both worlds the theists would assert that God is good by definition and so on. If there is an inconsistency between those worlds it has to be accounted for, or else the inconsistency points out that the theist logic doesn't yield a definite conclusion and any and all morals one might imagine would be consistent with the theist's assertions if we inhabited that world. But only one of those world's can be moral or else we have a logical explosion because of the inconsistency, yielding the assertion that all things are true. Such an absurdity, and the inability of the theist logic of asserting that God is good by definition to pick out the actual moral world demonstrates conclusively that defining morals that way is arbitrary. That's something of an our-world-centrism in that, whatever world you happen to be in, that world is the right world, and the morals in that world are the right ones. The existence of two mutually inconsistent worlds, embracing opposite conclusions, using the same logical forms, is an absurdity, and points to an error in the logical forms. I think the error is in assuming that you can make God's nature be good by simply defining that as an axiom of your system. Doing so simply yields a contradiction, so something is amiss in your axioms. (Unless you want to embrace dialetheism, or engage in a similar maneuver. I have no idea off the top of my head what happens then.)

So, in a nutshell, I understand you are sincere when you assert that God is good by definition, but that simply leads to absurdities, so that assertion, or something in its orbit, must necessarily be abandoned. To do otherwise is simply to embrace unreason. Theologians have asserted it since time immemorial and I'm sure its been a part of your standard worldview as a theist but it simply doesn't pass muster.

[RoadRunner79]

If it's in reference to the moral argument, then I think you are a little confused on some things.  One it's about what it is for something to be moral; not how we know if it is moral or not.  That is, what is the basis for calling anything at all right or wrong, rather than whether a particular thing is immoral or not.  Second, objective vs subjective is just saying what is the foundation for something being called moral or immoral.   With objective meaning that it is independent and apart from the individuals thoughts or feelings on the matter, and subjective being dependent on the person (and therefore also relative to the person.   I think that all four of your definitions above, could apply at once.   

It could be influenced by God, universally recognized in scope, which would make it commonly accepted within a given society.  and therefore you would likely feel that it is wrong.  With the meanings used in the moral argument, this would lead to a contradiction, if you where saying that it was both subjective, and objective at the same time, in the same way.   

Another way to look at it, may be from a standpoint of what is true, and what is being described as true.  If it's subjective, then what is true for one person, may not necessarily be true of another, or even most.  And there is no issue, here, because they are telling us about something different (giving you information about the person).  However something that is objective is true regardless of the person, their knowledge or opinions of it.  It's not effected by the person speaking the truth, and any particular person may be more or less correct in their opinion of it.  It's telling you about something external and not changed by opinion, preference, or feelings.

Now if you are talking about how we know what is moral, then that is going to be more subjective, because knowledge is subjective.

No, knowledge is not subjective. Easy way to test that is to jump off a skyscraper with nothing to aid you from falling. I wouldn't recommend that though.

Scientific method updates when new data comes in yes, but it isn't the naked assertion "knowledge" religions like to claim as absolute fact. 

Religion is NOT subject to the same strict standards of scientific method. It gets passed down through marketing, not peer review through testing and falsification.

Morality is what a female alligator does to protect it's eggs. Morality is what a lioness does to protect it's cubs. Morality is what humans do in protecting their young. Mythology is what humans make up and buy and sell, and gets mostly sold to young long before they can formulate adult critical thinking skills.

You are trying to muddy the waters by claiming "knowledge" of a tradition, or a history of making a claim, as being the same as provable fact beyond personal bias.

I'm sorry Brian, but I didn't really say any of that.   I mostly just made reference to God, in regards to the example by the OP.   And I certainly wasn't pitting science and religion against each other.   In fact, I think that is a category mistake to do so.  

In regards to knowledge being subjective, what I mean is that what you know, is not the same as what I know and vice versa.   Just because you know something, does not mean that I have that knowledge as well.  It may be, that we are claiming knowledge about something which is objective, in which case what we know may be more or less true.  But knowledge is a personal thing.

As to what you say I'm claiming (in muddying the waters"  in that last line; I said no such thing.  Not even close.  Perhaps you should go back and re-read what I did say.... you seemed to have missed a great many things, while adding others.

---

---

That nature is by definition not arbitrary. His nature is defined in scripture and through experience. His nature constrains his actions no more than your do you. You could never not be you even though who you are changes. It has nothing to do with free will. Volition and choice are free and how we were made in his image.

You don't have to tell me. I agree morals of a determined automaton are not moral nor are arbitrary morals. I agree Morality requires a free agent. You can act morally. God can act morally to. It's not arbitrary, it may not be fully understood (I believe you're heading into the PoE, which would be for another thread) but not arbitrary.

It is asserted by theologians that it is not arbitrary, but by the definition of arbitrary it is.  You can't just define a fact into existence.  If God's morals do not depend upon anything but himself, that, by very definition, makes them arbitrary.  Theologians are simply wrong.  If Gods morals are not arbitrary then they would necessarily have to be based on something which would establish that they have an orientation, instead of being random.  But since God's morals aren't based upon anything but himself, they are random, and that is the definition of arbitrary.  I've had theists repeatedly tell me that God is by definition good, but describing anything as good solely because it has that character is arbitrary, and therefore 'good' in the theist system is a free floating and unconstrained fact.  It is simply incoherent to assert that God is good because he is arbitrary, so the theist assertion is simply meaningless posturing.

And no, I'm not headed into POE territory.  As an example above, let's suppose that according to God's nature, rape is moral.  All the typical arguments you hear then follow.  God is still good, by definition.  God's morals depend upon his nature, so there is an objective foundation for his morals.  And so on.  There is no difference whatsoever between a world in which rape is moral because it is consistent with God's nature, and a world in which rape is not moral because of God's nature.  There is essentially no way to determine which of those two hypothetical world's we inhabited if in fact we inhabited them, and in both worlds the theists would assert that God is good by definition and so on.  If there is an inconsistency between those worlds it has to be accounted for, or else the inconsistency points out that the theist logic doesn't yield a definite conclusion and any and all morals one might imagine would be consistent with the theist's assertions if we inhabited that world.  But only one of those world's can be moral or else we have a logical explosion because of the inconsistency, yielding the assertion that all things are true.  Such an absurdity, and the inability of the theist logic of asserting that God is good by definition to pick out the actual moral world demonstrates conclusively that defining morals that way is arbitrary.  That's something of an our-world-centrism in that, whatever world you happen to be in, that world is the right world, and the morals in that world are the right ones.  The existence of two mutually inconsistent worlds, embracing opposite conclusions, using the same logical forms, is an absurdity, and points to an error in the logical forms.  I think the error is in assuming that you can make God's nature be good by simply defining that as an axiom of your system.  Doing so simply yields a contradiction, so something is amiss in your axioms.  (Unless you want to embrace dialetheism, or engage in a similar maneuver.  I have no idea off the top of my head what happens then.)

So, in a nutshell, I understand you are sincere when you assert that God is good by definition, but that simply leads to absurdities, so that assertion, or something in its orbit, must necessarily be abandoned.  To do otherwise is simply to embrace unreason.  Theologians have asserted it since time immemorial and I'm sure its been a part of your standard worldview as a theist but it simply doesn't pass muster.

---

Given your definition of arbitrary here; can you say that anything at all, is not arbitrary? What would not qualify as arbitrary in this way? While I disagree (that it is arbitrary), I think I'm using a different definition, but I wouldn't say that being non-arbritrary is a requirement, especially when defined as you seem to be here.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, an objective morality isn't arbitrary, if it exists.

---

All of your beliefs and experiences are personal to you.  Even the objectively true ones.  

Correct, a being that exists prior to creation and lives outside of our known reality has nothing to do with whether or not there is an objective morality.  An objective morality only hinges on one thing.  The existence of mind independent facts of a moral matter.  That's it, that's all.  Nothing else.

Does that exist?

I think so, sure.  It would be a little bit odd if it didn't..requiring a more elaborate explanation for it's absence than it's presence. In the same vein, if it simply didn't or..even stronger, couldn't...whatever argument to that effect would take down a huge amount of other things we establish in the same way, by the same means, with the same assumptions, under the same axioms, with identical semantics. It's unclear how moral facts are different from bird facts. It's unclear how moral realism is different from realism in general. Ultimately, we'd only be negotiating over how much else we're willing to burn down that we take for granted as uncontroversial.

[brewer]

Sure, an objective morality isn't arbitrary, if it exists.

---

Does that exist?

I think so, sure.  It would be a little bit odd if it didn't..requiring a more elaborate explanation for it's absence than it's presence.  In the same vein, if it simply didn't or..even stronger, couldn't...whatever argument to that effect would take down a huge amount of other things we establish in the same way, by the same means, with the same assumptions, under the same axioms, with identical semantics.  It's unclear how moral facts are different from bird facts.  It's unclear how moral realism is different from realism in general.  Ultimately, we'd only be negotiating over how much else we're willing to burn down that we take for granted as uncontroversial.

Need more explanation. Moral facts would exist in the mind of a bird whose judgement decisions are more or less limited to survival/reaction?

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, no...but it's a fun thought!  Birds lack our discernment..but if they possessed it... then yes, it would stand to reason that were there moral facts, there would be moral facts relevant to bird life as well.  In the meanwhile we posit moral values for things having to do with birds.  If I grabbed a bird by the legs and beat it's head over a rock for the sheer lulz of it that might lead some folks to make a moral proclamation about me, no?

However, what I was referring to..is that the contention of moral facts is not in any way obviously different from the contention that there are bird facts.  Or shoe facts.  Or door facts.  Or...you see where I'm going..I;m sure.  Does that bring any clarity?

-ultimately, there may not be...but if that's so...one immediately has to reassess their case for bird facts, shoe facts, door facts, etc.

[brewer]

LOL, no...but it's a fun thought!  Birds lack our discernment..but if they possessed it... then yes, it would stand to reason that were there moral facts, there would be moral facts relevant to bird life as well.  In the meanwhile we posit moral values for things having to do with birds.  If I grabbed a bird by the legs and beat it's head over a rock for the sheer lulz of it that might lead some folks to make a moral proclamation about me, no?

However, what I was referring to..is that the contention of moral facts is not in any way obviously different from the contention that there are bird facts.  Or shoe facts.  Or door facts.  Or...you see where I'm going..I;m sure.  Does that bring any clarity?

-ultimately, there may not be...but if that's so...one immediately has to reassess their case for bird facts, shoe facts, door facts, etc.

Sorry, still not making the connection. Don't see too much mind independent judgement in door facts, it's more like mind independent descriptive facts.

[The Grand Nudger]

Are you sure that your door facts are mind independent?  How would you go about establishing that?
(not expecting a treatise, btw...it can be as simple as "because I see a door")

[brewer]

Are you sure that your door facts are mind independent?  How would you go about establishing that?

Independent of a single mind, or multiple minds, under the same conditions the description facts remain the same.

[The Grand Nudger]

Excellent.  So;

Door facts are those facts about doors which : Independent of a single mind, or multiple minds, under the same conditions the description facts remain the same.

Moral facts are those facts about morality which :  Independent of a single mind, or multiple minds, under the same conditions the description facts remain the same.