Christian morality delusions

[tackattack]

---

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.

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.

External and rational are redundant to moral realism.  Yeah, though.  

I'll answer your questions even though you assume too much about me.

Ah, but did I assume wrong?

"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.  

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.

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.  

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.  

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.  

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.

---

It's late so pardon my sloppiness. I'm glad I was able to see your perspective. Just because it's a mystery now doesn't mean it can't be knowable, just that it is currently.
If you are a moral realist and moral realism contends that our moral propositions refer to facts of things as they are, not as they once were. Please explain to me, without an objective morality how we ever decided socially that slavery was wrong? Without another standard objective to the societal standard why would a societal standard change?

To the point of verifiability, I see what God would tell us as independently verifiable but why does that negate the need? What if what we knew ourselves (disease comes from bad smells) is wrong (or amoral to an objective morality) because it can't be properly verified and measured. by waiting several hundred years and someone inventing the microscope, we now know diseases come from bacteria. Just because we know what is moral for us individually, doesn't mean that it's a morally right truth. Just because we think we have a good societal standard for what is right, doesn't mean it will stand the test of time to prove to be a morally right truth.

If a sliding scale is good enough evidence for you then I can accept that. I learned a lot about moral realism so thanks. I still believe a more rigid yardstick to be an improvement.


Jehanne, you'll have to cite that because it's my understanding that hebrews did have an idea of an afterlife called Sheol. While I would classify most as materialsts (as opposed to the duality of humans) they didn't believe in original sin, if that's what you were getting at. Original sin was refined by Augustine and stands opposed to pelagianism. What's your point?