RE: Conscience and the Moral Argument as Evidence for the Goodness of God.
June 14, 2023 at 2:44 am
Thanks, all, for the responses.
Here is what an Agnostic/Darwinian Philosopher thinks Morality is: "Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . And any deeper meaning is illusory.” (Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics").
Ruse is mistaken but consistent with his agnostic worldview. If there were no God, all ethics would be just "an aid to survival and reproduction". Someone should tell that to those who've given their lives for a just cause. Morality is not just an aid to survival or reproduction because people have gladly, and righteously, given up lives and families etc to die for such causes, as for e.g. soldiers in a Just War do, to save others. So much for just "surviving and reproducing" and that allegedly being all that morality is about. These are the kind of absurdities to which subjective morality leads, ergo it is incorrect.
Astreja said: "For one thing, I believe that "objective morality" is an oxymoron. Morality is a value judgement and is automatically subjective (or, in the case of a community, intersubjective)."
How would morality be automatically subjective? Subjective morality means something is wrong for you if you believe it is. It is an opinion, not a fact. The problem is, objective moral facts are clearly not subjective in this way, unless you want to say murder, rape and theft is fine if murderers, rapists and thieves subjectively believe what they're doing is ok. In other words, it is an objective Truth that: "murder, rape, theft etc are intrinsically and objectively evil/wrong". It is not a mere subjective opinion but an objective fact and its Truth has nothing to do with the subjective opinions of the person committing the action.
How do you understand subjective morality, Astreja? and do you believe: "murder, rape, theft etc are intrinsically and objectively evil (independent of the subjective opinions of anyone who thinks they might be good/ok", as I think you would? Deep down, hardly anyone can maintain subjective morality consistently, which is another proof that awareness of the objectively moral law is innate. Even Ruse contradicted himself in another passage of his writings by saying something to the effect of: "the person who says raping children is ok is just as mistaken as the person who says 2+2=5". If so, morality, like mathematics, is based on objective facts, not subjective opinions. But they can only be so on Theism, not Atheism. Therefore, etc.
Peebothuhlu said: "'Morals' might simply be an emergent property of reality. Much like biology is an outgrowth of chemistry and neurons are an outgrowth of biology."
There is an ethical dilemma called "the is-ought dilemma". Not posting here as I'm not allowed to give links yet. Basically, facts about chemistry and biology etc just "are", i.e. they come under the "is" part. Biology doesn't tell you how you ought to behave; neither does chemistry; for that, you need morality. That's it in a nutshell, though I'm simplifying a little. Basically, biological or other natural physical facts about how such and such things are cannot by themselves serves as guides with reference to moral obligations, which could only come from something like Conscience or innate moral awareness, "ought", not "is".
Tomato said: "The beauty of nature is not evidence of a deity's existence. You can say, god is this, god is that, god did this, god did that, but as the logical saying goes, you are putting the cart before the horse."
The fact alone of God's existence can also be established in other ways, like the Principle of Contingent Causation mentioned on another thread. This thread goes further to see whether it can be established that God is Good. If you disagree with one of the premises, pls explain why and give your own reasons.
Fake Messiah said: "What is deemed good in one society is often deemed bad in another; for instance, killing is immoral in most societies (under most but not all circumstances), but head-hunting is or was a valuable and appropriate behavior in some societies. In other words, morality is not absolute or universal, despite what you think, but relative."
Apologies, but this is confused. It's like saying, "if some believe the earth is a globe, yet others consider that it is flat" (like if killing is or was not considered a crime in some primitive civilizations, e.g. killing children by infanticide), therefore science and whether the earth is a globe or flat is entirely a matter of subjective opinion. Actually, it just means that some are objectively right (who believe murder is wrong), and others are objectively wrong (who believe its ok).
Thank God, Fake Messiah, that the Real Messiah did not say: "Love your Neighbor if you want to, but otherwise, if you consider it immoral, then hate your neighbor if you want to"(!). No, He simply laid down the objective moral obligation that binds all of us to love our neighbor as ourselves. That's also why He had so many followers, even right from the beginning, not to mention today (2.6 BN), because the moral and religious Truth He taught resonated with the deepest Truths already present in the human Conscience. Catholic Christianity does not accept "Total Depravity", "Denial of Free Will" and other false opinions. We know that, as St. Paul says in Romans, and St. Thomas explains, good and evil are knowable through Conscience and thus binding on all.
Alexander Hamilton said: "Good and wise men, in all ages have supposed that the Deity, from the relations we stand in to Himself, and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable Law, which is indispensably obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatsoever. This is what is called the Law of Nature.
Being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, it is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original [Law]."
God Bless.
Here is what an Agnostic/Darwinian Philosopher thinks Morality is: "Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . And any deeper meaning is illusory.” (Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics").
Ruse is mistaken but consistent with his agnostic worldview. If there were no God, all ethics would be just "an aid to survival and reproduction". Someone should tell that to those who've given their lives for a just cause. Morality is not just an aid to survival or reproduction because people have gladly, and righteously, given up lives and families etc to die for such causes, as for e.g. soldiers in a Just War do, to save others. So much for just "surviving and reproducing" and that allegedly being all that morality is about. These are the kind of absurdities to which subjective morality leads, ergo it is incorrect.
Astreja said: "For one thing, I believe that "objective morality" is an oxymoron. Morality is a value judgement and is automatically subjective (or, in the case of a community, intersubjective)."
How would morality be automatically subjective? Subjective morality means something is wrong for you if you believe it is. It is an opinion, not a fact. The problem is, objective moral facts are clearly not subjective in this way, unless you want to say murder, rape and theft is fine if murderers, rapists and thieves subjectively believe what they're doing is ok. In other words, it is an objective Truth that: "murder, rape, theft etc are intrinsically and objectively evil/wrong". It is not a mere subjective opinion but an objective fact and its Truth has nothing to do with the subjective opinions of the person committing the action.
How do you understand subjective morality, Astreja? and do you believe: "murder, rape, theft etc are intrinsically and objectively evil (independent of the subjective opinions of anyone who thinks they might be good/ok", as I think you would? Deep down, hardly anyone can maintain subjective morality consistently, which is another proof that awareness of the objectively moral law is innate. Even Ruse contradicted himself in another passage of his writings by saying something to the effect of: "the person who says raping children is ok is just as mistaken as the person who says 2+2=5". If so, morality, like mathematics, is based on objective facts, not subjective opinions. But they can only be so on Theism, not Atheism. Therefore, etc.
Peebothuhlu said: "'Morals' might simply be an emergent property of reality. Much like biology is an outgrowth of chemistry and neurons are an outgrowth of biology."
There is an ethical dilemma called "the is-ought dilemma". Not posting here as I'm not allowed to give links yet. Basically, facts about chemistry and biology etc just "are", i.e. they come under the "is" part. Biology doesn't tell you how you ought to behave; neither does chemistry; for that, you need morality. That's it in a nutshell, though I'm simplifying a little. Basically, biological or other natural physical facts about how such and such things are cannot by themselves serves as guides with reference to moral obligations, which could only come from something like Conscience or innate moral awareness, "ought", not "is".
Tomato said: "The beauty of nature is not evidence of a deity's existence. You can say, god is this, god is that, god did this, god did that, but as the logical saying goes, you are putting the cart before the horse."
The fact alone of God's existence can also be established in other ways, like the Principle of Contingent Causation mentioned on another thread. This thread goes further to see whether it can be established that God is Good. If you disagree with one of the premises, pls explain why and give your own reasons.
Fake Messiah said: "What is deemed good in one society is often deemed bad in another; for instance, killing is immoral in most societies (under most but not all circumstances), but head-hunting is or was a valuable and appropriate behavior in some societies. In other words, morality is not absolute or universal, despite what you think, but relative."
Apologies, but this is confused. It's like saying, "if some believe the earth is a globe, yet others consider that it is flat" (like if killing is or was not considered a crime in some primitive civilizations, e.g. killing children by infanticide), therefore science and whether the earth is a globe or flat is entirely a matter of subjective opinion. Actually, it just means that some are objectively right (who believe murder is wrong), and others are objectively wrong (who believe its ok).
Thank God, Fake Messiah, that the Real Messiah did not say: "Love your Neighbor if you want to, but otherwise, if you consider it immoral, then hate your neighbor if you want to"(!). No, He simply laid down the objective moral obligation that binds all of us to love our neighbor as ourselves. That's also why He had so many followers, even right from the beginning, not to mention today (2.6 BN), because the moral and religious Truth He taught resonated with the deepest Truths already present in the human Conscience. Catholic Christianity does not accept "Total Depravity", "Denial of Free Will" and other false opinions. We know that, as St. Paul says in Romans, and St. Thomas explains, good and evil are knowable through Conscience and thus binding on all.
Alexander Hamilton said: "Good and wise men, in all ages have supposed that the Deity, from the relations we stand in to Himself, and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable Law, which is indispensably obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatsoever. This is what is called the Law of Nature.
Being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, it is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original [Law]."
God Bless.
