RE: Why "mysterious ways" don't matter.
July 8, 2014 at 10:20 am
(This post was last modified: July 8, 2014 at 10:31 am by SteveII.)
@Esquilax
@Pickup_shonuff
Regarding moral values. Of course humans can use their minds and develop a system of moral values. This process leads to subjective moral values. How do you create subjective moral values? What factors do you weigh? You will probably agree with Sam Harris' position on the foundation of morality as "we should define ‘good’ as that which supports the well-being of conscious creatures" and since increases in well-being can be reasonably measured, we have a foundation for a moral values system.
He has redefined 'good' (which in this context means "that which is morally right; righteousness") to mean supporting well-being, so when you ask the question why is the pursuit of our well-being good, it is the now the same as asking why is the pursuit of our well-being supporting well-being. You go in circles. He is not really talking about moral values. He is talking about judgments on what is more or less conducive to life.
Contrary to what Harris believes, science can only tell us what is, not what ought to be. It certainly cannot tell us we have a moral obligation to take actions which are conducive to human life.
A further problem is that 'ought' implies 'can'. Dawkins, Harris and others freely admit that free will is an illusion and that all of our actions are causally determined by our molecules.
If God does not exist, then there is no objective moral values/duties/laws. Any action whatsoever is philosophically permissible.
If you object to this:
1. If God exists, objective moral values exist
2. Objective moral values exist
3. Therefore God exists.
you are left with what Dawkins says: “there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference... We are machines for propagating DNA...It is every living object’s sole reason for being”
Yes, it is illogical to conclude that the source of moral law can command something immoral. By definition, it becomes moral. Of course one should be damn sure a command comes from God.
@Pickup_shonuff
Regarding moral values. Of course humans can use their minds and develop a system of moral values. This process leads to subjective moral values. How do you create subjective moral values? What factors do you weigh? You will probably agree with Sam Harris' position on the foundation of morality as "we should define ‘good’ as that which supports the well-being of conscious creatures" and since increases in well-being can be reasonably measured, we have a foundation for a moral values system.
He has redefined 'good' (which in this context means "that which is morally right; righteousness") to mean supporting well-being, so when you ask the question why is the pursuit of our well-being good, it is the now the same as asking why is the pursuit of our well-being supporting well-being. You go in circles. He is not really talking about moral values. He is talking about judgments on what is more or less conducive to life.
Contrary to what Harris believes, science can only tell us what is, not what ought to be. It certainly cannot tell us we have a moral obligation to take actions which are conducive to human life.
A further problem is that 'ought' implies 'can'. Dawkins, Harris and others freely admit that free will is an illusion and that all of our actions are causally determined by our molecules.
If God does not exist, then there is no objective moral values/duties/laws. Any action whatsoever is philosophically permissible.
If you object to this:
1. If God exists, objective moral values exist
2. Objective moral values exist
3. Therefore God exists.
you are left with what Dawkins says: “there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference... We are machines for propagating DNA...It is every living object’s sole reason for being”
(July 8, 2014 at 4:15 am)Esquilax Wrote: And it's frankly insulting to all our intelligence that you think we could never figure out that, say, murder was wrong, without god.
Now, how about you: if god commands an immoral act, does that act become moral?
Yes, it is illogical to conclude that the source of moral law can command something immoral. By definition, it becomes moral. Of course one should be damn sure a command comes from God.
