RE: If beauty doesn't require God, why should morality? (Bite me Dr. Craig.)
August 1, 2014 at 11:53 am
(This post was last modified: August 1, 2014 at 11:54 am by Whateverist.)
(August 1, 2014 at 10:18 am)archangle Wrote:(July 24, 2014 at 12:29 pm)whateverist Wrote: If beauty can be explained in terms of evolution, why not morality and ethics? The idea expressed by Christian apologists that morality only makes sense if you can ground it in an objective source for oughts looks lame when applied to beauty. What would we say? That beauty only exists if what we claim to be beautiful is deemed so by an objectively infallible judge of beauty? Psssh.
the assumption here is that god did not evolve. That has less probability of being true than its counter part. but, to play the game of our bullshit is better than theirs ...
I have no idea what you're saying here. How does it matter whether god evolves or not? I was merely pointing that we don't require a concept of god to accept standards of beauty so that I could argue the situation is similar for morality.
(August 1, 2014 at 10:18 am)archangle Wrote: Beauty to humans in locked into a frame work.
? Are they? What does that mean?
(August 1, 2014 at 10:18 am)archangle Wrote: Thus morals may have to be locked into a human frame work. This frame work would be the human brain. I would say that the meaning of "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" means to try and think of these things in the frame work in the mind's eye of that individual or group.
On this at least we agree. Morality, like aesthetics, is a human endeavor.
(August 1, 2014 at 10:18 am)archangle Wrote: Thus this no god of yours would be in your mind's eye. No more or no less true than their stance.
Is there a point here? "This no god of yours" lets say that refers to my lack of belief in gods. So about this you are saying its being true is no more or less certain than what they think. The situations are not really parallel. I am merely responding to the question "do you harbor any beliefs in gods". I think about it and contemplate my impulses and dreams for a moment and then I answer "no beliefs in gods here". I'm not making any claims about the status of gods in the world. I'm just reporting what is going on in me. Mine is a first person claim. If that is all the theist is saying too, "yeah there is belief in god happening here", then the situation is parallel alright. But the theist is actually saying much more. He is making a claim about transpersonal reality, not just how things stand in his house.
