Why "mysterious ways" don't matter.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I think the issue here is that Chad is talking about knowledge of objective morality, whereas I'm talking about the existence of it. I agree with him that knowledge requires both a subject and a mind to host that knowledge claim, but when we're talking about something that apparently blinks out of existence the moment a certain mind disappears, we're talking about an opinion and not a referent to something that actually exists.

So then with morality, it seems that at bottom one must first claim a value system, which is inevitably subjective, but once one acquires that then an objective paradigm can emerge from which we judge certain actions to be right and wrong--and we say these particular judgments are as objective as anything else because our value system (which places the source of moral value and meaning where it belongs--in the sentient being) is the only one grounded in anything sensible i.e. reality as understood by human perception within the paradigm of scientific (in its broad sense) inquiry. Would that be roughly correct in your view?

I wasn't really concerned with 'objective morality'. What I saw in Esq's comment was a blanket statement about the nature of what we call real and how the distinction between subjective and objective things is a matter of aspect. Here is the quote:

The whole point of objective things is that they don't require subjective experience to exist.

The statement takes for granted a materialist ontology, a dead philosophical position. From a purely scientific perspective matter is largely undefined. There is no symbol in physics for matter. One can safely assume that the symbols and operations refer to something fundamental on the backside, but not everyone makes the assumption that it is 'matter' or even that 'matter' is itself sufficient by itself to serve as a monistic substrate.

[Angrboda]

God "has hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children." - Luke 10:21

"God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful. God chose things despised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important." 1 Corinthians 1:27, 28

The bible claims this, that certain wise truths are impenetrable to the wise, but merely claiming it doesn't show it to be true. Without demonstrating that what is hidden is indeed wise, it's just an empty claim. Just saying that you've confounded the wise doesn't mean that you have done so.

[Esquilax]

I wasn't really concerned with 'objective morality'. What I saw in Esq's comment was a blanket statement about the nature of what we call real and how the distinction between subjective and objective things is a matter of aspect. Here is the quote:

The whole point of objective things is that they don't require subjective experience to exist.

The statement takes for granted a materialist ontology, a dead philosophical position. From a purely scientific perspective matter is largely undefined. There is no symbol in physics for matter. One can safely assume that the symbols and operations refer to something fundamental on the backside, but not everyone makes the assumption that it is 'matter' or even that 'matter' is itself sufficient by itself to serve as a monistic substrate.

So you were investing way more meaning in what I said than what I did. My point was far more literal: a thing that objectively exists continues to do so when it isn't observed. If I throw a rock over my shoulder, that rock will still be there when I turn around. It's not dependent on my or anyone's mind to exist.

Meanwhile, we define "subjective" as something based on personal opinions or feelings. Steve II was proposing a moral system that disappears the moment god's mind is no longer in play, meaning that it's sustained by god's mind. That seemed to me an awful lot like a subjective moral system tarted up with the word "objective" to give it more heft.

That's all.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

You have to be a member of the clique to know what's going on. They like to keep things secret.

[Ryantology]

Here is another algorithm for you to wrap your mind around:

ODDS OF A SINGLE CELL:

1 in 10 to the 2,680th power, or 1 followed by 2,680 zeros.

That is 30 times more particles believed to exist in the entire universe hock:

Lot of mysterious lottery winnings

Talk about lottery winnings: How likely is it that the specific god you believe in exists outside of time and space for all eternity and created everything with magic words? A one, followed by colon, and then a decimal point, a number 1, and a literal infinity of zeroes between them.

[Mudhammam]

Can alex tell me the odds of getting all threes on 10 dice rolled? Also, you are not allowed to know how many dice I possess, how many sides they have, or how many times I've rolled them.

Ah, as I thought. Then neither can he intelligently speak on the probability of a single cell emerging from the physical constants.

[SteveII]

I wasn't really concerned with 'objective morality'. What I saw in Esq's comment was a blanket statement about the nature of what we call real and how the distinction between subjective and objective things is a matter of aspect. Here is the quote:


The statement takes for granted a materialist ontology, a dead philosophical position. From a purely scientific perspective matter is largely undefined. There is no symbol in physics for matter. One can safely assume that the symbols and operations refer to something fundamental on the backside, but not everyone makes the assumption that it is 'matter' or even that 'matter' is itself sufficient by itself to serve as a monistic substrate.

So you were investing way more meaning in what I said than what I did. My point was far more literal: a thing that objectively exists continues to do so when it isn't observed. If I throw a rock over my shoulder, that rock will still be there when I turn around. It's not dependent on my or anyone's mind to exist.

Meanwhile, we define "subjective" as something based on personal opinions or feelings. Steve II was proposing a moral system that disappears the moment god's mind is no longer in play, meaning that it's sustained by god's mind. That seemed to me an awful lot like a subjective moral system tarted up with the word "objective" to give it more heft.

That's all.

I never said that morality ceases to exist without God. I said objective morality ceases to exist without God because without the possibility of a transcendent being, everything about our experience is subjective--including any moral code we have evolved.

[Crossless2.0]

I never said that morality ceases to exist without God. I said objective morality ceases to exist without God because without the possibility of a transcendent being, everything about our experience is subjective--including any moral code we have evolved.

Or invented, e.g., moral codes attributed to imaginary beings.

[The Grand Nudger]

If morality is objective, it would persist as such even in the absence of any god (or man, or toaster) - what is objectively wrong, or objectively right, has no need to refer to a god,a man, or a toaster. It stands on it's own. That's being a stickler, sure...but there's probably a better word for the sort of morality you're talking about, that ceases to exist when a god ceases to exist. Subjective would be one....chances are there are other ways to describe it as well.

I think that you might be trying to express the notion that if we weren't handed a set of moral edicts by a being that "transcended" -whatever-...whatever the fuck that means...then we couldn't properly say that we knew that morality was anything but subjective due to our limited POV. The question I have to ask, if that's the case, is how we know that any morality handed down by a god is objective, or subjective? It may be that he's cribbing it - it may be that he's made it up. Either way, ultimately, he becomes a needless redundancy. A middle man, or just some opinionated fairy whose edicts have no more value (and are no less subjective) than one's own.

You seem to be stuck on the idea of a god that transcends our experience - but does he transcend his own experience?

[Tonus]

I never said that morality ceases to exist without God. I said objective morality ceases to exist without God because without the possibility of a transcendent being, everything about our experience is subjective--including any moral code we have evolved.

If there are objective morals, then they would be the same whether god existed or not, wouldn't they?