Religiosity, Spirituality and the Moral

[wiploc]

Is it possible with god? Because if your claim is that it is possible with god but not possible without god, I'd like an explanation.

That's a claim that I've never seen effectively defended. It's come to the point that I don't believe it can be defended. So, if you have justification for your belief that objective morality is not possible without god (but is possible with god), then then I'd really like to know what that justification is.

I doubt that I would be able to offer you an acceptable explanation, or rather one that would be acceptable to you.

This proves that there are some things that you and I can agree on.

However, these are my thoughts on the matter: Any moral code on the face of this earth would necessarily be subjective or relative according to the definitions I gave earlier.

I'm asking why you say that. Repeating your claim is not an explanation. Saying that you can't give an acceptable explanation is not an explanation.

Is your ultimate claim that you believe this stuff for no good reason?

Consequently, and by process of elimination, an objective moral code would have to be eternal as opposed to temporal. An eternal moral law would of necessity have to have an administrator... God.

More claims that you intend never to justify? Why do you make claims if you aren't willing to defend them? I could claim that man is a direct descendent of the potato chip, if that's all the justification I needed.

[Surgenator]

Cause and effect does NOT come from me. It is the observable fact of reality. It is not subject to my beliefs just like gravity is not subject to my belief of it.

I understand that what you say is true, but you're still not seeing the definition of subjective. In the following comment you tell me about what it means to offend the law (I'll get to that in a minute). The same thing applies. Ideas don't create themselves, people created them. That something is considered by you as an observable fact isn't what makes it subjective. You observe something and from that, you formulate a conclusion, which if true, becomes a standard. But the formulation of the idea comes from a person which is what makes it subjective. The thing that reinforces its subjectivity is that other people have different ideas.

I'm failing to see how describing something that objectively happens becomes subjective. For it to be subjective, it needs to be relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind. That experience can be different to someone else's mind. Cause and effect does not behave like this.

Breaking the human laws is an offense to the citizens that made that law. It is not an offense to the law, just like I cannot offend the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Laws don't have feelings, people do.

I concede the point, but I will modify you response just a bit. It offends those who abide the law and not necessarily those who created it.

Fair enough, "offends those who abide the law".

I've also noted that your objective moral law doesn't work like other objective laws. For example, I cannot break the 2nd law of thermodynamics no matter how hard I try. However, I can break any of the objective moral laws as much as I want. What makes the objective moral laws behave differently? This question might need its own thread.

[robvalue]

You think all the stuff God ordered and did in the OT was righteous?

Was it righteous to command the slaughter of entire cities, and have the virgins kept alive for "booty"? Was it righteous to drown all the animals in the world, and all people, because he wasn't getting what he wanted?

I could go on all day...

Assuming you have read the OT, it's hard to find a single page where he doesn't do something psychotic. Are you defending all of this?

You know what? I've reached an epiphany. I respect you and Esquilax and I can understand your positions. It struck me that if I was an atheist, I would believe the same thing as you do. It would be a no brainer. If you don't believe in the effects on our world of the sins of Adam and rest of us, which you don't; and you don't believe in eternal life, which you don't; you also don't understand why I believe God was morally right in his actions. You also don't believe that God is the creator and has the right to make his creation as he sees fit. I say we punish violators and, once they've done their time we restore their rights. If we execute them, they don't get a second chance. But if God punishes someone with an earthly punishment and then restores them and gives them eternal life, you don't accept that concept as being loving and just at the same time. I think we're guilty and you think we're not. We have no common ground, so the debate goes on and on ad nauseam.

The thing is, you guys have caused me to thoroughly reconsider my positions and refine my faith. I wanted to face all the questions, so I can truly say that this forum has been a good thing for me. What's a person to do? Sorry for the rant. Next time I'll take it to R'yleh. I need an excedrin!

Wow! I want to give you major credit for this. The reply here is the most thoughtful one I think I have seen from any christian on this site, and one I didn't think I would ever see from any of our resident theists. For that reason I won't continue to hammer on about this subject for the moment, because as you say, you know exactly where I'm coming from. You made my day

Maybe we can continue the debate in the future, after you've had time to mull things over. That's all I ever ask of anyone, to have a really good think.

[ether-ore]

I understand that what you say is true, but you're still not seeing the definition of subjective. In the following comment you tell me about what it means to offend the law (I'll get to that in a minute). The same thing applies. Ideas don't create themselves, people created them. That something is considered by you as an observable fact isn't what makes it subjective. You observe something and from that, you formulate a conclusion, which if true, becomes a standard. But the formulation of the idea comes from a person which is what makes it subjective. The thing that reinforces its subjectivity is that other people have different ideas.

I'm failing to see how describing something that objectively happens becomes subjective. For it to be subjective, it needs to be relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind. That experience can be different to someone else's mind. Cause and effect does not behave like this.

I concede the point, but I will modify you response just a bit. It offends those who abide the law and not necessarily those who created it.

Fair enough, "offends those who abide the law".

I've also noted that your objective moral law doesn't work like other objective laws. For example, I cannot break the 2nd law of thermodynamics no matter how hard I try. However, I can break any of the objective moral laws as much as I want. What makes the objective moral laws behave differently? This question might need its own thread.

Surgenator, I've two problems going on at the moment. I'm on my way to dialysis right now and also, I'm in the middle of a move from Buena Vista to Richmond. However, I'll get back to you this afternoon.

[Esquilax]

I'm failing to see how describing something that objectively happens becomes subjective. For it to be subjective, it needs to be relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind. That experience can be different to someone else's mind. Cause and effect does not behave like this.

But the other thing is that Ether's own definition doesn't allow for god to solve the problem; if god is required to describe morality according to his nature, it falls into the same subjectivity he claims human description does.

[ether-ore]

I understand that what you say is true, but you're still not seeing the definition of subjective. In the following comment you tell me about what it means to offend the law (I'll get to that in a minute). The same thing applies. Ideas don't create themselves, people created them. That something is considered by you as an observable fact isn't what makes it subjective. You observe something and from that, you formulate a conclusion, which if true, becomes a standard. But the formulation of the idea comes from a person which is what makes it subjective. The thing that reinforces its subjectivity is that other people have different ideas.

I'm failing to see how describing something that objectively happens becomes subjective. For it to be subjective, it needs to be relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind. That experience can be different to someone else's mind. Cause and effect does not behave like this.

I concede the point, but I will modify you response just a bit. It offends those who abide the law and not necessarily those who created it.

Fair enough, "offends those who abide the law".

I've also noted that your objective moral law doesn't work like other objective laws. For example, I cannot break the 2nd law of thermodynamics no matter how hard I try. However, I can break any of the objective moral laws as much as I want. What makes the objective moral laws behave differently? This question might need its own thread.

Ok, as I understand the philosophical definitions... well, first let me make a comment about the eternal moral law. As I said before that is a mystery to me. As far as I can determine from scripture, the objective eternal law is as eternal as God. In other words, there is no beginning to it. This does not apply to the following:

All temporal laws extant on this earth are subjective or relative because they originate from either an individual (subjective) or from a culture (relative). These are definitions from philosophy. Ideas or laws aren't floating around in the air, they come from people. By observation, formulation or whatever... however laws or standards are derived in the mind of men, those laws or standards come from either a person or a convention of people. I understand what you are saying about how cause and effect behave... but... Mere empirical observation of cause and effect is not the defining factor here... cognation and evaluation are; at least as far as philosophical definitions are concerned. Cognation and evaluation have their source in the minds of a person or persons. If the source is a single person, it is subjective. If it is a culture, then it is referred to as relative.

It is because people have different ideas about how things "ought" to be done, this is the reason for the disparity of legal systems in the world. You and I may be comfortable with observation of cause and effect, but others are not. This is why I pointed out Sharia law as an example. That system does not observe cause and effect in the same way as you or I might. Please believe me, I do understand why a scientific mind would consider cause and effect as the best source of moral law... I get it. But it is still subjective because it is filtered through a mind.

For the same reason, this is why there are so many religious denominations, even within Christianity.

I agree with what you say about the way the laws of thermodynamics work as opposed to that of the objective moral law. As I indicated, there is a lot of mystery about it and its application. I understand however, according to scripture, that on judgment day, we will be judged according to that law. This law (or as much of it as is expedient for us to know) has been revealed to us through the prophets. Keep in mind that some laws given by God are for our temporal welfare while we are on earth and do not carry eternal significance. Nevertheless...

LDS theology describes three possible states of existence after judgment day. The highest, or "Celestial Kingdom" is where it will not be in the nature of people to break any law. I believe the other two kingdoms, the Terrestrial and Telestial will have similar feelings. I think people will be content, peaceful and happy there and will not be inclined to break any law. I "imagine", as pure supposition, that if someone were to break any law within the kingdom they were in, they might get demoted to a lower one until at last they arrived at outer darkness where there is no light or knowledge. But the question is, why, if we know and understand the rules of whatever kingdom we are in, would we be interested in breaking them? There would be no reason. Once the penalty (if any) is paid, there will be no misery or fear.

Now, these three are described as kingdoms of glory, but there are also kingdoms which have no glory. And also there is "Perdition" or "Outer Darkness". to help you understand the relative nature of these places/states/conditions, the word 'glory' has to do with a level of intelligence/knowledge/understanding. The scriptures say that the Glory of God is Intelligence (He is all knowing... I don't like the word 'omniscient', it carries with it I think some incorrect connotations)and of course there are different levels of intelligence.

[Surgenator]

I'm failing to see how describing something that objectively happens becomes subjective. For it to be subjective, it needs to be relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind. That experience can be different to someone else's mind. Cause and effect does not behave like this.

Fair enough, "offends those who abide the law".

I've also noted that your objective moral law doesn't work like other objective laws. For example, I cannot break the 2nd law of thermodynamics no matter how hard I try. However, I can break any of the objective moral laws as much as I want. What makes the objective moral laws behave differently? This question might need its own thread.

Ok, as I understand the philosophical definitions... well, first let me make a comment about the eternal moral law. As I said before that is a mystery to me. As far as I can determine from scripture, the objective eternal law is as eternal as God. In other words, there is no beginning to it. This does not apply to the following:

All temporal laws extant on this earth are subjective or relative because they originate from either an individual (subjective) or from a culture (relative). These are definitions from philosophy. Ideas or laws aren't floating around in the air, they come from people. By observation, formulation or whatever... however laws or standards are derived in the mind of men, those laws or standards come from either a person or a convention of people. I understand what you are saying about how cause and effect behave... but... Mere empirical observation of cause and effect is not the defining factor here... cognation and evaluation are; at least as far as philosophical definitions are concerned. Cognation and evaluation have their source in the minds of a person or persons. If the source is a single person, it is subjective. If it is a culture, then it is referred to as relative.

I have to flatly disagree with your claim that subjectivity is related to the source of the rule. A rule is subjective if it behaves differently for some people by definition. A coin toss can and is used to objectively. The fact someone came up with an idea doesn't mean the coin chooses one side more often than another. It will still have 50/50 probability.

It is because people have different ideas about how things "ought" to be done, this is the reason for the disparity of legal systems in the world. You and I may be comfortable with observation of cause and effect, but others are not. This is why I pointed out Sharia law as an example. That system does not observe cause and effect in the same way as you or I might. Please believe me, I do understand why a scientific mind would consider cause and effect as the best source of moral law... I get it. But it is still subjective because it is filtered through a mind.

For the same reason, this is why there are so many religious denominations, even within Christianity.

People argue on what ought to be. However, cause and effect is what is. It is observable. The muslims also agree with the cause and effect rule.

Quick clarification, I do not claim that cause and effect as the best source of moral law. I view it as a source. I do not know if it is the best source.

Ah, we "filter" everything with our minds. Just because we filter them doesn't make them subjective. It just makes our interpretations subjective not the rule.

I agree with what you say about the way the laws of thermodynamics work as opposed to that of the objective moral law. As I indicated, there is a lot of mystery about it and its application. I understand however, according to scripture, that on judgment day, we will be judged according to that law. This law (or as much of it as is expedient for us to know) has been revealed to us through the prophets. Keep in mind that some laws given by God are for our temporal welfare while we are on earth and do not carry eternal significance.

That doesn't answer the question. So for the sake of the argument, I'm going to claim that "objective" moral laws only exist in minds. My argument supporting is simple. Since the moral laws do not behave like the natural laws we observe, they are not part of nature. Since we can think of, create, and argue about moral laws, then they, at minimum, reside in our minds. If they only exist in our minds, then they are subject to our interpretations and hence subjective. Therefore, no objective moral laws exist. Care to counter?

But the question is, why, if we know and understand the rules of whatever kingdom we are in, would we be interested in breaking them? There would be no reason. Once the penalty (if any) is paid, there will be no misery or fear.

Like usual, temptation would be a reason to break the rules.

[ether-ore]

[quote='Surgenator' pid='880878' dateline='1424493061']

[quote] I have to flatly disagree with your claim that subjectivity is related to the source of the rule. A rule is subjective if it behaves differently for some people by definition. A coin toss can and is used to objectively. The fact someone came up with an idea doesn't mean the coin chooses one side more often than another. It will still have 50/50 probability.[/quote]

As I said earlier, I'm in the middle of moving and all my books are packed up, so I'm unable to give you the references I'd like. I was mostly relating them from memory, but the point is that the philosophical definitions were not mine, they came from my particular favorite philosophy book entitled "Whatever Happened to Good and Evil" by Russ-Shafer Landau who is a professor somewhere... I forget where..

[quote] People argue on what ought to be. However, cause and effect is what is. It is observable. The muslims also agree with the cause and effect rule. [/quote]

I can certainly understand your insistence that cause and effect are observable and 'objective' in and of themselves. But... to use the claim that Muslims agree with you, to me is a bit of a stretch. Cause and effect in a moral sense would suggest that to do harm to another person would be wrong. For example, rape is bad. How many heads has ISIS or other Islamic terrorists cut off so far? Or, how many "honor killings" of women have taken place within Islam in general?

[quote] Quick clarification, I do not claim that cause and effect as the best source of moral law. I view it as a source. I do not know if it is the best source. [/quote]

The best source on this earth is either subjective or relative in relation to the individual or culture in question (outside of a particular condition... which I'll identify in a minute).

[quote] Ah, we "filter" everything with our minds. Just because we filter them doesn't make them subjective. It just makes our interpretations subjective not the rule. [/quote]

I'm sorry, that just doesn't follow for me. A thought is the possession of the individual who has the thought. Attempting to separate "the rule" from the person having the thought about the rule, is to suggest that the rule is a self exiting entity floating out in space somewhere. Anything within a human's mind is subject to the thought patterns of that human and is therefore subjective.

[quote] So for the sake of the argument, I'm going to claim that "objective" moral laws only exist in minds. My argument supporting is simple. Since the moral laws do not behave like the natural laws we observe, they are not part of nature. Since we can think of, create, and argue about moral laws, then they, at minimum, reside in our minds. If they only exist in our minds, then they are subject to our interpretations and hence subjective. Therefore, no objective moral laws exist. Care to counter? [/quote]

I would agree that the only possible location for an eternally objective moral law is in a mind... the mind of God; for that law and God are both eternal. I disagree that moral laws are not part of nature. I do agree that they have a different nature than that of laws such as the law of thermodynamics, but they have a nature nonetheless... human nature. There exists the potential for an optimal condition for people to coexists with each other without conflict. This condition would be determined by an objective moral law.

[quote] "Since we can think of, create, and argue about moral laws, then they, at minimum, reside in our minds. If they only exist in our minds, then they are subject to our interpretations and hence subjective." [/quote]

By this observation, you are making my point about all moral codes on the face of this earth being either subjective or relative.

As far as your claim... "Therefore, no objective moral laws exist." I accept that we do not have the entire code of the objective moral law on the earth. We have it in part; that part which is expedient for us to have while in mortality as revealed to us by God through His prophets. I believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is following that law.

[quote] Like usual, temptation would be a reason to break the rules. [/quote]

Should one be determined to break the law? Should one not learn self discipline for the sake of cause and effect as it pertains to getting along with others? I suggest to you that after this life is over, and all of our understanding is restored to us along with knowledge of the truth that we did not theretofore have; there will be no inclination to break the law. People will understand and abide the objective law because they will want to.

[Surgenator]

I have to flatly disagree with your claim that subjectivity is related to the source of the rule. A rule is subjective if it behaves differently for some people by definition. A coin toss can and is used to objectively. The fact someone came up with an idea doesn't mean the coin chooses one side more often than another. It will still have 50/50 probability.

As I said earlier, I'm in the middle of moving and all my books are packed up, so I'm unable to give you the references I'd like. I was mostly relating them from memory, but the point is that the philosophical definitions were not mine, they came from my particular favorite philosophy book entitled "Whatever Happened to Good and Evil" by Russ-Shafer Landau who is a professor somewhere... I forget where..

I can wait for your reply on the topic.

People argue on what ought to be. However, cause and effect is what is. It is observable. The muslims also agree with the cause and effect rule.

I can certainly understand your insistence that cause and effect are observable and 'objective' in and of themselves. But... to use the claim that Muslims agree with you, to me is a bit of a stretch. Cause and effect in a moral sense would suggest that to do harm to another person would be wrong. For example, rape is bad. How many heads has ISIS or other Islamic terrorists cut off so far? Or, how many "honor killings" of women have taken place within Islam in general?

All religions that I've encountered have a cause and effect moral rule. Christianity's is stated as "you will reap what you sow." Islam has it as moral law as I pointed out earlier.

Ah, we "filter" everything with our minds. Just because we filter them doesn't make them subjective. It just makes our interpretations subjective not the rule.

I'm sorry, that just doesn't follow for me. A thought is the possession of the individual who has the thought. Attempting to separate "the rule" from the person having the thought about the rule, is to suggest that the rule is a self exiting entity floating out in space somewhere. Anything within a human's mind is subject to the thought patterns of that human and is therefore subjective.

I'm by no means suggesting that rules are exist independent of something. In fact, I would are that you're arguing for such a reality. Your suggesting that objective moral laws exist independently of anyone (otherwise they wouldn't be objective).

Interpretations of a rule are subjective, that doesn't make the rule subjective. If you write down the rule, then it is no longer bound to a mind. Only the interpretations of the written rule are bounded by the mind.

So for the sake of the argument, I'm going to claim that "objective" moral laws only exist in minds. My argument supporting is simple. Since the moral laws do not behave like the natural laws we observe, they are not part of nature. Since we can think of, create, and argue about moral laws, then they, at minimum, reside in our minds. If they only exist in our minds, then they are subject to our interpretations and hence subjective. Therefore, no objective moral laws exist. Care to counter?

I would agree that the only possible location for an eternally objective moral law is in a mind... the mind of God; for that law and God are both eternal. I disagree that moral laws are not part of nature. I do agree that they have a different nature than that of laws such as the law of thermodynamics, but they have a nature nonetheless... human nature. There exists the potential for an optimal condition for people to coexists with each other without conflict. This condition would be determined by an objective moral law.

Human nature is a byproduct of our minds. Since our minds do not directly dictate reality, we can break any "laws" that are products of our minds. Unlike the physical laws which are embedded into nature, we cannot break them.

How can an a moral law exist on its own?

"Since we can think of, create, and argue about moral laws, then they, at minimum, reside in our minds. If they only exist in our minds, then they are subject to our interpretations and hence subjective."

By this observation, you are making my point about all moral codes on the face of this earth being either subjective or relative.

I do have a hidden agenda for doing so. Which I'll keep hidden for a couple more post.

As far as your claim... "Therefore, no objective moral laws exist." I accept that we do not have the entire code of the objective moral law on the earth. We have it in part; that part which is expedient for us to have while in mortality as revealed to us by God through His prophets. I believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is following that law.

Wait, an objective law has to be universal, independent of time or place. If we only have part of it here, then the moral law is not universal and not objective.

Like usual, temptation would be a reason to break the rules.

Should one be determined to break the law? Should one not learn self discipline for the sake of cause and effect as it pertains to getting along with others? I suggest to you that after this life is over, and all of our understanding is restored to us along with knowledge of the truth that we did not theretofore have; there will be no inclination to break the law. People will understand and abide the objective law because they will want to.

If what you said was actually true, satan would not exist.

[abaris]

Just curious to get your opinions on the emergent domain of 'secular spiritualism' vs. classic religious orthodoxy and how they relate to moral reasoning?

As if this hadn't been asked about a million times already. Go look up some vids on youtube about recent research about animal cognition and morality.

The notion that only humans act moral, whatever that is, since there are as many moral codes as there are human cultures, has been utterly debunked by scientific research.

Straight to the point: We aren't that special. Just another species of social animals acting within the specific parameters our group sets up.