General Discussion

Choose Your Own Topic

Read 4553 times

palewine

  • **
  • 473 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: FoMA - 6 - Morality
« Reply #105 on: June 05, 2019, 03:48:46 pm »
@Bskeptic,

You're right - even without religion people can have deeply held convictions that are hard to change, for a variety of reasons. I also liked  how you pointed out that a third possibility is to change the believer's interpretation of their scriptures (or whatever is the basis for their hypothetically irrational, conflict-generating belief). So maybe that whole point of mine ends up being awash. I'll grant you that one. Touche!

@Gordon,
Quote
The kind of moral landscape you are painting is one in which moral axioms are derived from and discovered within the natural order of things (principally, the cosmos and ourselves), which is perfectly compatible with what theologians have posited as the Natural Law.
You're right - I like that description of it. So it seems that the "sticking point" where we differ, is whether there is an Intelligent Being "underneath" this Natural Law. Could it simply be that Nature is the way that it is, and certain features (ex. morality and logic) emerge from its fundamental properties? Or did God create Nature in a special way, such that the features he wanted (morality and logic) would emerge from it?

On a different note, your theory about Moses is strikingly similar to a conversation I had with a Christian college philosophy prof. not long ago. I'll be doing a post on it shortly, but basically he argued that much of the OT was not actually the word of God, and that things like slavery and the Canaanite conquest prove this. Very interesting!

@Wretch,
Yep, those things are all factors that play into well-being.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2019, 03:50:39 pm by palewine »

1

Wretch

  • ***
  • 2174 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: FoMA - 6 - Morality
« Reply #106 on: June 05, 2019, 04:46:44 pm »
Palewine:

Please define which factors govern and how you decide what is best for the well being of a person.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2019, 06:30:58 pm by Wretch »

2

Gordon Tubbs

  • ***
  • 3938 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: FoMA - 6 - Morality
« Reply #107 on: June 05, 2019, 05:26:10 pm »
@palewine

I think our "sticking point" is more reflective of worldview-existential considerations at this point, especially if we're in agreement that big parts of that ontology are mutual. So, the question of application (Q3) is all that matters now: how can we live our lives that is consistent with what the ontology has revealed to us? I answer this question with Christianity (i.e. following Jesus, taking what he said seriously as an authoritative commentary/derivation of the Natural Law). But maybe we can table that for another time.

As for Moses, I think people often lose sight of how he was raised by Egyptian royalty and thus was undoubtedly highly educated and trained to be a statesman (vizier) in his own right. Writing a comprehensive legal code is difficult, but for somebody like Moses it would have come naturally to him (or as naturally as it came to folks like James Madison or Alexander Hamilton), especially if he was an INTJ-type personality. No doubt, Moses was a larger-than-life figure, but if you think about what a normal rational person with his background would do in his shoes, a different picture emerges. Another supporting inference I'm planning on using is all of the New Testament passages that mention Moses. The way even Jesus himself speaks about Moses and the Law is curious if we're coming at this from the perspective that the Torah is "God's Law Verbatim."
Regent University, Master of Divinity Student
Inquirer in the Presbyterian Church (USA), Seeking Ordination
US Navy (Active 2004-2009, Reserves 2012-Present)

3

palewine

  • **
  • 473 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: FoMA - 6 - Morality
« Reply #108 on: June 06, 2019, 11:48:59 am »
Palewine:

Please define which factors govern and how you decide what is best for the well being of a person.

Well, I don't have specifics worked out, such as "Well being = 30% physical, 20% psychological health, and 50% active forum participation." ;)

At this point I would simply say that the factors previously mentioned all affect a person's well being, and that it is good to seek to improve those aspects of both yourself and others. Perhaps if you want more specifics you can put forward a hypothetical example that we can talk about in more detail?

4

Wretch

  • ***
  • 2174 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: FoMA - 6 - Morality
« Reply #109 on: June 06, 2019, 11:20:25 pm »
Palewine:

Please define which factors govern and how you decide what is best for the well being of a person.

Well, I don't have specifics worked out, such as "Well being = 30% physical, 20% psychological health, and 50% active forum participation." ;)

At this point I would simply say that the factors previously mentioned all affect a person's well being, and that it is good to seek to improve those aspects of both yourself and others. Perhaps if you want more specifics you can put forward a hypothetical example that we can talk about in more detail?

Sounds like your basis more morality is hopelessly confused and incoherent.  What you're basically saying is that human well-being is that which supports the most good for people.

Palewine:  What is good for people?

What is good for people depends upon what the purpose for people is. 

What is the purpose for people?

Atheism has no coherent answer to those questions, hpjust arbitrary opinion as stated by a mere predetermined meat machine. 

Absurdity.

5

wonderer

  • *****
  • 14123 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: FoMA - 6 - Morality
« Reply #110 on: June 07, 2019, 01:01:06 am »
Palewine:

Please define which factors govern and how you decide what is best for the well being of a person.

Well, I don't have specifics worked out, such as "Well being = 30% physical, 20% psychological health, and 50% active forum participation." ;)

At this point I would simply say that the factors previously mentioned all affect a person's well being, and that it is good to seek to improve those aspects of both yourself and others. Perhaps if you want more specifics you can put forward a hypothetical example that we can talk about in more detail?

Sounds like your basis more morality is hopelessly confused and incoherent.  What you're basically saying is that human well-being is that which supports the most good for people.

Palewine:  What is good for people?

What is good for people depends upon what the purpose for people is. 

What is the purpose for people?

Atheism has no coherent answer to those questions, hpjust arbitrary opinion as stated by a mere predetermined meat machine. 

Absurdity.

No, not predetermined meat machines.  Dynamically interacting and thinking meat machines.

Some though are more predetermined (and machine like) than others.  They tend to do the same pointless things over and over.  We call those ones "presuppositionalists".
-- This user has been suspended and will return on the 3rd of September --

Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman

6

Wretch

  • ***
  • 2174 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: FoMA - 6 - Morality
« Reply #111 on: June 09, 2019, 09:17:53 am »
Palewine:

Please define which factors govern and how you decide what is best for the well being of a person.

Well, I don't have specifics worked out, such as "Well being = 30% physical, 20% psychological health, and 50% active forum participation." ;)

At this point I would simply say that the factors previously mentioned all affect a person's well being, and that it is good to seek to improve those aspects of both yourself and others. Perhaps if you want more specifics you can put forward a hypothetical example that we can talk about in more detail?

Sounds like your basis more morality is hopelessly confused and incoherent.  What you're basically saying is that human well-being is that which supports the most good for people.

Palewine:  What is good for people?

What is good for people depends upon what the purpose for people is. 

What is the purpose for people?

Atheism has no coherent answer to those questions, hpjust arbitrary opinion as stated by a mere predetermined meat machine. 

Absurdity.

No, not predetermined meat machines.  Dynamically interacting and thinking meat machines.

Some though are more predetermined (and machine like) than others.  They tend to do the same pointless things over and over.  We call those ones "presuppositionalists".

Are you a materialist or not?  Or are you affirming something beyond material reality that allows for free willed consciousness?

And you think that all came to be through chaotic nature out of nothing?

Could you be wrong about that?  Meaning is it impossible that you are wrong about that?

7

wonderer

  • *****
  • 14123 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: FoMA - 6 - Morality
« Reply #112 on: June 09, 2019, 05:51:43 pm »
Palewine:

Please define which factors govern and how you decide what is best for the well being of a person.

Well, I don't have specifics worked out, such as "Well being = 30% physical, 20% psychological health, and 50% active forum participation." ;)

At this point I would simply say that the factors previously mentioned all affect a person's well being, and that it is good to seek to improve those aspects of both yourself and others. Perhaps if you want more specifics you can put forward a hypothetical example that we can talk about in more detail?

Sounds like your basis more morality is hopelessly confused and incoherent.  What you're basically saying is that human well-being is that which supports the most good for people.

Palewine:  What is good for people?

What is good for people depends upon what the purpose for people is. 

What is the purpose for people?

Atheism has no coherent answer to those questions, hpjust arbitrary opinion as stated by a mere predetermined meat machine. 

Absurdity.

No, not predetermined meat machines.  Dynamically interacting and thinking meat machines.

Some though are more predetermined (and machine like) than others.  They tend to do the same pointless things over and over.  We call those ones "presuppositionalists".

Are you a materialist or not?  Or are you affirming something beyond material reality that allows for free willed consciousness?

Yes to the first question.  No to the second.

[/quote]And you think that all came to be through chaotic nature out of nothing?
Quote

No, I don't think there was ever a time when nothing existed.

Quote
Could you be wrong about that?  Meaning is it impossible that you are wrong about that?

Sure it is possible I'm wrong.  Is it possible that you are wrong?
-- This user has been suspended and will return on the 3rd of September --

Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman

8

palewine

  • **
  • 473 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: FoMA - 6 - Morality
« Reply #113 on: June 12, 2019, 02:10:15 pm »
@palewine

I think our "sticking point" is more reflective of worldview-existential considerations at this point, especially if we're in agreement that big parts of that ontology are mutual. So, the question of application (Q3) is all that matters now: how can we live our lives that is consistent with what the ontology has revealed to us?

So assuming that we agree that there are certain things that are "good," and that we can know what is "good" and "bad" by looking at the natural order of things (as you mentioned in a previous comment)... would you agree that a naturalistic account could theoretically account for the morality we see in the world? Or to put it conversely, when we think about morality, are we compelled to say, "There must be a God because only his existence could account for this"?

Of course, even if you agree that morality could theoretically be fully explained under naturalism, it doesn't make theism false. But I was curious, given your statement that "application is all that matters now," because I didn't think that the question "does this prove God?" had been completely worked out yet...

9

Gordon Tubbs

  • ***
  • 3938 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: FoMA - 6 - Morality
« Reply #114 on: June 12, 2019, 07:33:20 pm »
Well it depends to what extent you consider the natural order of things a sufficient inference to the existence of God. Perhaps some kind of axiological argument could be made just to test this inference.

P1. If a natural moral order objectively exists, then God is the best explanation for it.
P2. A natural moral order objectively exists.
C. Therefore, God is the best explanation for it.

The question is whether or not some plausible natural alternative can account for the natural moral order as powerfully as God. Here, we're coming back to an issue I've identified elsewhere that a lack of a sufficient definition of "Nature" is really hindering this debate. For example, I could toss out a relatively simple definition of "God" as a "transcendent mind" or "cosmic consciousness" and it seems relatively clear that a natural moral order is explicable by a transcendent mind. On the other hand, without a rudimentary definition of "Nature," we're left in the dark. So, define "Nature" and see if within that definition, a natural moral order can be conceptually accounted for.
Regent University, Master of Divinity Student
Inquirer in the Presbyterian Church (USA), Seeking Ordination
US Navy (Active 2004-2009, Reserves 2012-Present)

10

Maxximiliann

  • ***
  • 1159 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: FoMA - 6 - Morality
« Reply #115 on: June 15, 2019, 02:47:24 pm »
For legitimate ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to exist morality simply cannot be relative for this makes ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ vulnerable to mere caprice. Under such an ambivalent standard absolutely nothing is actually ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ rendering these terms utterly otiose; conveying a distinction without a difference.
1+1+1=3 NOT 1

"Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry ​YOU​ off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ." - Colossians 2:8

11

Maxximiliann

  • ***
  • 1159 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: FoMA - 6 - Morality
« Reply #116 on: June 15, 2019, 02:48:30 pm »
It is significant that as a whole humanity does not deem sex slavery, pedophilia, the gunning down of helpless little children, brutality, democide, gang rape, racism or even serial homicide as merely socially improper conduct, like, say, picking your nostrils at the dinner table. Much rather, these jolt, outrage as well as horrify. They’re confronted as morally abominable facts -as undeniable acts of evil. (This is why, since time immemorial, even the most primitive cultures, regardless of their spiritual values, enforced laws and regulations against homicide and various other acts of evil.)
 
On the flip side, love, equality or self-sacrifice are more than just socially useful acts, like, say, bringing a lady roses on a first date. Rather, these are regarded as good moral facts; conduct which is actually good.
 
That said, irrational beasts don't possess such **objective** morals. Just about everything they do is the denouement of behavioral instinct not shared knowledge handed down from one era to the next, their woefully limited cognition notwithstanding. So whenever a lion savagely kills some other, it doesn't believe it's committing homicide. Any time a peregrine falcon or a bald eagle snatches prey away from another, it doesn't think it's stealing. Each time primates violently force themselves onto females as well as their little ones they’re not tried and convicted of rape or pedophilia. Needless to say, we undoubtedly didn't “inherit” our **objective** moral sense from these.
 
**Objective** morals are never derived from scientific research because science, by its very nature, is morally nihilistic. From where, then perhaps, did we obtain our **universal objective morals**?


Consider the following:
 
(1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties don't exist.
(2) If evil exists, objective moral values and duties exist.
(3) Evil exists.
(4) Therefore, objective moral values and duties do exist.
(5) Therefore, God exists.
(6) Therefore, God is the locus of all objective moral values and duties.


 That's to say, as Dostoevsky once mused, "If there is no God, everything is permitted."



1+1+1=3 NOT 1

"Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry ​YOU​ off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ." - Colossians 2:8

12

Maxximiliann

  • ***
  • 1159 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: FoMA - 6 - Morality
« Reply #117 on: June 15, 2019, 02:52:15 pm »
On Atheism-

1. Abiogenesis is true.
2. Pre-Biotic Evolution is true.
3. It's fine to murder babies.
4. Morality does not exist.
5. Nothing should stop gays from marrying their boy lovers.

Therefore, these feel that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself into self-replicating bits which then magically came to life.

Therefore, we are merely concomitant nimieties of the natural world having developed fairly recently on a minute speck left high and dry somewhere in a dreary and meaningless universe, doomed to oblivion one by one and certainly collectively in a relatively not too distant future.

As a world-famous proponent of this philosophy candidly expressed-
Quote
"The greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable ‘value judgment’ that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these ‘others’? Other human beings, with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other?

Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as ‘moral’ or ‘good’ and others as ‘immoral’ or ‘bad’? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me—after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self.”"
-Ted Bundy, paraphrased and rewritten by Harry V. Jaffa, Homosexuality and the National Law (Claremont Institute of the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy, 1990), 3–4

As such, Atheism is a threat to all who love life and choose to live morally.

« Last Edit: June 16, 2019, 09:54:37 am by Maxximiliann »
1+1+1=3 NOT 1

"Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry ​YOU​ off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ." - Colossians 2:8

13

Johan Biemans (jbiemans)

  • *****
  • 12217 Posts
  • WCBP - http://tinyurl.com/agmwhpj
    • View Profile
Re: FoMA - 6 - Morality
« Reply #118 on: June 15, 2019, 03:05:32 pm »
It is significant that as a whole humanity does not deem sex slavery, pedophilia, the gunning down of helpless little children, brutality, democide, gang rape, racism or even serial homicide as merely socially improper conduct, like, say, picking your nostrils at the dinner table. Much rather, these jolt, outrage as well as horrify. They’re confronted as morally abominable facts -as undeniable acts of evil. (This is why, since time immemorial, even the most primitive cultures, regardless of their spiritual values, enforced laws and regulations against homicide and various other acts of evil.)
 
On the flip side, love, equality or self-sacrifice are more than just socially useful acts, like, say, bringing a lady roses on a first date. Rather, these are regarded as good moral facts; conduct which is actually good.
 
That said, irrational beasts don't possess such **objective** morals. Just about everything they do is the denouement of behavioral instinct not shared knowledge handed down from one era to the next, their woefully limited cognition notwithstanding. So whenever a lion savagely kills some other, it doesn't believe it's committing homicide. Any time a peregrine falcon or a bald eagle snatches prey away from another, it doesn't think it's stealing. Each time primates violently force themselves onto females as well as their little ones they’re not tried and convicted of rape or pedophilia. Needless to say, we undoubtedly didn't “inherit” our **objective** moral sense from these.
 
**Objective** morals are never derived from scientific research because science, by its very nature, is morally nihilistic. From where, then perhaps, did we obtain our **universal objective morals**?


Consider the following:
 
(1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties don't exist.
(2) If evil exists, objective moral values and duties exist.
(3) Evil exists.
(4) Therefore, objective moral values and duties do exist.
(5) Therefore, God exists.
(6) Therefore, God is the locus of all objective moral values and duties.


 That's to say, as Dostoevsky once mused, "If there is no God, everything is permitted."

(2) is a non-sequitor.

14

Maxximiliann

  • ***
  • 1159 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: FoMA - 6 - Morality
« Reply #119 on: June 15, 2019, 03:23:38 pm »
It is significant that as a whole humanity does not deem sex slavery, pedophilia, the gunning down of helpless little children, brutality, democide, gang rape, racism or even serial homicide as merely socially improper conduct, like, say, picking your nostrils at the dinner table. Much rather, these jolt, outrage as well as horrify. They’re confronted as morally abominable facts -as undeniable acts of evil. (This is why, since time immemorial, even the most primitive cultures, regardless of their spiritual values, enforced laws and regulations against homicide and various other acts of evil.)
 
On the flip side, love, equality or self-sacrifice are more than just socially useful acts, like, say, bringing a lady roses on a first date. Rather, these are regarded as good moral facts; conduct which is actually good.
 
That said, irrational beasts don't possess such **objective** morals. Just about everything they do is the denouement of behavioral instinct not shared knowledge handed down from one era to the next, their woefully limited cognition notwithstanding. So whenever a lion savagely kills some other, it doesn't believe it's committing homicide. Any time a peregrine falcon or a bald eagle snatches prey away from another, it doesn't think it's stealing. Each time primates violently force themselves onto females as well as their little ones they’re not tried and convicted of rape or pedophilia. Needless to say, we undoubtedly didn't “inherit” our **objective** moral sense from these.
 
**Objective** morals are never derived from scientific research because science, by its very nature, is morally nihilistic. From where, then perhaps, did we obtain our **universal objective morals**?


Consider the following:
 
(1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties don't exist.
(2) If evil exists, objective moral values and duties exist.
(3) Evil exists.
(4) Therefore, objective moral values and duties do exist.
(5) Therefore, God exists.
(6) Therefore, God is the locus of all objective moral values and duties.


 That's to say, as Dostoevsky once mused, "If there is no God, everything is permitted."

(2) is a non-sequitor.

What is your evidence?
1+1+1=3 NOT 1

"Look out: perhaps there may be someone who will carry ​YOU​ off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ." - Colossians 2:8