A shared challenge regarding the foundation of ethics

[seer]

Because the fact that a specific opinion or some specific values are held by some mind does nothing to prove that those ideas are moral or of any value.

No Charles, I am not going to let you off the hook, you made this claim first:I would like to see you show how God could logically be a source for universal values. Where is the logic in that?


And again, I said: And I said, why couldn't a universal mind be the source of universal values. What is illogical about that? What rule of logic does that violate?

So until you show why a universal mind is not a logical source for universal values I am not going to get into your dishonest goal moving questions.

[Anomaly]

The point is quite obvious that if there is no objective good to be known prior to God’s choices, then there is absolutely no good to be known afterwards…

…What we are looking for is that which cannot be different, which could not, no matter how the world was created, be different. That kind of moral truths. If they do not exist, religious and secular people are equally worse of. Religious belief is no “stairway to heaven” when it comes to this specific challenge. It is shared.

I offered earlier the idea that truth itself is the commonality, the thing all folks, religious or not, ought to aim for. We generally speak and act as though we hold truth in high esteem. The idea of the robust pursuit of falsehoods and evils [however one defines the terms] is reprehensible to any human in suitable control of his rational capacities. If truth qua truth doesn’t qualify as, “ …that which cannot be different, which could not, no matter how the world was created, be different.” I’d like to know why you think not. No one responded earlier apparently because the idea was framed within the context of religious belief. The subject can be considered on its own ground, apart from God’s choices which, while closely related, is imo a separate topic.

My atheist friends tend toward the idea that truth is man’s to create and use, and that it’s mutable and subjective, only attaining propositional objectivity by mutual agreement. Consider the following argument, which abides by the following structure of reality:

A) The greatest reality is abstract, not material.
B) Each bit of matter as we understand it is actually a point of particularity in spacetime. Each point consists of a compound or bundle of values. Matter as generally perceived is thus illusory; value is the only “real” reality, and all descriptions or perceptions of reality are actually unions of living information [animated value compounds] with internal and external informational content.

Argument is premised thus:
1. Truth (T) and falsity (F) are at base the only possible grades of value.
2. All goods and evils derive from 1.
3. Reality is a monistic information but structured in a dualism, value and particularization.

A = mutable entities [of compound particularities] in spacetime
B = immutable force (for example, laws of science). [all such terms are expressions or representations of various modes or aspects of value]

1. A is subordinate to B. (all apples [A] fall from trees in deference to gravity [B])
2. B is an abstraction
3. If B manages and organizes A, then
4. All instances of A are subordinate to B, hence particulars are subordinate to abstract value.

Seems to me that since truth is logically prior to (Summa Pt 1, Q. 16, a. 4) and the root of all good, all B are necessarily wholly T in nature and environment, while all A, because mutation is the nature and environment of good and evil [in both descriptive and prescriptive senses] are necessarily composites of T and F.

If 4 is correct, then B = absolute truth—which I call God—is the single quality worthy of pursuit by all and provides the attraction of truth in being to external existents in all manner of factual and moral thinking.

[Tassman]

But Tass, as we discussed, the majority of countries have not signed on to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Saddam was tried by the Iraqi Interim Government, not the International Court. The UN as a matter of fact did not support the trial or execution. And where did this International Court bring Hutus to trial? So I have no idea what you are talking about.

But your country and mine HAVE signed The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and agree with its values. We are bound by these values and this is a good thing...or would you prefer to regress to a world of religious and tribal slaughter as per the Hutu's or Moses?

So? The point is where do those principles come from? I say God,

Forget it! God is an unverified hypothesis.

you say by chance through the evolutionary process. We just happen to develop, ethically, one way, and not another.

No, I say that our moral laws have developed as we better come to understand what best contributes to a more cohesive society and world.

Yes a God given moral intuition, which of course would predate Christianity since all men are created in the image of God.

The "moral intuition" is due to natural selection. To attribute it to God is a bald, unsubstantiated, assertion.

That is false, I have listed many a number of times. Things like adultery, murder, theft, homosexuality, fornication, greed, fraud, drunkenness, idolatry, kidnapping, lying, blasphemy, etc, etc, etc... So stop your nonsense Tass...

All these things (with the exception of homosexuality, idolatry and blasphemy) are common to humanity in general, of all religions and none, and for the same reason. They militate against the harmonious community that we are genetically predisposed to maintain.

[Charles]

No Charles, I am not going to let you off the hook, you made this claim first:I would like to see you show how God could logically be a source for universal values. Where is the logic in that?


And again, I said: And I said, why couldn't a universal mind be the source of universal values. What is illogical about that? What rule of logic does that violate?

So until you show why a universal mind is not a logical source for universal values I am not going to get into your dishonest goal moving questions.

Wow. Calling me dishonest and then asking me to answer something that I just answered: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post469087

I think we can call it the "circle of seer". Once it gets to the point where it gets difficult you always go back to something that has already been discussed and answered.

Anyway: The question I asked is within the scope of what we are discussing. I am trying to make you see the absurd consequences of what follows from your idea about God as a possible moral source in the way you present it. So, once again, seer:

So, if that universal moral mind finds killing to be the right thing to do then I should go and kill and not reflect? If not then why do you say: "It doesn't matter if your opinion agrees with His law or not, or even if you know His law or not." It reminds me of what we hear from religious terrorist.

This is actually my thread, and I would like an answer.

[seer]

But your country and mine HAVE signed The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and agree with its values. We are bound by these values and this is a good thing...or would you prefer to regress to a world of religious and tribal slaughter as per the Hutu's or Moses?

We haven't left the world of slaughter Tass, we are still in it. As you said: Natural selection determined who and what we are. So as Dawkins says, we just dance to our DNA. That includes slaughter...

Forget it! God is an unverified hypothesis.

I have no idea what that means or if you can back it up.

No, I say that our moral laws have developed as we better come to understand what best contributes to a more cohesive society and world.

Except when our DNA causes us to slaughter our fellow man.

The "moral intuition" is due to natural selection.

But you can not prove that as we discussed in the past

All these things (with the exception of homosexuality, idolatry and blasphemy) are common to humanity in general, of all religions and none, and for the same reason. They militate against the harmonious community that we are genetically predisposed to maintain.

That wasn't the point, you accused me of only offering "platitudinous generalities" and that was false. And I have more specifics if you want.

[seer]

Wow. Calling me dishonest and then asking me to answer something that I just answered: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post469087

Of course you are dishonest Charles, and hypocritical. And you did not answer the point. You said that the idea of a universal mind being the source of universal truth was illogical. That is what you refuse to answer, why would that be illogical. Then you moved the goal posts to what is moral or not.

[Tassman]

We haven't left the world of slaughter Tass, we are still in it. As you said: Natural selection determined who and what we are. So as Dawkins says, we just dance to our DNA. That includes slaughter...

Nonsense! Our DNA predisposes us to a world of social cohesion as exemplified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I have no idea what that means or if you can back it up.

It means that the idea of gods is a hypothesis unsupported by substantive evidence

Except when our DNA causes us to slaughter our fellow man.

Our DNA predisposes us to a world of social cohesion, as evidenced by the universal existence of community living.

But you can not prove that as we discussed in the past

We have evidence of it, unlike your god-did-it hypothesis. Altruism, empathy, and gratitude all underpin moral behaviour. And, finding them in our fellow mammals suggests that they run deep in our brain biology and did not come about because of moral reasoning or religion.

That wasn't the point, you accused me of only offering "platitudinous generalities" and that was false. And I have more specifics if you want.

You are unable to point to the unambiguous, unchanging “Law of God”. At best you have interpretations of scripture that conform to the changing mores of the day...e.g. the place of women in society or the justification of slavery in an earlier era and anti-miscegenation laws, which were justified by "the Law of God".

[seer]

Nonsense! Our DNA predisposes us to a world of social cohesion as exemplified in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And our DNA predisposes us to violence too.

It means that the idea of gods is a hypothesis unsupported by substantive evidence

Define substantive evidence.

Our DNA predisposes us to a world of social cohesion, as evidenced by the universal existence of community living.

And our DNA predisposes us to violence, evidenced by history.

We have evidence of it, unlike your god-did-it hypothesis. Altruism, empathy, and gratitude all underpin moral behaviour. And, finding them in our fellow mammals suggests that they run deep in our brain biology and did not come about because of moral reasoning or religion.

Our fellow mammals? Like when Chimpanzees slaughter each other, steal each other's food and females?

You are unable to point to the unambiguous, unchanging “Law of God”. At best you have interpretations of scripture that conform to the changing mores of the day...e.g. the place of women in society or the justification of slavery in an earlier era and anti-miscegenation laws, which were justified by "the Law of God".

Hey you claimed I didn't offer specifics, I did, and have in the past - now you move the goal posts. Bad form, old man...

[Tassman]

And our DNA predisposes us to violence too.

Yes but this is secondary to the survival of the species. Our DNA predisposes us towards survival via selection and gene propagation…ethical behaviour is an extension of (and supported by) evolutionary theory.

Define substantive evidence.

"Substantive: Having a firm basis in reality and so important, meaningful, or considerable” - Oxford Dictionary.

And our DNA predisposes us to violence, evidenced by history.

Violence exists, but our DNA primarily predisposes us to a world of social cohesion, as evidenced by the universal existence of community living. Humans always live in community, not as isolated individuals.

Our fellow mammals? Like when Chimpanzees slaughter each other, steal each other's food and females?

So do we, look at Moses...or Trump. But the dominant characteristics are altruism, empathy, and gratitude that underpins moral behaviour

Hey you claimed I didn't offer specifics, I did, and have in the past - now you move the goal posts. Bad form, old man..

You have never offered examples of God’s Law, merely a list of New Testament ethical principles that require interpretation. This is no different to any code of ethical principles, e.g. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[seer]

Yes but this is secondary to the survival of the species. Our DNA predisposes us towards survival via selection and gene propagation…ethical behaviour is an extension of (and supported by) evolutionary theory.

Violence exists, but our DNA primarily predisposes us to a world of social cohesion, as evidenced by the universal existence of community living. Humans always live in community, not as isolated individuals.

That is the point, our DNA also predisposes us to violence and actually undermining social cohesion. So you can't get a moral theory out of that mess. If DNA is the driver, violence, undermining social cohesion are equally natural and moral - or a-moral - depending on your relative understanding.

"Substantive: Having a firm basis in reality and so important, meaningful, or considerable” - Oxford Dictionary.

Good, so what would substantive evidence for an immaterial God look like?

So do we, look at Moses...or Trump. But the dominant characteristics are altruism, empathy, and gratitude that underpins moral behaviour

No, in higher primates you pretty much have dominance and submission, which has largely been the case for most of human history. And remember the Trumps of the world are only doing what natural selection determined them to do, as you said. So it is not immoral, any more than indigestion is immoral - just biological realities.

You have never offered examples of God’s Law, merely a list of New Testament ethical principles that require interpretation. This is no different to any code of ethical principles, e.g. the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

What don't you understand about theft? Adultery? Homosexuality? Fraud? etc, etc...

[Anomaly]

the idea of gods is a hypothesis unsupported by substantive evidence

Define substantive evidence.

"Substantive: Having a firm basis in reality and so important, meaningful, or considerable” - Oxford Dictionary.

so what would substantive evidence for an immaterial God look like?

This is why these discussions are essentially fruitless. There is unfortunately no via media. We operate under two inimical sets of assumptions. Of the two, as noted earlier, I believe the theist stance is the more honest as the atheist position is built on the aforementioned circularity of demanding the theist adhere to atheist assumptions for discussion to be “relevant”.

Atheist-theist discussions are unfortunately virtually identical to doctrinal discussions among Christians in one sense: the same content is thrown about, gnawed on and spit out ad infinitum to no satisfactory conclusion—except that both sides go home at the end of the day smugly sure that their rationale is superior. In the end, life is probably a grand play and we're all just actors on the stage. As for me, I'm going to go outside today and look at the eclipse to show those dumb scientists that there's really no harm in it.

[Charles]

Of course you are dishonest Charles, and hypocritical. And you did not answer the point. You said that the idea of a universal mind being the source of universal truth was illogical. That is what you refuse to answer, why would that be illogical. Then you moved the goal posts to what is moral or not.

Seer, that is a very dishonest approach and you know it. I have already pointed out that the fact that someone, some mind, does think that something is good does nothing to establish it as a moral good. Even if that mind is a so called universal mind (and what is even meant by that when other minds can disagree?) it does nothing to change the fact that opinion does not establish moral truth. And if you go for the idea that it does, you are stuck in a setting in which anything that mind finds good is good and there is no good independent of that mind. And thus that mind has got no reason to find anything good. But, of course, you would rather not talk about that. So much easier to ask the same questions again and again and calling others dishonest....

[seer]

Seer, that is a very dishonest approach and you know it. I have already pointed out that the fact that someone, some mind, does think that something is good does nothing to establish it as a moral good. Even if that mind is a so called universal mind (and what is even meant by that when other minds can disagree?) it does nothing to change the fact that opinion does not establish moral truth. And if you go for the idea that it does, you are stuck in a setting in which anything that mind finds good is good and there is no good independent of that mind. And thus that mind has got no reason to find anything good. But, of course, you would rather not talk about that. So much easier to ask the same questions again and again and calling others dishonest....

That is not the point Charles, I'm not asking if you would agree with what this universal mind finds moral or not. Only that it would not be illogical for this mind to be the source for universal moral truths. Just admit that that concept is not illogical and we can move on to your next question.

[seer]

And if you go for the idea that it does, you are stuck in a setting in which anything that mind finds good is good and there is no good independent of that mind. And thus that mind has got no reason to find anything good. But, of course, you would rather not talk about that.

Just a side note Charles, there are no moral truths that exist independent of minds or a mind, not for God or for you, as we discussed.

[Tassman]

That is the point, our DNA also predisposes us to violence and actually undermining social cohesion. So you can't get a moral theory out of that mess. If DNA is the driver, violence, undermining social cohesion are equally natural and moral - or a-moral - depending on your relative understanding.

For the umpteenth time, the driving instinct for a social species such as us is social cohesion. The natural evolution of human behaviour is to ensure the survival of the family and community and cooperation so that the human species survives.

Good, so what would substantive evidence for an immaterial God look like?

You tell me. You’re the person who believes in an immaterial deity.

No, in higher primates you pretty much have dominance and submission, which has largely been the case for most of human history. And remember the Trumps of the world are only doing what natural selection determined them to do, as you said. So it is not immoral, any more than indigestion is immoral - just biological realities.

That’s not what I said as you well know, but you continue your dishonesty in purporting that I did, whilst simultaneously peddling your own logically incoherent notion of ‘libertarian free-will’.

And, despite the Moses’ and Trump’s of the world, the dominant characteristics of a social species such as us are altruism, empathy, and gratitude that underpins moral behaviour as indicated by your country and mine supporting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. No divine revelation necessary.

What don't you understand about theft? Adultery? Homosexuality? Fraud? etc, etc...

What about them?

This is why these discussions are essentially fruitless. There is unfortunately no via media. We operate under two inimical sets of assumptions. Of the two, as noted earlier, I believe the theist stance is the more honest as the atheist position is built on the aforementioned circularity of demanding the theist adhere to atheist assumptions for discussion to be “relevant”.

Nonsense! There is either substantive evidence or there is not. If there is not, as in the case of theism, then all that's available are subjective feelings reinforced by alleged revelation and cultural conditioning. Why should anyone believe in that? Answer: No reason.