Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

A shared challenge regarding the foundation of ethics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Dear seer

    I apologizee for a rather late answer, but due to illness I have not been able to write it before now. Found it more important to comment than spend time on the graphics, so it is plain text. But, as they say, it is the content that matters.

    I have started out by commenting on the last part in which you write in support for your own view. I will comment on the other part as well.

    You wrote: “See Charles, if I have this correct, what we are discussing here is what offer a firm foundation for ethics. You know what God and all that includes entails, what we need to discover is there any theory that can even come close.”

    That is not completely wrong nor is it completely right. Leibniz, whom I quoted and used to underline my point, is not concerned with that question in the quotes used. He is not pointing to what “objective values” are. Rather he is stressing, that if, as a Christian, you just point to God as the sole base of moral values without any reasoning or justification as to why those are the right values and why God constitutes them, then you are blindly following, and it may feel right (like it probably does for some extremists) but basically, you have not even started to build a foundation. It compares to just go for one ethical theory and taking all its arguments as being godly and finding the others man-made or subjective for that reason.

    You wrote: “If goodness is God's nature then lining up with that nature or following His commands is what is good. Look at it this way, God as a Creator has an ethical teleology for the human person. He created us for a purpose and to live in a specific fashion.”

    Again here is a lot of claims in which the first is built upon an “if”. So how do we know if goodness is God’s nature? Especially, how do we know if we have no idea of goodness without God? The “ethical teleology for the human person” seems to me to be the same type of argument, that extremists use for killing, it is, simply put, God’s purpose. And, unless you already believe that God’s purpose is good, and that the fashion he wants us to live in is good, then any talk of purpose of fashion wont get you anywhere.

    You wrote: “No such moral purpose exists if materialism is true, our ethical inclinations are at bottom the by product of the forces of nature - that have no moral intent or purpose - in other words it was by chance that we developed this way, it could have been quite different.”

    I think there are two important point to be made regarding that. 1) You are yet to prove the “moral purpose” right and fair. 2) I am not personally a materialist. Not that I claim you say so, but it is important to note that one does not need to become a materialist for not believing in God.

    You wrote: “After all why does Kant's moral theory resonate with you more than the other ones which are equally logical and consistent?”
    Very fair question to ask, and you asked it regarding my own points supporting my own view as well. I may have given a too narrow minded presentation regarding that. What I was pointing to regarding the logical approach was at least to be taken in a broader sense. You are right that two theories contradicting each other could be logically consistent on their own. What - at least in my opinion - could however not be the case would be that they all contained the right and true premises. So, you will have to look at the content, the premises, so to say, which is, in a broader context looking at the logic. Because if you can prove the premises wrong, the conclusion is most likely also wrong. Or it may be true but for other reasons than those presented in the presentation.

    You wrote: “But if such a God did exist your sense of morality could no more rise above His than a stream could rise above its source. And it also means that we do live in a just and moral universe, not an indifferent and amoral universe.”

    First of all, sorry to bore you, but basically we are back at fundamentalist logic. Anyone making any claim about fairness is wrong, since - no further reason given - our God is right. So, the idea that eternal torture of a baby is unfair is - in your regard - just one that one would have to blame oneself for having, since God is ultimately right whatever he does. So, I will actually have to praise God for doing so. And if he did the opposite, i would have to praise him for that. If he tortures women for being women, I will have to praise it. If he does not do so, I will have to praise it. So, it turns out, since you cannot justify the purpose God is claimed to have, it could be whatever. You seem to be stuck in the Leibnizian trap which is praising God for whatever. Which can hardly be praise, since it is a praise of whatever.
    "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      Tass, are you stalking me? Perv!
      Why don't you just answer? He made some fair points, and if you can prove him wrong, I'd be very interested.
      "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

      Comment


      • #33
        Dear seer

        Some comments on your comments on some of the stuff I wrote in support of my own view.

        You wrote: “But Kant's view does not work on other grounds, he says that lying is always wrong (consequences be damned) - So would lying to the Nazis to save the Jews hidden in your basement be wrong? So if you lie to save a life it does not follow that you always lie, but lying, even to save a life, breaks the maxim.”

        I had the idea that you would bring up this obvious and very fair question. First of all, I do not follow Kant in all his lines of reasoning and I do not read his ethics like a holy book. So for me to disagree on certain parts is no bigger problem. Many people inspired by Kant have disagree with the principle that you should always tell the truth while still holding on to the core of the categorical imperative. I think this is Kant’s problem, not mine.

        You wrote: “Here is the next problem; men have known the golden rule for centuries in various forms, yet men, often for a large part, don't follow it, or follow only superficially. Nothing that Kant says is going to change that. In other words deontological ethics have no real world consequences, consequences would be there, or not, despite Kantian ethics. There is no inherent authority in these theories, no consequences when violating them, that don't already exist.”

        I did comment on that to a rather large extent in my original answer, so I see no point repeating myself. If you find what I wrote wrong, then please explain.

        I wrote: “Of course the fact that the idea is present in ethical reasoning throughout history in cultures who, at the time, had no or an extremely limited knowledge of each other, is interesting. Though it is not a philosophical proof, it is rather an indication that along these lines of thinking we are moving closer to something that is very hard to ignore.”

        Your comment was: “Yes God and his moral law...; )”

        Since we all try to justify our view, I think we deserve an explanation. Confucius lived about 500 years before anyone knew of Christianity and I could go on… But if you have got nothing but a statement, then you have got nothing.

        You make some comments about logic. I believe I have answered those in this context (after you wrote your questions or comments which are fair). http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post450770
        "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Charles View Post
          Dear seer

          I apologizee for a rather late answer, but due to illness I have not been able to write it before now. Found it more important to comment than spend time on the graphics, so it is plain text. But, as they say, it is the content that matters.
          Be well Charles, I really mean that...

          I have started out by commenting on the last part in which you write in support for your own view. I will comment on the other part as well.

          You wrote: “See Charles, if I have this correct, what we are discussing here is what offer a firm foundation for ethics. You know what God and all that includes entails, what we need to discover is there any theory that can even come close.”

          That is not completely wrong nor is it completely right. Leibniz, whom I quoted and used to underline my point, is not concerned with that question in the quotes used. He is not pointing to what “objective values” are. Rather he is stressing, that if, as a Christian, you just point to God as the sole base of moral values without any reasoning or justification as to why those are the right values and why God constitutes them, then you are blindly following, and it may feel right (like it probably does for some extremists) but basically, you have not even started to build a foundation. It compares to just go for one ethical theory and taking all its arguments as being godly and finding the others man-made or subjective for that reason.
          Charles, like I said earlier these questions must stop somewhere, I will get into this more below.

          You wrote: “If goodness is God's nature then lining up with that nature or following His commands is what is good. Look at it this way, God as a Creator has an ethical teleology for the human person. He created us for a purpose and to live in a specific fashion.”

          Again here is a lot of claims in which the first is built upon an “if”. So how do we know if goodness is God’s nature? Especially, how do we know if we have no idea of goodness without God? The “ethical teleology for the human person” seems to me to be the same type of argument, that extremists use for killing, it is, simply put, God’s purpose. And, unless you already believe that God’s purpose is good, and that the fashion he wants us to live in is good, then any talk of purpose of fashion wont get you anywhere.
          God is self-definied Charles, we know that God is good because he declares it so. And like I said earlier your moral sense could not rise above his any more that a stream could rise about its source. And men don't need a god to follow to justify killing - the atheist Communists did fine without one. If such a God is real how do you object to His acts? Based on what? Knowledge? But our knowledge would be severely limited compared to an omniscient being. Our moral sense which if often culturally induced and relative? Logic? When logic is only as good as the facts it has to work with? Being limited we could never know all the long term consequences of our good choice or bad.


          You wrote: “No such moral purpose exists if materialism is true, our ethical inclinations are at bottom the by product of the forces of nature - that have no moral intent or purpose - in other words it was by chance that we developed this way, it could have been quite different.”

          I think there are two important point to be made regarding that. 1) You are yet to prove the “moral purpose” right and fair. 2) I am not personally a materialist. Not that I claim you say so, but it is important to note that one does not need to become a materialist for not believing in God.
          My point here is if there is a God, akin to the God of Christianity, Judaism or Islam there would be a right way for man to be - morally. We were designed for a purpose. That option is lost with materialism, or your with position. What we are, how we act, morally or otherwise is at botton the result of the haphazard forces of nature.

          You wrote: “After all why does Kant's moral theory resonate with you more than the other ones which are equally logical and consistent?”

          Very fair question to ask, and you asked it regarding my own points supporting my own view as well. I may have given a too narrow minded presentation regarding that. What I was pointing to regarding the logical approach was at least to be taken in a broader sense. You are right that two theories contradicting each other could be logically consistent on their own. What - at least in my opinion - could however not be the case would be that they all contained the right and true premises. So, you will have to look at the content, the premises, so to say, which is, in a broader context looking at the logic. Because if you can prove the premises wrong, the conclusion is most likely also wrong. Or it may be true but for other reasons than those presented in the presentation.
          This is the problem Charles, logic or reasons, no matter how consistent, can not get you where you need to go. I'm no scholar but I can not find any good reason to rationally accept one system over another, as a matter of fact I have found Moral Skepticism to be about the most logical and consistent meta-ethical theory out there. I know you will not admit it Charles but you hold to Deontology because it appeals to you. Yes, there are logical justifications - but other, contrary theories, claim equal justifications - perhaps even better ones.

          You wrote: “But if such a God did exist your sense of morality could no more rise above His than a stream could rise above its source. And it also means that we do live in a just and moral universe, not an indifferent and amoral universe.”

          First of all, sorry to bore you, but basically we are back at fundamentalist logic. Anyone making any claim about fairness is wrong, since - no further reason given - our God is right. So, the idea that eternal torture of a baby is unfair is - in your regard - just one that one would have to blame oneself for having, since God is ultimately right whatever he does. So, I will actually have to praise God for doing so. And if he did the opposite, i would have to praise him for that. If he tortures women for being women, I will have to praise it. If he does not do so, I will have to praise it. So, it turns out, since you cannot justify the purpose God is claimed to have, it could be whatever. You seem to be stuck in the Leibnizian trap which is praising God for whatever. Which can hardly be praise, since it is a praise of whatever.
          No Charles, God is not arbitrary. His moral character in immutable, and He can not act out of character - God can not lie for instance, His very nature is truthful. And again Charles, you have no real ground from which to launch an attack against the acts or commands of God. Not based on your culturally indoctrinated moral sense, not based on knowledge, and certainly not based on logic - as I have demonstrated.
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Charles View Post
            Dear seer

            Some comments on your comments on some of the stuff I wrote in support of my own view.

            You wrote: “But Kant's view does not work on other grounds, he says that lying is always wrong (consequences be damned) - So would lying to the Nazis to save the Jews hidden in your basement be wrong? So if you lie to save a life it does not follow that you always lie, but lying, even to save a life, breaks the maxim.”

            I had the idea that you would bring up this obvious and very fair question. First of all, I do not follow Kant in all his lines of reasoning and I do not read his ethics like a holy book. So for me to disagree on certain parts is no bigger problem. Many people inspired by Kant have disagree with the principle that you should always tell the truth while still holding on to the core of the categorical imperative. I think this is Kant’s problem, not mine.
            This is the problem Charles, I could make an exception to just about all of his maxims, so they are not maxims in fact. They are suggestions.

            You wrote: “Here is the next problem; men have known the golden rule for centuries in various forms, yet men, often for a large part, don't follow it, or follow only superficially. Nothing that Kant says is going to change that. In other words deontological ethics have no real world consequences, consequences would be there, or not, despite Kantian ethics. There is no inherent authority in these theories, no consequences when violating them, that don't already exist.”

            I did comment on that to a rather large extent in my original answer, so I see no point repeating myself. If you find what I wrote wrong, then please explain.
            The point needs to be stressed, and this point bother Kant. In this world wicked men often prosper and die a good old age. There is no enforcement agency, if you can get away with it (whatever it is) you win. In other words for any moral theory to be rational it must be just. But the world is full of injustice with the wicked often winning. Hence Kant's need for God.

            I wrote: “Of course the fact that the idea is present in ethical reasoning throughout history in cultures who, at the time, had no or an extremely limited knowledge of each other, is interesting. Though it is not a philosophical proof, it is rather an indication that along these lines of thinking we are moving closer to something that is very hard to ignore.”

            Your comment was: “Yes God and his moral law...; )”

            Since we all try to justify our view, I think we deserve an explanation. Confucius lived about 500 years before anyone knew of Christianity and I could go on… But if you have got nothing but a statement, then you have got nothing.
            Charles, we are all created in the image of God, and God's law is written on our hearts. This is universal, therefore we should expect to find moral truths throughout different cultures and times. Of course sin and selfishness often cloud our moral senses.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #36
              Thanks, I am getting better.

              I am starting to feel that this part of it is slowly running in circles. What you claim about your God is not justified in any way, shape or form. Nothing, whatsoever. The best I get is “God is self-definied Charles, we know that God is good because he declares it so.” I do not know that, he never declared it to me, and interestingly, it appears that in order for your claim (since it is not argument) to be true I need to at least have a concept of what goodnes is.

              To claim that God is good is meaningless, unless you expect the reader to have an idea about goodness. It seems however, that you do not think I can possibly have such an idea. When I say that eternal punishment of babies in Hell (which quite many Christians believe in) is unfair, I am told that I basically have no idea. So then we are back at the God can be anything, which you put some limits to, because your God himself points to them in your subjective understanding of him.

              You wrote: But our knowledge would be severely limited compared to an omniscient being. Our moral sense which if often culturally induced and relative? Logic? When logic is only as good as the facts it has to work with? Being limited we could never know all the long term consequences of our good choice or bad.

              If this is how little we know, I wonder how you can be so certain that you are right and I am wrong. You point to the limits of logic, but then go straight ahead to you use it to support the idea that we should believe in God. This hardly strengthens your case.

              I wonder what your take on the following words from the Romans (Romans 2:14-15) would be:

              "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another."

              It appears that this appeals to a law written in every ones heart by God. Some kind of human nature? It appears that men can somehow act as a law unto themselves, that they reflect, that they have a conscience and are thus actually able to concern themselves with ethical thinking, even if they do not know God.

              Basically I get the impression that your line of claiming is not strictly in line with the Bible, since here even Gentiles can actually reflect and act as a law unto themselves. You seem to think that if you have no God to point to, there is really nothing to point to at all. That is not what I read in the Bible.

              You wrote: “No Charles, God is not arbitrary. His moral character in immutable, and He can not act out of character - God can not lie for instance, His very nature is truthful. And again Charles, you have no real ground from which to launch an attack against the acts or commands of God. Not based on your culturally indoctrinated moral sense, not based on knowledge, and certainly not based on logic - as I have demonstrated.”

              If this is what you really think, then I wonder if there is much point in continuing our discussion. Because, what you basically say is, that there is no option what so ever, that you are going to change your mind. If knowledge and logic will not work, I do not really see the point. I have pointed again and again to the fact that your line of reasoning is the same as that used by extremist. But all I get is just more claims about the goodness of God. And then claim - again with no real justification - that he would not lie.

              We discussed this earlier - and though this discussion has become a lot more meaningful - what I just quoted seems to support my assumption that you have a line of thinking in which the conclusion is given beforehand and cannot possibly be changed.

              Or, if we are to continue, I think it would be more useful if you could make us any the wiser as to why we should believe not only in some god, but in your God in particular. Because you refuse to give us an ethical justification, but go for the claims about his nature and expect us to believe them. Then if they cannot be justified as ethical claims there must be some other way.
              "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Charles View Post
                Thanks, I am getting better.

                I am starting to feel that this part of it is slowly running in circles. What you claim about your God is not justified in any way, shape or form. Nothing, whatsoever. The best I get is “God is self-definied Charles, we know that God is good because he declares it so.” I do not know that, he never declared it to me, and interestingly, it appears that in order for your claim (since it is not argument) to be true I need to at least have a concept of what goodnes is.
                Charles, of course we have some concept of goodness since we are created in His image, and you don't have to be personally told by God to have this intuitive moral sense.

                To claim that God is good is meaningless, unless you expect the reader to have an idea about goodness. It seems however, that you do not think I can possibly have such an idea. When I say that eternal punishment of babies in Hell (which quite many Christians believe in) is unfair, I am told that I basically have no idea. So then we are back at the God can be anything, which you put some limits to, because your God himself points to them in your subjective understanding of him.
                But what do you have Charles? How do you define goodness, and why should any one accept your definition?

                You wrote: But our knowledge would be severely limited compared to an omniscient being. Our moral sense which if often culturally induced and relative? Logic? When logic is only as good as the facts it has to work with? Being limited we could never know all the long term consequences of our good choice or bad.

                If this is how little we know, I wonder how you can be so certain that you are right and I am wrong. You point to the limits of logic, but then go straight ahead to you use it to support the idea that we should believe in God. This hardly strengthens your case.
                Charles, you are the one who pointed to "logic" as the defining reason for acceptance or non-acceptance. But my point again is, on what basis could you possibly launch an attack against the moral character or commands of God.

                I wonder what your take on the following words from the Romans (Romans 2:14-15) would be:

                "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another."

                It appears that this appeals to a law written in every ones heart by God. Some kind of human nature? It appears that men can somehow act as a law unto themselves, that they reflect, that they have a conscience and are thus actually able to concern themselves with ethical thinking, even if they do not know God.

                Basically I get the impression that your line of claiming is not strictly in line with the Bible, since here even Gentiles can actually reflect and act as a law unto themselves. You seem to think that if you have no God to point to, there is really nothing to point to at all. That is not what I read in the Bible.

                Right, I agree 100%, with that caveat that this moral sense is God given.

                You wrote: “No Charles, God is not arbitrary. His moral character in immutable, and He can not act out of character - God can not lie for instance, His very nature is truthful. And again Charles, you have no real ground
                from which to launch an attack against the acts or commands of God. Not based on your culturally indoctrinated moral sense, not based on knowledge, and certainly not based on logic - as I have demonstrated.”

                If this is what you really think, then I wonder if there is much point in continuing our discussion. Because, what you basically say is, that there is no option what so ever, that you are going to change your mind. If knowledge and logic will not work, I do not really see the point. I have pointed again and again to the fact that your line of reasoning is the same as that used by extremist. But all I get is just more claims about the goodness of God. And then claim - again with no real justification - that he would not lie.
                Charles it is not merely what I think, it is where we are in fact. You have not offered real justifications for your view that are anymore compelling or right than the justifications used for theories that are completely contrary to yours. I understand that in the end Deontology appeals to you, it does to me too, but let's not pretend that you are on a higher rational ground - you are not. And Charles, it is not that He would not lie - but He can not lie - immutability.


                We discussed this earlier - and though this discussion has become a lot more meaningful - what I just quoted seems to support my assumption that you have a line of thinking in which the conclusion is given beforehand and cannot possibly be changed.

                Or, if we are to continue, I think it would be more useful if you could make us any the wiser as to why we should believe not only in some god, but in your God in particular. Because you refuse to give us an ethical justification, but go for the claims about his nature and expect us to believe them. Then if they cannot be justified as ethical claims there must be some other way.
                I can't argue you into believing in God Charles, but I will say this. With God we live in and have a moral and just universe (even if we can't always quantify that), and not an amoral, unjust universe. And because were are created in His image our best and most clear morals ideals are tied to something universal, transcendent and permanent - certain. Now these considerations may not be important to you, but they mean the world to me.
                Last edited by seer; 06-16-2017, 10:35 AM.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  I can't argue you into believing in God Charles, but I will say this. With God we live in and have a moral and just universe (even if we can't always quantify that), and not an amoral, unjust universe. And because were are created in His image our best and most clear morals ideals are tied to something universal, transcendent and permanent - certain. Now these considerations may not be important to you, but they mean the world to me.
                  I think this undermines our very different approach. You are basically going for something, that you cannot argue anyone into believing. While some may find that my line of reasoning wrong, you do not provide one. You point to a something, in which we have to believe.

                  You wrote: “With God we live in and have a moral and just universe (even if we can't always quantify that), and not an amoral, unjust universe. And because were are created in His image our best and most clear morals ideals are tied to something universal, transcendent and permanent - certain.”

                  I can make all sorts of claims about the universe we live in. And if i do not need to be able to argue for the foundation, it is, quite simply, extremely easy to just make up different ideas about justice, punishment, moral character and so on. It’s easy to make the pieces fit if you can basically just claim “I am right because I am right”, “I am right because you are wrong” or “I am right, because I point to God”. I maintain that you are not even close to doing anything other than making claims. You say that this of that is a fact. When asked why, you really follow the approach I just showed.

                  I like the final statement: “Now these considerations may not be important to you, but they mean the world to me.” You have claimed again and again that you ultimately end up with subjective ideas, unless you point to God. I think it is fair to say that your own statement points to that type of subjectivity.
                  "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Charles View Post
                    I think this undermines our very different approach. You are basically going for something, that you cannot argue anyone into believing. While some may find that my line of reasoning wrong, you do not provide one. You point to a something, in which we have to believe.
                    Charles it is not merely that one may find your reasoning wrong, but that there is no rational way to know if it is correct. So in essence we would just "have to believe." This is why moral skepticism is such a powerful, and logical, meta-ethical theory. I really don't think you understand how shaky your moral foundation is. Or if it is a foundation at all.

                    You wrote: “With God we live in and have a moral and just universe (even if we can't always quantify that), and not an amoral, unjust universe. And because were are created in His image our best and most clear morals ideals are tied to something universal, transcendent and permanent - certain.”

                    I can make all sorts of claims about the universe we live in. And if i do not need to be able to argue for the foundation, it is, quite simply, extremely easy to just make up different ideas about justice, punishment, moral character and so on. It’s easy to make the pieces fit if you can basically just claim “I am right because I am right”, “I am right because you are wrong” or “I am right, because I point to God”. I maintain that you are not even close to doing anything other than making claims. You say that this of that is a fact. When asked why, you really follow the approach I just showed.
                    And Charles what have you done but make claims? Is the plank in your own eye completely eluding you? And I'm not just making stuff up - this has been basic theistic theology for centuries. And yes, men have been making up ideas of right and wrong or ethics for most of our history - like Kant, Socrates, Aristotle, Epicurus, et al...

                    I like the final statement: “Now these considerations may not be important to you, but they mean the world to me.” You have claimed again and again that you ultimately end up with subjective ideas, unless you point to God. I think it is fair to say that your own statement points to that type of subjectivity.
                    Of course it is my belief that God and His moral law exist. And that we live in a just and moral universe. It is your belief that we don't.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      It is important to note that the fact that different and even contradiction theories on moral reality exist, of course, does not rule out the possibility that one of them could be true. The fact that seer sees no way to determine which one is true does not rule out the possibility that one of them could be true. Even if I cannot convince anyone but myself to go for one instead of the others, it still does not rule out the possibility that one of them could be true.

                      Contradicting views are consistent with the existence of moral reality
                      There seems to be only one philosophical way of ruling out the possibility that one of them could be true. That is to prove, not just make likely, but actually prove, that moral reality could not exist in any way, shape or form. Despite many attempts and many interesting theories in which one points to the influence of different cultural, religious and historical factors in our evaluation of the basic ethical questions, I am still to see a convincing proof that moral reality could not exist at all. In all fairness I will have to admit that scepticism can appeal, while there is still extremely many miles to go in order to prove that moral reality could not possibly exist.

                      When I point out that what seer does is just to claim that something is the reality about moral reality, he wants to make the case that the same goes for me. I do not think that is fair. It’s completely fair to disagree with my understanding of moral reality. But I have actually pointed to some of the reasons I believe as I do. That is, in the short form that fits a forum like this, I have tried to point out what i believe to be the reality about moral. I have shortly touched upon why I think so and tried to give some insight into further reasoning along these lines.

                      A conclusion without any premises
                      I think seer’s approach is significantly different. He claims we basically cannot know anything of worth about ethics before we believe in God. He allows that we can have a concept of good. But if I am to say that eternal punishments of babies in Hell contradicts my concept of goodness completely, I am being taught that I am actually not allowed to hold such a view and that no knowledge or logic could justify it. This, in my view, is an unworthy approach since human beings actually do have the ability to reflect. It is going for lower instincts instead of higher and it will ultimately lead to an unreflected life. This, as I have pointed to repeatedly, is the case for extremists, who do not allow themselves to reflect whether killing of innocent people is wrong or right if their (so called) God claims it is right. They could follow the seer approach completely if it wasn’t that (luckily) it appear seer believes in a God who has a more peaceful approach in this world while Hell and eternal punishment exists in the praised other worldly reality of Christian thinking.

                      As opposed to any of the contradicting views we have discussed, seer is not really able to give an account as to why anything is good (apart from its being God’s nature, purpose and so on). He has given us no reason to believe that such a nature or purpose exists. He then goes on to mention all the convenience of holding his view. While I still don’t know if the belief in eternal punishment of babies in Hell is among these, we are told that it is beyond debate, universal, fair and so on. But again, there is no accounting of these claims. While most ethical thinkers provide an account of what they believe and the reason for doing so and thus aim at some specific conclusion, seer seems - at least to me - to jump directly to the conclusion. When asked for the way he reached it, it gets rather muddy if we get any reason at all. It seems at time that the justification of the conclusion is that it is the best conclusion. If you don’t have to worry about underlying logic, good or “best” conclusions are easier to come up with.

                      Anyone could point to whatever as the indisputable fact about moral reality (it would make it any more true though)
                      It would be quite easy to just claim that Kant or any with an opposing view were completely right and when anyone opposed just claim that their view was actually not justified, because it was inconsistent with the truth and that no knowledge or logic could justify the view that they held against the great truth. I could even tell seer that there exists no God who has been given the task of telling which of the religious views we should follow. Now most religions will claim their God tells them so. But most ethical theories also argue that they are true, and it does not convice seer at all.
                      Last edited by Charles; 06-16-2017, 02:35 PM.
                      "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Charles View Post
                        It is important to note that the fact that different and even contradiction theories on moral reality exist, of course, does not rule out the possibility that one of them could be true. The fact that seer sees no way to determine which one is true does not rule out the possibility that one of them could be true. Even if I cannot convince anyone but myself to go for one instead of the others, it still does not rule out the possibility that one of them could be true.
                        Of course you would apply that to different ideas of God

                        Contradicting views are consistent with the existence of moral reality
                        There seems to be only one philosophical way of ruling out the possibility that one of them could be true. That is to prove, not just make likely, but actually prove, that moral reality could not exist in any way, shape or form. Despite many attempts and many interesting theories in which one points to the influence of different cultural, religious and historical factors in our evaluation of the basic ethical questions, I am still to see a convincing proof that moral reality could not exist at all. In all fairness I will have to admit that skepticism can appeal, while there is still extremely many miles to go in order to prove that moral reality could not possibly exist.
                        Of course as a Christian I do believe that morality exist. And I think in the larger picture I would say that we are moral beings, I mean even the moral relativist believes in ethics - only that they relative to the culture. Skepticism is another story.

                        When I point out that what seer does is just to claim that something is the reality about moral reality, he wants to make the case that the same goes for me. I do not think that is fair. It’s completely fair to disagree with my understanding of moral reality. But I have actually pointed to some of the reasons I believe as I do. That is, in the short form that fits a forum like this, I have tried to point out what i believe to be the reality about moral. I have shortly touched upon why I think so and tried to give some insight into further reasoning along these lines.
                        Well Charles, yes it is fair. You have not offered a reason why the reasons for your view is correct. It is an assertion, a belief. And Charles I gave you reasons why I believe that God is the best or ultimate foundation for ethics. And that is what we are discussing. And let me go back to Kant - morality must be rational, but if there isn't justice (the wicked prosper) then morality is not rational. Therefore God...


                        I think seer’s approach is significantly different. He claims we basically cannot know anything of worth about ethics before we believe in God. He allows that we can have a concept of good. But if I am to say that eternal punishments of babies in Hell contradicts my concept of goodness completely, I am being taught that I am actually not allowed to hold such a view and that no knowledge or logic could justify it. This, in my view, is an unworthy approach since human beings actually do have the ability to reflect. It is going for lower instincts instead of higher and it will ultimately lead to an unreflected life. This, as I have pointed to repeatedly, is the case for extremists, who do not allow themselves to reflect whether killing of innocent people is wrong or right if their (so called) God claims it is right. They could follow the seer approach completely if it wasn’t that (luckily) it appear seer believes in a God who has a more peaceful approach in this world while Hell and eternal punishment exists in the praised other worldly reality of Christian thinking.
                        Yes, and I'm sure that the Maoist and Stalinist reflected on the greater good as they slaughter millions of dissidents. In other words Charles one does not have to believe in God to be extreme or murder their fellow man.

                        As opposed to any of the contradicting views we have discussed, seer is not really able to give an account as to why anything is good (apart from its being God’s nature, purpose and so on). He has given us no reason to believe that such a nature or purpose exists. He then goes on to mention all the convenience of holding his view. While I still don’t know if the belief in eternal punishment of babies in Hell is among these, we are told that it is beyond debate, universal, fair and so on. But again, there is no accounting of these claims. While most ethical thinkers provide an account of what they believe and the reason for doing so and thus aim at some specific conclusion, seer seems - at least to me - to jump directly to the conclusion. When asked for the way he reached it, it gets rather muddy if we get any reason at all. It seems at time that the justification of the conclusion is that it is the best conclusion. If you don’t have to worry about underlying logic, good or “best” conclusions are easier to come up with.
                        Like I said Charles, in the end moral questions must stop somewhere. In other words someone or something must define right or wrong. Who is that? You, Kant, Aristotle, Epicurus? Who. No matter your logical reasoning this question must be paramount.

                        Anyone could point to whatever as the indisputable fact about moral reality (it would make it any more true though)
                        It would be quite easy to just claim that Kant or any with an opposing view were completely right and when anyone opposed just claim that their view was actually not justified, because it was inconsistent with the truth and that no knowledge or logic could justify the view that they held against the great truth. I could even tell seer that there exists no God who has been given the task of telling which of the religious views we should follow. Now most religions will claim their God tells them so. But most ethical theories also argue that they are true, and it does not convice seer at all.
                        Charles, tell me one moral truth and why it is a moral truth and I will show you why it does not obtain.
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Charles, tell me one moral truth and why it is a moral truth and I will show you why it does not obtain.
                          Since you have told that no knowledge or logic would do, I don’t think it is worth it. I am not into magic and I claim no godly nature.

                          The last part of the sentence “and I will show you why it does not obtain” shows a complete lack of the open and philosophical approach needed in order to discuss these matters seriously.

                          I actually already pointed to some, but you "stole" them and claimed they were Gods moral law (no reason for that claim, of course :-)). Anyway, I believe the readers know what we both think. Or else, they are free to ask.
                          Last edited by Charles; 06-16-2017, 04:22 PM.
                          "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I just read this blog: https://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2013...y-is-nonsense/

                            It is called "Six reasons why objective morality is nonsense" so I do not agree with most of it. However it is interesting to read it.

                            An interesting part of it reads:

                            "A favourite argument of the religious is that you can’t have objective morality without a god. And they are right. What they don’t realise, though, is that you also can’t have an objective morality with a god. After all, plumping for “God’s opinion” instead of human opinion is equally subjective. Who says that God’s opinion about morality is better than Satan’s opinion? The answer that God says that God’s opinion is better is simply circular."

                            Though, of course, I do not agree with the fact that you need God in order to have objective morality, I find the rest is just different - and perhaps better - words on the points I have been trying to make in here.

                            Further on it is pointed out:

                            "The traditional response would be to argue that God’s nature is good, which is an appeal to some supra-God objective standard of goodness against which to measure God’s nature. Of course this begs the whole question as to what this objective standard is and where it came from, and so doesn’t begin to actually establish objective morality."
                            "Yes. President Trump is a huge embarrassment. And it’s an embarrassment to evangelical Christianity that there appear to be so many who will celebrate precisely the aspects that I see Biblically as most lamentable and embarrassing." Southern Baptist leader Albert Mohler Jr.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Charles View Post
                              I just read this blog: https://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2013...y-is-nonsense/

                              It is called "Six reasons why objective morality is nonsense" so I do not agree with most of it. However it is interesting to read it.

                              An interesting part of it reads:

                              "A favourite argument of the religious is that you can’t have objective morality without a god. And they are right. What they don’t realise, though, is that you also can’t have an objective morality with a god. After all, plumping for “God’s opinion” instead of human opinion is equally subjective. Who says that God’s opinion about morality is better than Satan’s opinion? The answer that God says that God’s opinion is better is simply circular."

                              Though, of course, I do not agree with the fact that you need God in order to have objective morality, I find the rest is just different - and perhaps better - words on the points I have been trying to make in here.

                              Further on it is pointed out:

                              "The traditional response would be to argue that God’s nature is good, which is an appeal to some supra-God objective standard of goodness against which to measure God’s nature. Of course this begs the whole question as to what this objective standard is and where it came from, and so doesn’t begin to actually establish objective morality."
                              Charles, you have not seen me argue for "objective morality" but universal moral truths, God's moral sense is subjective to Him, but universal and authoritative. And again, if you have a different ethical opinion than God's on what basis would/could your opinion be more correct than His? Knowledge? But He is all knowing. Logic? He would be the very source of a rational universe. Your personal moral character? His moral nature is immutable, yours is mutable, culturally informed and flicked (like all humans). So Charles from where do you launch your attack? I have asked this a number of times now.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Tass, are you stalking me? Perv!
                                Just address the issue. Given that your argument is wholly conditional upon God’s existence you must show that God exists. If you cannot show that God exists then your argument does not have the "firm foundation for ethics" that you claim; it has no foundation at all.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X