The flaws of NT-based morality

[Mountain Man]

But his nature is just his nature and since that is not based any objective moral foundation you can discuss God's nature with extremist terrorist but you would both have to agree (due to your wrong understanding of ethics) that it makes no sence to discuss the topic in and of itself. It is only a question of God's character and nothing else.

And this is the part about your line of reasoning (or Craig's reasoning - I think you tend to think copy his ideas almost completely) that you seem to miss all the time: The line of reasoning goes along the lines that no pain, no injustice, no suffering, nothing of this world constitutes anything of ethical importance. The Holocaust in and of itself could (according to Craig) be morally indifferent, so it is not that the human beings are important, it is not that torture of children is a problem. It is because of something completely different that an ethical problem exists. And, the consequece of that is that the line of reasonin does not establish the kind of ethics we would initially think it does. It does nothing to establish value. It explains everything in terms of some believed metaphysical being. So it still holds that the event, the Holocaust, is not in and of itself important. It is something apart from that that is important.

Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. "[God's] nature is just his nature and ... is not based [on] any objective moral foundation" is an incoherent statement. How can you expect a standard to conform to something outside of itself?

The fact remains that if atheism is true, and everything that happens in the universe is just an accident of natural processes, then there is no reason to think the Holocaust isn't a morally indifferent act, like lighting an anthill on fire, or a lion killing a zebra, or a swarm of locusts destroying a field of crops, or a lighting strike killing children in a playground.

[Tassman]

You don't seem to realize that the argument:

P1: The rules of society are grounded in our instincts.
P2: We have no moral obligation to obey our instincts.
C: Therefore, we are morally obligated to obey the rules of society?

Uses your premises and your conclusions. I'm just trying to show you that there is no logical connection between the two. Are you saying that you now reject the arguments that you have already presented?

I repeat: that’s not the argument.

Once again for the dummy: We are obliged by the society in which we live to obey its rules. If we don’t we are punished that society. It’s not a “moral” obligation per se. These rules are grounded in our natural instincts to ensure the survival of the community and we are socially conditioned by our family and community to conform to these rules. Got it?

Morality is defined simply as “A particular system of values and principles of conduct”. (Oxford Dictionary). That’s all it is. You seem to think it comprises eternal values devised by your non-existent god, floating around in some sort of eternal Platonic heaven. It does not. Morality is functional, i.e. it serves a purpose; namely the survival of the species.

[Tassman]

Charles, you can not claim that our God is arbitrary when that is not what Scripture teaches, for instance God "can not lie" - not that He arbitrarily chooses not to lie, He is truth, falsehood, acting falsely, is against His nature. Some texts are quite straight forward. You don't get to tell me what I believe then attack the strawman you created. Bad form old man. And go ahead and use Hume against Biblical ethics and I will use the same sword to destroy any version of secular ethics you bring in - deal?

Who cares what your scripture "teaches"? That's not an argument for an ethical system, merely faith-based beliefs. ALL religions have the same. ALL have their god(s), along with their "universal moral truths", and the "divine" authority that goes with that. This has been a major problem in the world for millennia. Currently it's ISIS. Previously it's been Crusades and witch-burning's or religious wars between Catholics and Protestants as per the Thirty Years War. The evil consequences of religion are endless.

[seer]

Who cares what your scripture "teaches"? That's not an argument for an ethical system, merely faith-based beliefs. ALL religions have the same. ALL have their god(s), along with their "universal moral truths", and the "divine" authority that goes with that. This has been a major problem in the world for millennia. Currently it's ISIS. Previously it's been Crusades and witch-burning's or religious wars between Catholics and Protestants as per the Thirty Years War. The evil consequences of religion are endless.

Of course it is an argument for universal moral truths, which I maintain can not exist apart from God. And you speak of "evil consequences" as if that would have any meaning in your meaningless amoral universe. You are merely voicing an opinion which has no basis in reality. If you are correct we are just animals doing what animals instinctively do.

[Mountain Man]

I repeat: that’s not the argument.

Once again for the dummy: We are obliged by the society in which we live to obey its rules. If we don’t we are punished that society. It’s not a “moral” obligation per se. These rules are grounded in our natural instincts to ensure the survival of the community and we are socially conditioned by our family and community to conform to these rules. Got it?

Uh, yeah, I already addressed that in the part of my post that you "forgot" to quote:

Now you're saying that "We are obliged by society to obey the rules of society otherwise we’re punished by society."

That's a circular argument ("We are obligated to obey society because it can punish us, and it can punish us because we are obligated to obey it"), but beyond that, what compelling reason is there not to act like a Hillary Clinton or Kim Jong-un and simply accumulate the power and wealth necessary to live however one wants without consequence? Heck, even a petty criminal can stay off the radar and never be held accountable for his crimes. If one is in a position where one can not be punished by society, then is one still obligated to obey society? Secondly, "society" seems far too broad of a term to be in any way meaningful. Which society, exactly, are we obligated to obey? Christian society? Muslim society? Atheist society? Buddhist society? Heterosexual society? Homosexual society? Eastern society? Western society? Ancient society? Modern society? Communist society? Totalitarian society? Democratic society? And I could easily list a dozen more.

Morality is defined simply as “A particular system of values and principles of conduct”. (Oxford Dictionary). That’s all it is. You seem to think it comprises eternal values devised by your non-existent god, floating around in some sort of eternal Platonic heaven. It does not. Morality is functional, i.e. it serves a purpose; namely the survival of the species.

Oh, goody, this is the game where you open a dictionary and pick one of the definitions that seem to support your argument while ignoring the ones that don't.

What, you didn't think I would see through this? Sorry, kiddo, but we're not all as easily duped as you.

Source: Oxford English Dictionary

1. Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
1.1 A particular system of values and principles of conduct.
1.2 The extent to which an action is right or wrong.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/morality

© Copyright Original Source

So it's quite a bit more complicated than the simplistic definition your small mind prefers.

[Mountain Man]

Does anyone have an actual objective basis for "ought?" Sure, God can punish people with eternal torture, but I'm not sure that that means that we "ought" to do what he says. It's not that different from a human authority, just more serious punishment. God is responsible for our existence, but so are our parents.

I certainly do follow Jesus' teachings, but I'm not convinced that obeying God has any basis that doesn't involve our commitment to following him.

Did you read the article by Dr. William Craig that I linked to earlier? Here it is in a nutshell (although I recommend you read the whole article):

Source: Can We Be Good Without God?

Consider, then, the hypothesis that God exists. First, if God exists, objective moral values exist. To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them.

On the theistic view, objective moral values are rooted in God. God’s own holy and perfectly good nature supplies the absolute standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. God’s moral nature is what Plato called the “Good.” He is the locus and source of moral value. He is by nature loving, generous, just, faithful, kind, and so forth.

Moreover, God’s moral nature is expressed in relation to us in the form of divine commands which constitute our moral duties or obligations. Far from being arbitrary, these commands flow necessarily from His moral nature. In the Judaeo-Christian tradition, the whole moral duty of man can be summed up in the two great commandments: First, you shall love the Lord your God with all your strength and with all your soul and with all your heart and with all your mind, and, second, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On this foundation we can affirm the objective goodness and rightness of love, generosity, self-sacrifice, and equality, and condemn as objectively evil and wrong selfishness, hatred, abuse, discrimination, and oppression.

Finally, on the theistic hypothesis God holds all persons morally accountable for their actions. Evil and wrong will be punished; righteousness will be vindicated. Good ultimately triumphs over evil, and we shall finally see that we do live in a moral universe after all. Despite the inequities of this life, in the end the scales of God’s justice will be balanced. Thus, the moral choices we make in this life are infused with an eternal significance. We can with consistency make moral choices which run contrary to our self-interest and even undertake acts of extreme self-sacrifice, knowing that such decisions are not empty and ultimately meaningless gestures. Rather our moral lives have a paramount significance. So I think it is evident that theism provides a sound foundation for morality.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-w...od-without-god

© Copyright Original Source

Basically, God is the only moral authority we can't escape from. Our own conscience can be quelled; human rulers can be thwarted; the rules of society can be circumvented; but God's judgment is inescapable.

[Tassman]

Did you read the article by Dr. William Craig that I linked to earlier? Here it is in a nutshell (although I recommend you read the whole article):

Source: Can We Be Good Without God?

Consider, then, the hypothesis that God exists. First, if God exists, objective moral values exist. To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them.

On the theistic view, objective moral values are rooted in God. God’s own holy and perfectly good nature supplies the absolute standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. God’s moral nature is what Plato called the “Good.” He is the locus and source of moral value. He is by nature loving, generous, just, faithful, kind, and so forth.

Moreover, God’s moral nature is expressed in relation to us in the form of divine commands which constitute our moral duties or obligations. Far from being arbitrary, these commands flow necessarily from His moral nature. In the Judaeo-Christian tradition, the whole moral duty of man can be summed up in the two great commandments: First, you shall love the Lord your God with all your strength and with all your soul and with all your heart and with all your mind, and, second, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On this foundation we can affirm the objective goodness and rightness of love, generosity, self-sacrifice, and equality, and condemn as objectively evil and wrong selfishness, hatred, abuse, discrimination, and oppression.

Finally, on the theistic hypothesis God holds all persons morally accountable for their actions. Evil and wrong will be punished; righteousness will be vindicated. Good ultimately triumphs over evil, and we shall finally see that we do live in a moral universe after all. Despite the inequities of this life, in the end the scales of God’s justice will be balanced. Thus, the moral choices we make in this life are infused with an eternal significance. We can with consistency make moral choices which run contrary to our self-interest and even undertake acts of extreme self-sacrifice, knowing that such decisions are not empty and ultimately meaningless gestures. Rather our moral lives have a paramount significance. So I think it is evident that theism provides a sound foundation for morality.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-w...od-without-god

© Copyright Original Source

Basically, God is the only moral authority we can't escape from. Our own conscience can be quelled; human rulers can be thwarted; the rules of society can be circumvented; but God's judgment is inescapable.

The entire argument is based upon the unverified and unverifiable hypotheses that a god exists. Why would one choose to base an argument upon such a dubious premise? Answer: One wouldn't.

[Tassman]

Uh, yeah, I already addressed that in the part of my post that you "forgot" to quote:

Now you're saying that "We are obliged by society to obey the rules of society otherwise we’re punished by society."

Correct! This does not mean that everybody does obey the rules of society, just as everyone is not compelled to obey God’s rules...if one wants to go down that unsubstantiated path. But the standards are set and those that choose to act contrary to the rules of society risk exposure and punishment...as Donald Trump is likely to find out in due course!

That's a circular argument ("We are obligated to obey society because it can punish us, and it can punish us because we are obligated to obey it"), but beyond that, what compelling reason is there not to act like a Hillary Clinton or Kim Jong-un and simply accumulate the power and wealth necessary to live however one wants without consequence? Heck, even a petty criminal can stay off the radar and never be held accountable for his crimes. If one is in a position where one can not be punished by society, then is one still obligated to obey society? Secondly, "society" seems far too broad of a term to be in any way meaningful. Which society, exactly, are we obligated to obey? Christian society? Muslim society? Atheist society? Buddhist society? Heterosexual society? Homosexual society? Eastern society? Western society? Ancient society? Modern society? Communist society? Totalitarian society? Democratic society? And I could easily list a dozen more.

It’s not a circular argument at all, dummy. See above.

Oh, goody, this is the game where you open a dictionary and pick one of the definitions that seem to support your argument while ignoring the ones that don't.

What, you didn't think I would see through this? Sorry, kiddo, but we're not all as easily duped as you.

Source: Oxford English Dictionary

1. Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
1.1 A particular system of values and principles of conduct.
1.2 The extent to which an action is right or wrong.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/morality

© Copyright Original Source

So it's quite a bit more complicated than the simplistic definition your small mind prefers.

Not at all! It is the community that defines what is good and bad behaviour. “Good” and “bad” are not universal, eternal values and they have demonstrably changed over the ages. Again: morality is functional, i.e. it serves a purpose other than keeping your hypothetical god happy, namely the survival of the species.

[Tassman]

Of course it is an argument for universal moral truths, which I maintain can not exist apart from God.

The fatal flaw in your reasoning is that you assume, without good evidence that God exists.

And you speak of "evil consequences" as if that would have any meaning in your meaningless amoral universe. You are merely voicing an opinion which has no basis in reality. If you are correct we are just animals doing what animals instinctively do.

Our universe is full of meaning. Life is what you make it. I’ve known many miserable, guilt-ridden Christians just as I know many joyous atheists.

[seer]

Our universe is full of meaning. Life is what you make it. I’ve known many miserable, guilt-ridden Christians just as I know many joyous atheists.

Yes life is what you make it. Same for the Stalinist or the Maoist or the Jihadist.

To quote your buddy Dawkins again:

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

At bottom, no justice, no purpose (meaning) no good or evil. So when you speak of "evil consequences" Tass it is no more than ethical babel....

[The Pixie]

Did you read the article by Dr. William Craig that I linked to earlier? Here it is in a nutshell (although I recommend you read the whole article):

Source: Can We Be Good Without God?

Consider, then, the hypothesis that God exists. First, if God exists, objective moral values exist. To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. ...

© Copyright Original Source

I agree with the bit in bold. If there are objective moral values, then it must follow that they do not come from God, because they must be independent of whether God believes them to be right or wrong. So we do not need God to have objective moral values.

[seer]

I agree with the bit in bold. If there are objective moral values, then it must follow that they do not come from God, because they must be independent of whether God believes them to be right or wrong. So we do not need God to have objective moral values.

Well they do not exist, and even if they did we would not have any obligation to follow them. There are no consequences for following them or not. They are toothless. But MM is saying that God alone is the source of objective values.

[The Pixie]

Well they do not exist, and even if they did we would not have any obligation to follow them. There are no consequences for following them or not. They are toothless.

Correct. Atheists follow moral rules because it is the right thing to do, not because of the consequences.

What about Christians?

But MM is saying that God alone is the source of objective values.

Either they come from in intelligent being or they are objective. They cannot be both!

[TheWall]

The answer to the Euthrypo Dilemma.
God wills something because he is good.
God is not an idea he is a person a being. A being can will something. That something can exist despite our feelings towards it.

[Adrift]

I agree with the bit in bold. If there are objective moral values, then it must follow that they do not come from God, because they must be independent of whether God believes them to be right or wrong. So we do not need God to have objective moral values.

If you read the rest of the paragraph, Craig makes the point that good and evil aren't simply those things that God believes to be right or wrong, rather he claims that objective moral values are rooted in God's very nature. He doesn't just believe certain things to be right or wrong, rather "He is by nature loving, generous, just, faithful, kind, and so forth." And "far from being arbitrary, these commands flow necessarily from His moral nature. " Now, you may not agree with Craig on this point, and that's fine, but I just wanted to help correct your reading of Craig, because it looked like you misunderstood him on that point (and that's probably why TheWall brings up the Euthyphro dilemma, because that's where your objection seems to rest, and that's how Craig answers that as well).