Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

[seer]

Yes, but not having the ability to will oneself to not exist is understandable and is different than not having the ability to change ones mind. What power is it that stops god from changing his mind?

His own mind and nature. God can not be other than He is.

[carpedm9587]

I'm sure we will.

I spent the first 37 years of my life questioning almost everything Carp. Now I have certainty and most importantly hope and peace and purpose. If I'm wrong and die holding these beliefs - what have I lost?

As I said, relatively little, unless the desire to hold true beliefs is important to you. You have lost that. But if that is not an issue, there is little else you have lost.

Carp that only has application to one small part of our discussion, about the existence of God. The rest was quite open and wide ranging... Remember I was quite specific in limiting that claim to God's existence.

I may have applied your statement too broadly. I have to admit, Seer, that I have a preference for engaging in an exchange on an equal footing. When I am talking to someone who, at any moment, can simply label me "unable to understand," significantly diminishes the exchange for me. With respect to ethics, your perspective concerning universal/eternal/absolute morality is rooted in this self-same idea of god. So how can that NOT mean that I am incapable of understanding that concept as well?

And if this god of yours actually exists, and I am truly incapable of understanding, where would you place the responsibility for that? I am, apparently, who/what I was created to be, in your worldview. I cannot grasp what I am incapable of grasping by sheer force of will. An incapacity is an incapacity. I would suggest, if your god exists, then I am incapable of grasping this god because that is how this god made me, correct? Either way - the incapacity renders any conversation about this god pointless. Why continue engaging in something I lack the capacity for, and why would you waste your time engaging with someone who lacks the capacity to understand? Why would you even raise the idea of your god with someone who lacks the capacity to grasp it?

[seer]

As I said, relatively little, unless the desire to hold true beliefs is important to you. You have lost that. But if that is not an issue, there is little else you have lost.

True for whom? See that is the problem Carp, I'm rationally justified to hold the beliefs I have until a clear defeater is presented - like digging up the body of Christ. Have you ever read Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief?

I may have applied your statement too broadly. I have to admit, Seer, that I have a preference for engaging in an exchange on an equal footing. When I am talking to someone who, at any moment, can simply label me "unable to understand," significantly diminishes the exchange for me. With respect to ethics, your perspective concerning universal/eternal/absolute morality is rooted in this self-same idea of god. So how can that NOT mean that I am incapable of understanding that concept as well?

I think you can understand the concept of a God being a source for universal values. You may not accept that and that is where the problem comes in.

And if this god of yours actually exists, and I am truly incapable of understanding, where would you place the responsibility for that? I am, apparently, who/what I was created to be, in your worldview. I cannot grasp what I am incapable of grasping by sheer force of will. An incapacity is an incapacity. I would suggest, if your god exists, then I am incapable of grasping this god because that is how this god made me, correct? Either way - the incapacity renders any conversation about this god pointless. Why continue engaging in something I lack the capacity for, and why would you waste your time engaging with someone who lacks the capacity to understand? Why would you even raise the idea of your god with someone who lacks the capacity to grasp it?

As far as your salvation Carp that is between you and God, I have no wisdom there except to quote Christ: What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his very soul. But the rest of the discussion can go on...

[carpedm9587]

True for whom? See that is the problem Carp, I'm rationally justified to hold the beliefs I have until a clear defeater is presented - like digging up the body of Christ. Have you ever read Plantinga's Warranted Christian Belief?

Objectively true. Some things are true or false independent of our beliefs. I would assume that the existence of this god you believe in is either objectively true or objectively false. And what you say about your beliefs is true of ALL of our beliefs, Seer. I have not attempted to offer you a "defeater" because I long since have left behind my need to convince other people to change what they believe about gods. What you believe is fine with me. I don't agree with you, but I have no need to change you. If asked, I am happy to explain what I believe and why - and even defend it. Defending it tests my beliefs, allowing me an opportunity to affirm them or find holes. I welcome those opportunities.

No, I have not read that text. At this point, I don't see myself doing it in the near future. I have more than enough recommended readings for a faith I have long since left behind on my reading list.

I think you can understand the concept of a God being a source for universal values. You may not accept that and that is where the problem comes in.

I am not the one who considers other incapable of understanding their worldview, Seer. I know am perfectly capable of understanding both the concepts you are presenting and the arguments for and against them, including your god. You are the one who has declared me incapable. So it would seem to follow, if I am incapable of grasping your god, how can I be capable of grasping a moral system based on that god?

As far as your salvation Carp that is between you and God, I have no wisdom there except to quote Christ: What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his very soul. But the rest of the discussion can go on...

I am not speaking about my salvation, Seer. I am fine with where I am now and have not seen a reason for my beliefs to change (at least, so far). I am speaking of your perspective and worldview. You say your worldview teaches you that someone like me is incapable of grasping your god. Yet your faith, as I recall, also requires you to go forth and preach/spread the gospels. It would seem to me those two views are at odds. What value is there of "preaching the gospels" to someone who cannot grasp them? You faith appears to require you to talk about colors to a blind man, which (as you point out) is pointless. So why bother? And which god-related topics can someone who is unable to grasp god actually grasp? If the concept is rooted in god, and the person cannot grasp god, how is it they may be able to grasp the dependent concept? Do you see the tangle this position you hold creates?

More to the point, would you be inclined to converse with me if I told you I considered you incapable of understanding what I am talking about? JUst for a second, consider it. If I told you that I believe you lack the capacity to truly understand the atheist worldview, what would be your response?

[seer]

Objectively true. Some things are true or false independent of our beliefs. I would assume that the existence of this god you believe in is either objectively true or objectively false. And what you say about your beliefs is true of ALL of our beliefs, Seer. I have not attempted to offer you a "defeater" because I long since have left behind my need to convince other people to change what they believe about gods. What you believe is fine with me. I don't agree with you, but I have no need to change you. If asked, I am happy to explain what I believe and why - and even defend it. Defending it tests my beliefs, allowing me an opportunity to affirm them or find holes. I welcome those opportunities.

No, I have not read that text. At this point, I don't see myself doing it in the near future. I have more than enough recommended readings for a faith I have long since left behind on my reading list.

As we discussed in the past Carp we all believe things that cannot be justified deductively, yet we accept them nonetheless.

I am not the one who considers other incapable of understanding their worldview, Seer. I know am perfectly capable of understanding both the concepts you are presenting and the arguments for and against them, including your god. You are the one who has declared me incapable. So it would seem to follow, if I am incapable of grasping your god, how can I be capable of grasping a moral system based on that god?

Well I did say a lot more than that. But yes, until one is regenerated he would not accept the law of God, why would he? I know I didn't before conversion. It's kind of a package deal...

I am not speaking about my salvation, Seer. I am fine with where I am now and have not seen a reason for my beliefs to change (at least, so far). I am speaking of your perspective and worldview. You say your worldview teaches you that someone like me is incapable of grasping your god. Yet your faith, as I recall, also requires you to go forth and preach/spread the gospels. It would seem to me those two views are at odds. What value is there of "preaching the gospels" to someone who cannot grasp them? You faith appears to require you to talk about colors to a blind man, which (as you point out) is pointless. So why bother? And which god-related topics can someone who is unable to grasp god actually grasp? If the concept is rooted in god, and the person cannot grasp god, how is it they may be able to grasp the dependent concept? Do you see the tangle this position you hold creates?

The Bible never tells us to go out and prove God, but preach the Gospel. But you have already rejected Christ and His good news. But all men do not reject the message. I didn't.

More to the point, would you be inclined to converse with me if I told you I considered you incapable of understanding what I am talking about? JUst for a second, consider it. If I told you that I believe you lack the capacity to truly understand the atheist worldview, what would be your response?

What do you want me to say Carp? Again you are asking me to reject my worldview. I must accept your presuppositions. How can I do that and remain faithful? There is nothing in atheism that precludes a non-atheist from understanding, that is not inherent in that worldview.

[carpedm9587]

As we discussed in the past Carp we all believe things that cannot be justified deductively, yet we accept them nonetheless.

I don't believe I have ever disagreed with this, so I'm not sure why you are responding to what I wrote with this.

Well I did say a lot more than that. But yes, until one is regenerated he would not accept the law of God, why would he? I know I didn't before conversion. It's kind of a package deal...

The Bible never tells us to go out and prove God, but preach the Gospel. But you have already rejected Christ and His good news. But all men do not reject the message. I didn't.

So let me see if I understand: people who are not Christian but have not explicitly rejected Christianity as "true" retain the capacity to understand, but as soon as they examine the message and decide, "that doesn't sound right to me," they lose that capacity?

What do you want me to say Carp? Again you are asking me to reject my worldview. I must accept your presuppositions. How can I do that and remain faithful? There is nothing in atheism that precludes a non-atheist from understanding, that is not inherent in that worldview.

First, you are responding to something I did not say: at no point have I asked you to reject anything or change a worldview. What I AM trying to do is get you to see the impact of your statements from the other side. I did that by asking a question, which you have not answered. Perhaps you didn't understand it. I am not making a claim that atheism is not understandable. I am asking how you you would feel about having a conversation with me if I believed that, as a non-atheist, you lacked the capacity to understand my worldview.

Back it up to when we first met. We exchange a few pleasantries. Then you ask me a couple questions about my atheism, and I respond with, "We'll, I'm happy to chat with you. But, as a non-atheist, you don't have the capacity to understand this worldview." How do you think you would have responded?

[Tassman]

So you can't prove that you love your mother. I didn't think so.

Again: I’m not referring to “proofs”. I’m talking about ‘evidence’. There is ample evidence of love between my mother and me; there is NO substantive evidence supporting your assertion that “God and His moral law exist”.

And yet you believe that matter or energy are past eternal without one lick of substantive evidence.

What are we in for another round of cherry-picked quotes from Vilenkin are we? Don’t you get bored with the same old diversionary tactics? What’s next, Sam Harris on Consciousness?

Jim it is grounded in His immutable nature.

Really! How do you know?

For instance, God can not lie. He can not turn around and start lying. Though I suspect that reasoning is part of the equation as He applies these truths to His commands and men.

Bald assertions! You are positing mere beliefs as though they are verifiable facts. They are not. Why should we believe this made-up nonsense?

[JimL]

His own mind and nature. God can not be other than He is.

I think that your god can't really do much of anything the way you all define him. He obviously doesn't think, his so called mind is set and unchanging. Sounds more like a rock etched with laws.

[seer]

I don't believe I have ever disagreed with this, so I'm not sure why you are responding to what I wrote with this.

Perhaps I misunderstood you.

So let me see if I understand: people who are not Christian but have not explicitly rejected Christianity as "true" retain the capacity to understand, but as soon as they examine the message and decide, "that doesn't sound right to me," they lose that capacity?

No, all men before regeneration, tend to reject or dismiss God. As Christ said: The Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness more than light, because their deeds were evil.

First, you are responding to something I did not say: at no point have I asked you to reject anything or change a worldview. What I AM trying to do is get you to see the impact of your statements from the other side. I did that by asking a question, which you have not answered. Perhaps you didn't understand it. I am not making a claim that atheism is not understandable. I am asking how you you would feel about having a conversation with me if I believed that, as a non-atheist, you lacked the capacity to understand my worldview.

But Carp, it is apples and oranges. My worldview and Scripture requires that I take this position, I'm not saying it to make you feel bad. Emotion has nothing to do with it. There are no such requirements in the atheist's worldview. So when I say that Creation is evidence for a Creator you reject that, but of course you would, as I did in the past. As Christ makes clear above, in the end, it comes down to a moral/spiritual question - not evidential.

Back it up to when we first met. We exchange a few pleasantries. Then you ask me a couple questions about my atheism, and I respond with, "We'll, I'm happy to chat with you. But, as a non-atheist, you don't have the capacity to understand this worldview." How do you think you would have responded?

I would have asked you what specifically in your worldview would prevent me from understanding.

[seer]

I think that your god can't really do much of anything the way you all define him. He obviously doesn't think, his so called mind is set and unchanging. Sounds more like a rock etched with laws.

No Jim, just because His moral Character can not change does not mean that He can't act in various way. I mean would you prefer it if He could and did lie at will?

[seer]

Again: I’m not referring to “proofs”. I’m talking about ‘evidence’. There is ample evidence of love between my mother and me; there is NO substantive evidence supporting your assertion that “God and His moral law exist”.

How do I know that you really don't hate her and that you have ulterior motives for feigning love? We don't - we have to take your word for it. So your definition of evidence fails.

What are we in for another round of cherry-picked quotes from Vilenkin are we? Don’t you get bored with the same old diversionary tactics? What’s next, Sam Harris on Consciousness?

Nothing was cherry picked Tass and you know it. Any one can read him in context: http://inference-review.com/article/...f-the-universe

Really! How do you know?

Biblical Revelation...

Bald assertions! You are positing mere beliefs as though they are verifiable facts. They are not. Why should we believe this made-up nonsense?

Why should we believe the made up nonsense about you loving your mother?

[JimL]

No Jim, just because His moral Character can not change does not mean that He can't act in various way. I mean would you prefer it if He could and did lie at will?

Oh, so you're saying that god can change his mind, but he can't change morals. Why can't he? Why am I more powerful than god in that regard?

[carpedm9587]

Perhaps I misunderstood you.

No, all men before regeneration, tend to reject or dismiss God. As Christ said: The Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness more than light, because their deeds were evil.

So all people lack the capacity to understand, unless they are "regenerated?"

But Carp, it is apples and oranges. My worldview and Scripture requires that I take this position, I'm not saying it to make you feel bad. Emotion has nothing to do with it. There are no such requirements in the atheist's worldview. So when I say that Creation is evidence for a Creator you reject that, but of course you would, as I did in the past. As Christ makes clear above, in the end, it comes down to a moral/spiritual question - not evidential.

I do not think you are trying to make me feel bad, Seer, nor do I actually feel bad. I recognize this particular position for your particular brand of Christianity. I once held it myself. What I didn't tell you about my encounter with the young man was where I was in my spiritual journey at that time. I had, at one time, been like you: fairly conservative and very "fundamentalist" in my beliefs, which were aligned with Catholicism. By the time I had the exchange with the young man, I had moved away from that position and my Catholic Christianity had a decidedly more "liberal" aspect to it. Within the next year, I left Catholicism behind. It took two more years before I left Christianity behind, and another two to leave theism behind entirely.

As for your last sentence, I understand the call to faith. It took me years to realize that this call was a call for me to set aside my reason so I would be more "susceptible" to the doctrines of the faith. Most religions have something like it somewhere in their credo. Evidence and reason can be a significant threat to many religious belief systems, so if you can convince people that it is actually a bad thing to require evidence for beliefs, you are more likely to gain and keep them. Note that I am not saying there is no "reasoning" in religions; I am saying that the reasoning is carefully constrained to understanding the doctrines of the faith. For similar reasons, many religions have some degree of proscription against marrying, sometimes even friending, people who are outside the faith. Outsiders bring challenges/questions, which is, likewise, a threat to "faith."

I would have asked you what specifically in your worldview would prevent me from understanding.

So what exactly is it, in your worldview, that prevents me from understanding?


P.S. For the record, Seer, I'm not angry or hurt or upset. I'm simply pointing out the futility of engaging in a discussion with someone you believe is incapable of understanding. As with other things we have discussed, your behavior does not appear to align with your beliefs.

[seer]

So all people lack the capacity to understand, unless they are "regenerated?"

Yes, or at least until there is some influence of the Holy Spirit. Left to ourselves we would reject God...

I do not think you are trying to make me feel bad, Seer, nor do I actually feel bad. I recognize this particular position for your particular brand of Christianity. I once held it myself. What I didn't tell you about my encounter with the young man was where I was in my spiritual journey at that time. I had, at one time, been like you: fairly conservative and very "fundamentalist" in my beliefs, which were aligned with Catholicism. By the time I had the exchange with the young man, I had moved away from that position and my Catholic Christianity had a decidedly more "liberal" aspect to it. Within the next year, I left Catholicism behind. It took two more years before I left Christianity behind, and another two to leave theism behind entirely.

OK, then you know what my worldview entails. So why are you chiding me for it?

As for your last sentence, I understand the call to faith. It took me years to realize that this call was a call for me to set aside my reason so I would be more "susceptible" to the doctrines of the faith. Most religions have something like it somewhere in their credo. Evidence and reason can be a significant threat to many religious belief systems, so if you can convince people that it is actually a bad thing to require evidence for beliefs, you are more likely to gain and keep them. Note that I am not saying there is no "reasoning" in religions; I am saying that the reasoning is carefully constrained to understanding the doctrines of the faith. For similar reasons, many religions have some degree of proscription against marrying, sometimes even friending, people who are outside the faith. Outsiders bring challenges/questions, which is, likewise, a threat to "faith."

There you go again! Reason is paramount in my belief system. We live in a rational universe because a rational God created it as opposed to the non-rational forces of nature.

So what exactly is it, in your worldview, that prevents me from understanding?

What Scripture says about the natural state of man, as the quote I referenced from Christ, or this one from Paul: "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

P.S. For the record, Seer, I'm not angry or hurt or upset. I'm simply pointing out the futility of engaging in a discussion with someone you believe is incapable of understanding. As with other things we have discussed, your behavior does not appear to align with your beliefs.

OK, but what would you have me do? Reject my beliefs?

[carpedm9587]

Yes, or at least until there is some influence of the Holy Spirit. Left to ourselves we would reject God...

So it follows, then, that my lack of capacity is god's responsibility. I can do squat until god decides to do something.

OK, then you know what my worldview entails. So why are you chiding me for it?

I not "chiding" you. I'm pointing out the consequence of your view.

There you go again! Reason is paramount in my belief system. We live in a rational universe because a rational God created it as opposed to the non-rational forces of nature.

But yet there is a strong theme of "if you require evidence, you lack faith," is there not? The entire Thomas story conveys exactly that message, does it not? As I noted, theism does not abandon reason, it circumscribes it to what is acceptable - and requiring evidence for beliefs is considered a "lesser" form of faith, encouraging, at least to some degree, "blind" faith.

What Scripture says about the natural state of man, as the quote I referenced from Christ, or this one from Paul: "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."

So we come back again to, God has to do something. Apparently, I will "lack capacity" until that happens. Do you see how convenient it is for a religion to put forward this position. It immediately identifies all of those outside of the faith as "other," and "other" very quickly becomes "lesser." Indeed, defining individuals as "other" is the first step on the path to some pretty ugly things. And in this case, it is not only "other," it is also (conveniently) "lesser."

OK, but what would you have me do? Reject my beliefs?

No. Your beliefs are your business. I am merely pointing out their inconsistency. It was those inconsistencies that eventually led me away from Catholicism, Christianity, and ultimately theism. When I had an experience that taught me how easily we can be self-deceived, I set out (as I think I mentioned) to root out those deceptions, believing them to be a possible obstacle in my relationship with god. Eventually, I began to see and pay attention to inconsistencies like the one we have been discussing. It was in exploring those inconsistencies that I uncovered more and more of them, and began to see a pattern. That pattern eventually led me away from those beliefs to the ones I now hold. It was not an easy journey. It was one I often found myself feeling regret about. 30 years later, I think I probably feel the same way about my beliefs that you do: comfortable and at peace. I do not stop questioning/challenging, and I do not stop listening to people who hold different beliefs. But I am certainly not the "angry atheist" I was when I first realized I was one.

What road you trod is entirely your business. But I cannot engage in discussions like this one, see an inconsistency, and not point it out.

I am frankly not sure where we go from here. Discussing god or concepts that depend on god don't seem to be possible. So...I have no idea how to proceed...