Maybe it's just me, but when I talk about objective truth and absolute truth, I don't make a distinction.
It’s semantic. I think we need a distinction between the concept of ‘absolute truth ’, which is true for all eternity and ‘objective truth”, which is true for limited duration...such as the laws of the land which are enforced
as if they were absolute, but can actually be changed by due process. In reality, this is the only form of ‘objective truth’ in my view as witnessed by the changing social mores over time. The exception being, perhaps, the absolute imperitive of the survival of the species.
If we have no purpose, then I would say "Why should I care?" Our genes program us? Well why should I care what my genes program me to do?
Well, being programmed, you have little choice. It is our instinct to survive. But you don’t have to “care”. Dysfunctional people don’t care e.g. those with endogenous depression or sociopaths. But really, is the belief in being rewarded or punished in an ‘after life’ the only reason for being good? Surely this means that ‘goodness’ is basically selfishness or fear-based and thus immoral.
If you really believed that there was no purpose, making life meaningless, I'm sure you would live your life quite differently.
I
really believe that ultimately there is no ‘meaning’ for life for me as an individual, but our genetic ‘programming’ for the survival of the species includes being able to find meaning with a loving partner and love of one’s children and extends outwards to the arts and special interests....such natural curiosity being part of the ‘survival package’. Natural Selection ensures that we will mate and nurture our young but, even being thus programmed, it is no less ‘fulfilling’ for all that.
A possible purpose could have been preparing the world for humanity. However, if I do not know the purpose, what have you proven? You've proven that I am not omniscient, which I would have conceded to you at the start! You have not proven that there is no purpose.
Well Neanderthal man overlapped with us for about 24,000 years and probably interbred with us. He was intelligent, used tools, wore body ornaments, had religious rites and ceremoniously buried their dead indicating a developed spirituality. In short, there was very little difference between Neanderthal man and us during the same era. We can’t prove it either way but there is no reason to think that what applies to us regarding life’s purpose would not also have applied to Neanderthal man.
Not exactly. The empiricists hold to Natural Law as well, such as Aquinas. While I do not think we are born knowing "thou shalt not murder" we are hard-wired to recognize moral truths such as when we know what murder is, we know not to do it.
Yes, I agree that we are hard-wired to recognize moral truths such as knowing murder to be wrong...but for a different reason than you. As social animals we are “hard-wired” by natural selection to behave according to the requirements of maintaining cohesion within the tribe or society, i.e. there is a defined reason why murder is bad as opposed to just being proscribed by god because that is his will.
You can assert that it is not absolute that you shall not murder, but to show it would be something more. Could it be that all these societies had this rule because they actually believed it to be true? After all, if what you are saying is true, there is no reason at all to look out for the cohesiveness of the social unit.
And if you want to go with just a Hobbesian account, you'd have to show the world was ever like what he portrayed it to be.
But, there is every reason to look out for cohesiveness of the social unit. Murder has remained a “no-no” throughout because it is obviously disruptive to the social order, but it is not absolute. There are times when it could be considered a ‘good’. E.g. the attempted assassination of Hitler would have been considered a ‘just execution’ by the Allies. The story of Gideon is one of many in the OT depicting brutal behavior utterly unacceptable to modern man. But, in terms of natural selection the history of the Israelites dire treatment of ‘outsiders’ is a history of the tribe preserving its unity and integrity as a social unit.
I am not going with Hobbs or any of the philosophers. I am based in the scientific evidence supporting natural selection as a part of the evolutionary process not a philosophical model.
We do not differ by degree but by kind. An animal cannot think abstractly. They can have ideas but not ideas about ideas. You could demonstrate this false easily however by showing a dog that understands the concept of "The day after tomorrow." As for AI, it can only do what it is was last programmed to do and can never go against that program.
This is not so.
We do not differ by kind but by degree. The higher hominids have the ability to recognize themselves in a mirror thus revealing self-awareness and tests have shown that they have the ability to reason to a limited degree, e.g. to negotiate simple objects like a stick as a lever to obtain desired food items. As for AI, if it is programmed to replicate itself and utilize its already superior computing skills to do so there is little doubt that its intelligence will overtake that of man. This is what’s predicted by Theoretical Physicists and there are already advanced experiments to this end.
Actually, no. I did not use God to define good. I define good first and see God as that greatest good. Good has remained the same because that is what goodness is and it is available for all to see. I am not sure what you are asking however with the design question. Designed what way?
On what basis have you defined” good” as absolute when it can be readily shown to be relative to a given situation? And on what basis have you assumed that god is the “greatest good”, or indeed that he exists at all.
No you don't. I don't define the good as God. I define good as that which is desired and I find that that ultimately is best seen in God by his nature. I am using Aristotle's definition. Not one from Scripture.
OK! But why use a 2,400 year old philosophical system rather than, e.g. Metaphysical Naturalism which takes account of modern science? And why would you think
your concept of “good” is universally accepted? How is good defined as “that which is desired” when ‘that’ which is desired will vary from person to person?
No. It's based on Aristotle.
As above!
No. It's objective because that's what being is. Being is good.
No, it’s not objective because your personal definition of ‘good’ was subjectively arrived at and will vary from person to person.
And I would again ask "Why should I care about the survival of the species?"
It is in your own personal interest to ensure that society functions cohesively, that’s why you should care. As a social creature you cannot function in isolation without the support and infrastructure of society and your genetic code predisposes you to cooperate with social needs just as it predisposes you care for your wife and children....unless you are sociopathic. It really doesn’t boil down to what you “care about”. That’s irrelevant.
A morality that is flexible is not a morality. Morality is about what you ought to do and not about what the community wants to do. If an action could lead to the death of a community, but that action would be moral, such as sacrificing themselves for the children of another community, they would not be unjustified in doing that. If morality is not absolute, then it has no demand on us. We are allowed to do whatever we want and if that is the case, then again, why care about the community?
Your insistence on individualism runs contrary to the social creature you are in actuality. Individualism must be aligned to the needs of the community otherwise the social unit disintegrates. You are genetically programmed to care about the ‘tribe’ just as you are programmed to nurture your young. But, even if you didn’t care, the community devises laws to ensure compliance for its own protection, regardless.
Re the underlined, your example is a restatement of Cardinal Newman’s dictum which I consider totally immoral, namely: “Do ‘right’ even if the sky falls in”.
Unverified in what way?
The Platonic notion of ‘perfect forms’ is a philosophical concept. An idea! Its only validity is that you choose to give it validity because it suits you. But it is no more ‘real’ in actuality than another ancient notion, namely the multi- tiered universe that many of the ancients from the same era, believed in. These ideas cannot be verified by empirical means. They are unverified.
Same question....
Same response!
But with no reason for doing so ultimately. You do it for the sake of doing it and it's all meaningless and purposeless. Keep in mind an evolutionary scheme would not damage my faith in the least nor my belief in objective morality.
There is every reason for “doing it’ because we are genetically predisposed to do it. You don’t have a choice. What’s the religious alternative...to be moral for the sake of eternal life and the avoidance of hell? This to me is the deity using Pavlov’s method for training dogs based on reward/punishment system. It’s mere training, not morality.
First question to ask, is there a meaning in the text that can be known?
Who does the asking? You? And “known” to whom? You? How does such an individualistic, subjective process reveal absolute truths applicable to all?
I would first ask what are the basic rules and why should I care about them? Is there any reason to do anything? Is there any reason to desire anything?
Where are the “basic rules” to be found? What are they? And, what does your “caring” or “not caring” have to do with absolute morality? How can such an individualistic, subjective approach determine what is ‘absolute morality? And who decides who is right and who is wrong if different individuals come to different conclusions. Surely making a personal assessment based on your feelings is the ultimate form of ‘subjective truth’...not ‘absolute truth’
We ought to seek it? Why? Why ought I seek the survival of the species if the species has no purpose or meaning?
Oh,
the species has a purpose, namely survival, and you are genetically predisposed to align your personal desires to this end and you “
ought to” because it is in your own best interests to do so. What it
doesn’t have is a custom-made personal purpose for you, as an individual, which is perhaps why it doesn’t interest you. But this is irrelevant in the larger scheme of things.
TheologyWeb Campus
» Theistic Metaphysics Dept.
» Apologetics 301
»
The thread for TWEB Christians to explain a supposedly God-given objective morality
