| SeekingTruth |
| Posted 07/08/12 at 05:08 PM | Reply with quote #1 |
|
Hello,
I'm a young adult central-european male constantly on the verge of atheism and christianity. I've been brought up in the christian faith up to the age of about 14, after that I slowly but steadily became an outspoken atheist for a long time. In the last 2 years or so I've been interested in apologetics and watched many lectures, discussions and debates featuring both the world's leading atheists and theists. The view of atheism has been quite convincing due to many obvious factors (many religions existing, science figuring out more and more things previously accredited to God, etc. you know how it goes), but theism (especially christianity) also seems more and more plausible over the time.
I'll be perfectly honest with you just as I am with myself. I __would like__ to believe, which is quite possibly the strongest reason I'm being drawn to religion for. Oh, if it were so simple. I have many questions and I would like to ask them here since this place looks like it could be of great help to me.
I will limit my questions to this one topic in hope of not being intrusive with my limited knowledge and less than enough philosophical background.
---
#1. Objective morals
I find it very hard to believe in them being objective. If I read (and remember) correctly, apologists don't provide any evidence for this claim except for self-experience, relying on that we all feel it to be true. Not so simple in my case. After some childhood trauma which most likely set the stage came years of depression in my teenage years. Nothing serious, but it was enough to numb my emotions and produce sociopathic behaviour. For a good while, I could only feel anger and fear. The whole point of this little tale was only to show I had a very slight taste of what's it like as a sociopath. I'm perfectly fine now but questions remain:
- How do incurable, true sociopaths fit into this view of objective morals coming from God? Are they seen as mentally sick (even though they're perfectly able to think and reason) and thus forgiven if they don't commit any sins stemming from this state? Or are they damned since God's will doesn't reach their heart?
- Morals could be universal yet not objective at all. Most human beings could experience them the same way but the reason for it could be entirely naturalistic. They could simply exist in our species' mindset because they help us prosper. On what grounds should one believe in them being objective if we exclude wishful thinking?
---
#2. - Unable to reach heaven either way
Imagine for a moment that your life-long partner who you love more than anything in the world is an atheist. He/she couldn't help it being raised that way, having had bad experiences, facing sad events one after another all throughout his/her life, unable to believe. You, being a christian, achieve salvation and bodily resurrection while he/she goes straight to hell. With this fact on your mind, slowly tearing you apart from the inside, it would be damnation for you even if you're saved! How would one solve this problem? God erasing all memories of him/her would definitely not be a tidy way to do it and it would also seriously mingle with your personality (since it has been influenced so much by him/her over a lifetime), making you not who you originally were. Of course you could avoid this situation by not having a relationship with a non-believer, but let's suppose you also were a non-believer at the time when you got to know him/her. |
| Loading... | |
| rsmartin |
| Posted 07/08/12 at 05:30 PM | Reply with quote #2 |
|
SeekingTruth, welcome to the forums! I wasn't sure if or how I would answer, given that after a lifetime of searching for answers I became atheist. But your second question (unable to reach heaven either way) really gets to me. All I know to say is you have to find the truth of the matter--not just follow the authority/teaching of others or your own longings for an afterlife, etc. Figure out what really exists in objective reality. I love how you figured out that morals are subjective even if they come from God. You're capable of deep thought and analysis. Finding out the truth of these things is not easy but you can do this. |
| Loading... | |
| Chris9809 |
| Posted 07/08/12 at 06:04 PM | Reply with quote #3 |
|
Welcome to the forums! I hope you enjoy your stay here, and on behalf of everyone I'm glad to say you will be warmly accepted here regardless of belief. That isn't to say we don't have trolls of all beliefs that can drop in and throw discussions out of whack on occasion, but overall I think you'll enjoy your experience here.
With that said, I can relate to you with the childhood issues. I was brought up in a drug dealers household, with my mom being the only stable parent I had. In my teenage years I told everybody I believed when I didn't. I just went along with what they said just to get them off my back. This lead to severe depression, with more than one psychiatrist telling me they couldn't help me because I wanted to know answers they couldn't give. All this lasted up until a few years ago when I actually started considering my position on things. I hadn't thought about "the big questions" because I thought they were foolish and pointless at the time. Eventually I came to deism, and after some self reflection, meditation, and a clear mind I came to Christian Theism.
Now, to answer your first question, I would like to point you to the thread you should find just below this one entitled "Without God, who says what is right and wrong?". You should find the answer you seek there, or at least get you somewhat closer to it. We are still having the discussion, and while I only had time to check back and see what anyone had replied when I saw this thread, I'll not be able to reply to the replies I got for my last post in there for a day or two. You might be interested in my stance on this issue on post 129.
Your second question is a good one. So what if I were a born again Christian and my partner was an atheist, would they go to hell when they die and would I go to heaven? The answer I believe would be no and yes, meaning no they wouldn't go to hell and yes you would go to heaven...but with them. My reasoning for this comes from Genesis 2:23-24 found here. In that passage, it refers to when a couple are married, they become one flesh meaning one person. They are a joining of souls in a sense, a unit, they are one. I would love to elaborate more, but unfortunately I have to take my leave for a day or two.
Again, welcome to the forums! |
| Loading... | |
| Archsage |
| Posted 07/08/12 at 08:48 PM | Reply with quote #4 |
|
What an amazingly beautiful first post!
I guess I'll just jump right in to your first concern (I really enjoy the topic of morality). Take everything I say with caution, I'm no god. But I do believe whatever I say is at least 100% reliable. 
#1. Objective morals
The first thing you seemed to be worried about was whether or not morality was an objective thing. Now this is an interesting concern. Objectively, we know that Morality either is objective or not. Correct? So how do we know which one is True? That, right there, is epistemology: how we know that something is true. So, as with most other people in their exploration of the objectivity of Morality, we find ourselves faced with an epistemic question.
Consider this, however. When asking yourself if something is True, what are you really asking? What is Truth? To be very blunt and simple, Truth is the very foundation of actual Reality. In order to know what is true, we have to be able to interact with Reality. But how do we do that? Can we even do that?
If you asked, How does a Rock know what is true? The answer would be, it doesn't. Why? Because a rock cannot interact with reality. It cannot "know". But that doesn't mean reality doesn't exist. It means that the rock is incapable of knowing reality. Likewise, if we ask ourselves, How do we know that is a rock? What would be the answer? Of course, we would use the things that we have to interact with reality. Our senses. sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell.
We use our senses to interact with reality. That is our main epistemic means. Observation. There is also more. We have the ability to communicate with one another. Being able to communicate, record information, and store it to present to others throughout both time and across the globe, we are able to bring to mind information that we would have never observed on our own. That is our second main epistemic means. Revelation.
With both Observation and Revelation we interact with Reality. Atop of those is something else. What are we to make of what we personally observe? What are we to make of what is taught to us? What if they are conflicting? What if they imply more information? Or overlap and support others? Within ourselves, we do not just receive information through observation and revelation and neurologically store and react to stimuli. We do something more. We think about it, comprehend it. We test our observations and revelations and we combine them. Delete those that are inconsistent with either reality or our inner premises formed from other observations or revelations. This is our highest form of epistemic means. Reason.
In order for you to get to Reason, you need to have observed or been told something first, of course! But here's a very important thing. In order for your observations and revelations to be relevant in any epistemic way, you have to be able to believe in them. Because what good is seeing trees, if you don't believe your eyes are seeing right? Then you won't ever believe it to be true. What good is listening to your Calculus teacher if you don't believe your teacher is trustworthy? Then you won't ever believe it to be true. The core of all epistemology, of all that we know, is rooted in this. Faith.
So, that is my real answer. If you believe in yourself, and yourself is telling you that somethings are actually wrong, regardless of whatever anybody thinks (even yourself at times), and you have no other reason to doubt this, then it is most rational for you to accept that premise as True. Or, if you believe in someone as trustworthy, and they are telling you that somethings are actually wrong, regardless of whatever anybody thinks (even themselves, at times), and you have no other reason to doubt this, then it is most rational for you to accept that premise as True. You'd used all possible epistemic means to interact with reality and get the most accurate answer. If it leads to a premise, it makes no rational sense to reject it just because we don't have the "absolute proof".
Quote: Originally Posted by SeekingTruth
- How do incurable, true sociopaths fit into this view of objective morals coming from God? Are they seen as mentally sick (even though they're perfectly able to think and reason) and thus forgiven if they don't commit any sins stemming from this state? Or are they damned since God's will doesn't reach their heart?
There is a difference, between one's body and one's self. If they do not want to do something, or act a certain way, but they still act a certain way (doing the things that they do not want to do, thinking the way that they cannot control) then who is at fault? Who is to blame? Certainly not them! It's sad, as it is their physical bodies that are warring against them. What wretched people they are, but thank God for Jesus, through whom they'll have life, if they are willing.
Be sure to make the distinction between your body and yourself. You won't be blamed for what your body does, and what your body wants and wills. It is an animal. And your body will die. But us? As long as we keep our minds off of the flesh but on things of God, even though our body dies, we will still live. But if we keep our mind on the flesh, when our body dies, we will die with it.
*Be sure to read Romans, specifically Romans 7:14-25 and Romans 8:1-13
Quote: Originally Posted by SeekingTruth
- Morals could be universal yet not objective at all. Most human beings could experience them the same way but the reason for it could be entirely naturalistic. They could simply exist in our species' mindset because they help us prosper. On what grounds should one believe in them being objective if we exclude wishful thinking?
What your saying is interesting. There are many ways to argue with what you're saying, but I don't think that's necessary. I'd rather make my point by agreeing with your concepts. Don't you think, that if God were truly real, Morals would be made to "exist in our species' mindset because they help us prosper"?
And yes, our understanding of morality is certainly determined by our biology. Which is why certain animals have different amounts of sense when it regards certain things. We can look quickly at what God says about a particular animal in Job 39:
13 “The wings of the ostrich flap joyfully,
though they cannot compare
with the wings and feathers of the stork.
14 She lays her eggs on the ground
and lets them warm in the sand,
15 unmindful that a foot may crush them,
that some wild animal may trample them.
16 She treats her young harshly, as if they were not hers;
she cares not that her labor was in vain,
17 for God did not endow her with wisdom
or give her a share of good sense.
18 Yet when she spreads her feathers to run,
she laughs at horse and rider.
(verse 17 is our main focus here). But despite the fact that our understanding of reality (our epistemology) is determined by how well our bodies can interact with reality, we are only responsible for what we do have. Keep in mind, what is important isn't how moral we are, but more specifically, it is how moral we are based on what we know.
|
| Loading... | |
| Matthias |
| Posted 07/08/12 at 09:46 PM | Reply with quote #5 |
|
Howdy.
You can read my walls of text defending metaethical naturalism in the above-linked thread, but I think it's important to note that metaethics is orthogonal to whether Christianity is true. (I mean, yeah, there's the moral argument, but the moral argument is really bad.) It's hardly difficult to name important Christian thinkers who were existentialists or atheists who are moral realists.
My expectation is that if you want to believe you'll end up believing, so you may want to associate with liberal Christians who worship a God with more modern moral sensibilities. Regardless of whether the values you hold are subjective or objective or whatever, you value them and should take steps to protect them. (Ideally of course you will also come to an evaluation of Christianity based on the evidence alone, but don't stake more important things on your ability to.) |
| Loading... | |
| Lion_IRC |
| Posted 07/08/12 at 10:05 PM | Reply with quote #6 |
|
1. Objective morality.
Like two tennis players both referring to the same umpire to see if the ball was objectively in or out, if you’re asking whether objective morality exists (or in what objective morality consists,) aren’t you conceding that the answer lies at some point beyond your current reach?
In order to help the tennis players by providing an objective ruling whether the ball was in or out, an objective Umpire has to exist, objective rules have to exist – and most importantly, the rules have to be subject to enforcement.
A law which is never obeyed or enforced is redundant And the victim of a crime who sees the lawbreaker go unpunished/unrepentant would be entitled to question God’s morality.
Of course, if one of the tennis players owned the actual tennis court, bribed the umpires, used a bigger racquet, bullied their opponents, cheated whenever nobody was looking, reserved the right to change the rules as they saw fit and decided who could and couldn’t play on their court, that would be their prerogative as owner.
...But we aren’t talking about the creator of a tennis court.
 2. Atheist partner/Heaven
I can’t imagine the scenario you propose. Sorry.
The love of my life shares everything with me. If I was writing stuff on the internet about an atheism versus Christianity dilemma in my life, she would be helping me to write it, reading it over my shoulder, discussing the all the replies with me.
Take time. Be open and truthful with each other. You’ll be OK.
God bless you both.  |
| Loading... | |
| Lion_IRC |
| Posted 07/08/12 at 10:21 PM | Reply with quote #7 |
|
| Fortunately for us, the objective, moral creator of this "tennis court'' we are on does value and DEMAND fairness, justice, forgiveness, love, truth, obedience to the rules... |
| Loading... | |
| BeefEraser15 |
| Posted 07/08/12 at 11:04 PM | Reply with quote #8 |
|
Hey there Seeking, welcome to the forum! I’ll try to keep my responses brief (but I'll probably fail).
Quote: Originally Posted by ST
How do incurable, true sociopaths fit into this view of objective morals coming from God? Are they seen as mentally sick (even though they're perfectly able to think and reason) and thus forgiven if they don't commit any sins stemming from this state? Or are they damned since God's will doesn't reach their heart? The real answer to this question—regardless of what anyone may try to tell you—is that we do not know how God will treat these people, because we don’t know these people in the same way that God knows them, and we don’t love them the same way that God loves them. However, we can trust that because God is merciful and just, he will treat them properly however he judges.
Quote: Originally Posted by ST
Morals could be universal yet not objective at all. Most human beings could experience them the same way but the reason for it could be entirely naturalistic. They could simply exist in our species' mindset because they help us prosper. On what grounds should one believe in them being objective if we exclude wishful thinking? I know you don’t like appealing to our perception that morality is objective, but we appeal to our perceptions all the time to justify certain beliefs. Consider this: why do you think that the past is real? You might say, “Well, it just is real; I know this because I have memories of things that have already happened.” The moral argument works in a similar fashion: apologists assume that morality is objective because we clearly and distinctly perceive that it is, much like how we clearly and distinctly perceive that the past is real. If you disagree that morality appears to be objective, then what if the Nazis had won World War 2 and brainwashed everyone into accepting their ideology? Would there suddenly be nothing “wrong” with exterminating Jews, Romani, socialists, and homosexuals, just because you don’t like who they are or because you think they’re less than human? Of course that’s still wrong, even though no one thinks that it is.
Quote: Originally Posted by STImagine for a moment that your life-long partner who you love more than anything in the world is an atheist. He/she couldn't help it being raised that way, having had bad experiences, facing sad events one after another all throughout his/her life, unable to believe. You, being a christian, achieve salvation and bodily resurrection while he/she goes straight to hell. With this fact on your mind, slowly tearing you apart from the inside, it would be damnation for you even if you're saved! How would one solve this problem? God erasing all memories of him/her would definitely not be a tidy way to do it and it would also seriously mingle with your personality (since it has been influenced so much by him/her over a lifetime), making you not who you originally were. Of course you could avoid this situation by not having a relationship with a non-believer, but let's suppose you also were a non-believer at the time when you got to know him/her. Interesting stuff. Once again, this ultimately isn’t a question that anyone can answer with any certainty, because you’re asking what God would do in a certain situation. In reality, no one knows or loves anyone the way that God knows and loves everyone, so we can’t accurately predict his actions. At the end of the day, after all of our philosophizing is over, we have to trust that God would treat me and my hypothetical partner with perfect mercy and justice. Nevertheless, I’ll give you my personal opinions/reactions here to the main part of your argument: First, it’s worth asking whether this partner would be damned after all. In this ideal scenario that you’ve set up, it seems as if she’s literally incapable of accepting Christ, and is honest in her rejection—that is, she has no emotional resistance to the Gospel, she’s sincerely tried to believe and just can’t because of her background, etc. As I said before, God is both perfectly merciful and just: so what is he to do with her? My guess is that God would not damn her if he knows that deep down, she is honestly rejecting him, and that given better opportunities, she would have accepted him. I could go on, but I think CS Lewis’ thoughts on this in his essay “Man or Rabbit?” are more interesting and helpful than mine. Second, as for me—the one trapped in heaven while my partner is damned—I don’t think that God would allow me to suffer any sadness or worry in his presence (see Revelation 21:4). I don’t know what this would look like in particular—e.g., whether God would erase my memories of her, whether he would allow me to see why she was damned or why her damnation is ultimately right, etc. Forgive me for being presumptuous, but I think I understand why these questions are bothering so much, because I’ve had the same trouble before. It seems like you’re worried that if there’s some part of God that you can’t fit inside of philosophical reasoning—for instance, if you can’t be certain of what he would do in such-and-such a scenario—then you’re irrational to believe in him. But this just isn’t the case. As Pascal said, Christ is not the God of the philosophers; he’s not a God you can neatly explain, define, analyze, or predict, because he is an extraordinarily powerful, intelligent, and loving being—not a machine or some kind of algorithm. Is it a bit scary to put your trust in something you don't fully grasp? Definitely. But irrational? No. You’ve probably already done it before, but I encourage you to sit down and read Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) and sincerely ponder what he’s saying. Try to see the Christian idea of God as a person in a relationship with humanity, and less as a concept that can be fully understood with human reason. |
| Loading... | |
| CrashTestAuto |
| Posted 07/09/12 at 02:37 AM | Reply with quote #9 |
|
Welcome to the forums. I won't try to push you in either direction, as the two issues you raised (beyond lack of evidence) are about as good reasons to be an atheist as you need. However, I am curious to ask you something.
Given the two issues you raised are very powerful, and illustrate an awareness of what we should expect from a 'good' God, in contrast with what we actually see. Why do you want to believe? Is it is as simple as fear of death? I would think brief reflection on the prospect of living forever would be enough to cure you of that fear. |
| Loading... | |
| Ivaj |
| Posted 07/09/12 at 05:08 AM | Reply with quote #10 |
|
Regarding objective morality. In order to determine if objective moral values exist we must first establish how we determine if something is objective. I will get to that but first I will tell you one way that you definitely not determine objectivity and that is feeling that it is. Feeling that something is a certain way is the very definition of subjectivity. So that is a big no no. It's an intellectually bankrupt way of determining objectivity. Ok so how do we do it?
First we must establish what it means that something is objective. Something is objective when it is independent of subjects. We humans are classified as subjects so objective must be independent of us. So when you see in a discussion people in favor of objective morality appeals to the universal agreement of child rape being wrong or those in favor of subjective morality points out the universal non agreement that homosexuality is wrong, they are making irrelevant points. I have made this irrelevant point myself but I have grown in understanding of the issue. The only thing relevant is if we have an objective framework or not. So how do we determine if we have an objective framework or not? Well I do it by using observation. To illustrate this lets take math as an example. In math we have simple expressions that almost anyone can calculate and advanced expression that almost no one can calculate (you see now why it's irrelevant what moral answers people give). But in math there is a right answer to all the expressions. We know this because the foundation of math is the behavior of sets. We can observe that when we have a set of two and add it to another set of two we will get a set of four. So our ability to observe the foundation of math justify us to believe math is objective. So in order to be justified to believe in objective morality we must be able to observe its foundation (no we don't do that by "feeling it").
I have by my observations concluded that subjective moral values and duties exist. Now you do the test and see what you conclude.
Best of luck. |
| Loading... | |
| Damoksta |
| Posted 07/09/12 at 07:41 AM | Reply with quote #11 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SeekingTruth
#1. Objective morals
- How do incurable, true sociopaths fit into this view of objective morals coming from God? Are they seen as mentally sick (even though they're perfectly able to think and reason) and thus forgiven if they don't commit any sins stemming from this state? Or are they damned since God's will doesn't reach their heart?
There's objective moral values, and then there's ethical judgement. Ethical judgement is when other things are being considered upon beyond objective moral values and duties - e.g, slavery and the Negros, the Holocaust, etc. In the case of sociopath, personal considerations - rage, jealously, self-image etc, trumps empathy or objective moral values and duties.
Quote: - Morals could be universal yet not objective at all. Most human beings could experience them the same way but the reason for it could be entirely naturalistic. They could simply exist in our species' mindset because they help us prosper. On what grounds should one believe in them being objective if we exclude wishful thinking?
2 points
1) You are assuming naturalism is true. Is it? If you have looked at WLC's arguments and cannot find a good rebuttal to the KCA and the fine-tuning argument as well as the resurrection of Christ then it naturally follows naturalism isn't true. If naturalism isn't true, evolutionary naturalism and by extension evolutionary psychology becomes very dubious.
2) Even if you somehow believe evolutionary psychology is true in the face of supernaturalism and fit into some form of theistic evolution framework, evolutionary psychology and the sociobiological account is then merely moral epistemology i.e. how we get to know morality; it's not moral ontology i.e. the reality of moral and how it is grounded.
---
Quote: #2. - Unable to reach heaven either way
Imagine for a moment that your life-long partner who you love more than anything in the world is an atheist. He/she couldn't help it being raised that way, having had bad experiences, facing sad events one after another all throughout his/her life, unable to believe. You, being a christian, achieve salvation and bodily resurrection while he/she goes straight to hell. With this fact on your mind, slowly tearing you apart from the inside, it would be damnation for you even if you're saved! How would one solve this problem? God erasing all memories of him/her would definitely not be a tidy way to do it and it would also seriously mingle with your personality (since it has been influenced so much by him/her over a lifetime), making you not who you originally were. Of course you could avoid this situation by not having a relationship with a non-believer, but let's suppose you also were a non-believer at the time when you got to know him/her.
The Bible specifically mention a person of the Trinitarian God - The Holy Spirit, part of whose work on Earth is not merely to counsel and help the church and the believers, but to also convict the world of sin.
Now, in this hypothetical situation, you as a Christian has the responsibility to try to reach out to your partner and spread the good news and pray for her. If you have fulfilled your side of the bargain and God has done His job, your hypothetical partner not being saved ultimately comes down to her refusal to acknowledge man's wretchedness.
So given this I don't see why you would hypothetically feel guilty. Guilt would only come from the knowledge that you could have done something and the outcome could have actually changed. |
| Loading... | |
| BeefEraser15 |
| Posted 07/09/12 at 09:58 AM | Reply with quote #12 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by CrashTestAuto
[The] two issues you raised (beyond lack of evidence) are about as good reasons to be an atheist as you need.
Why would the two issues he raised justify atheism? If objective morals do not exist, then there may still be a god, but he isn't the Christian God. Similarly, if it would be unjust for God to punish your partner, then the Christian idea of a God who saves and turns away is incorrect, but there may still be some sort of deity who created the universe.
Quote: Originally Posted by CTA
I would think brief reflection on the prospect of living forever would be enough to cure you of that fear.
It depends on what or whom you're living forever with. If I were trapped in a room with only my own thoughts to keep me company, then eternal life does indeed suck, and I'd probably just prefer to stop existing. But if I were in communion with an infinitely good and loving God, then living forever isn't so bad. |
| Loading... | |
| BeefEraser15 |
| Posted 07/09/12 at 10:01 AM | Reply with quote #13 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Ivaj
...I will tell you one way that you definitely not determine objectivity and that is feeling that it is. Feeling that something is a certain way is the very definition of subjectivity.
So if I feel that my parents love me, is it only subjectively true that they do?
Quote: Originally Posted by Ivaj
So in order to be justified to believe in objective morality we must be able to observe its foundation (no we don't do that by "feeling it").
I have by my observations concluded that subjective moral values and duties exist.
Why don't we do that by "feeling" it? We "feel" things and conclude that they exist every day--be it the reality of the past, the existence of the external world, the love of our friends and family members, etc. These are all things you cannot systematically prove, but that you nevertheless embrace because of a deep awareness that they're real. |
| Loading... | |
| Ivaj |
| Posted 07/09/12 at 11:17 AM | Reply with quote #14 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by BeefEraser15
So if I feel that my parents love me, is it only subjectively true that they do?
It's true that you and your parents feel certain things. I can't conclude anything regarding your parents feelings based on that statement. Feelings are by it's very definition subjective. You can however say that it is objectively true that you hold a certain feeling.
Quote: Originally Posted by BeefEraser15
Why don't we do that by "feeling" it? We "feel" things and conclude that they exist every day--be it the reality of the past, the existence of the external world, the love of our friends and family members, etc. These are all things you cannot systematically prove, but that you nevertheless embrace because of a deep awareness that they're real.
I am not talking about senses (smell, touch, sight, hearing and taste). I am talking about emotions. You can justify belief in all of your examples above through your senses.
So if I feel that God does not exist, how does that affect the proposition of God existing?
Feelings are not a good way of determining objectivity. |
| Loading... | |
| SeekingTruth |
| Posted 07/09/12 at 11:23 AM | Reply with quote #15 |
|
First of all, thanks for replying! I've read the posts a few times and appreciate all of them. I will now be going through them again one-by-one and writing replies.
@rsmartin: Thanks! I certainly won't give up on this goal.
@Chris9809: Thank you for sharing your past and for your interesting take on my second question.
You wrote: "They are a joining of souls in a sense, a unit, they are one." I would love some elaboration on that when you have the time (no rush really, I'm planning on sticking around) because I find it hard to imagine this from a christian perspective (since supposedly we all separately need to come to Christ to achieve salvation).
@Matthias: Thanks. I'll be sure to read through that thread both you and Chris mentioned. For me, the "if you want to believe you will end up believing" does not work. While I would want to, I can't hold a certain belief for too long if I even have the slightest doubt. My problem is that I have doubts concercing both world-views.
@CrashTestAuto: The reason is simple, really. Of course, the general fear of absolute obliteration plays a huge part in it, but there is also a longing for something more than what life as we see it has to offer. Due to my past I more often than not feel burnt-out and see life as unbearably plain.
@Ivaj: I can't really reply anything worthy to this since its exactly the view I'm drawn to concerning objective morality. Thanks for your insight!
@BeefEraser15: Thanks for the post! Although I think I've covered most of it replying to others, you raised an interesting question. "If you disagree that morality appears to be objective, then what if the Nazis had won World War 2 and brainwashed everyone into accepting their ideology? Would there suddenly be nothing “wrong” with exterminating Jews, Romani, socialists, and homosexuals, just because you don’t like who they are or because you think they’re less than human? Of course that’s still wrong, even though no one thinks that it is." In a sense, from the view of the naturalistic explanation, it wouldn't be wrong. Didn't our morals constantly develop throughout history? What we see as a wicked, horrible turn now could be considered right after a good amount of time spent brainwashing. Of course, thinkers of that hypothetical time could begin reasoning and logically determining that jews, gypsies and the rest are not in any way lesser than aryans and a revolution would come. This is also not a good argument because there was a time when slavery was not considered to be wrong by most people, which is a testimony to the fact that morals depend on the subject, is it not?
@Lion_IRC: "aren't you conceding that the answer lies at some point beyond your current reach?" Maybe I did not understand you correctly, but the answer to that question depends precisely on whether morals are objective or subjective. If morality has a naturalistic explanation, then it should be in the reach of humanity to understand it. Naturalistic theories have also been proposed and I find them just as (if not more so - due to my personal experiences) plausible as the theological one.
@Damoksta: Thank you! You raise some interesting points but I find your view questionable. You mention arguments for the supernatural to justify your doubts about morals being subjective, but that's just exactly what they are. Arguments. Not proof, not even physical evidence. Now, it's important to note that I'm not questioning their credibility, I just find your "in the face of supernaturalism" claim to be unjustified and dependent on a subjective view of the world.
Now, onto your second point. Why should morals be any more grounded than that? If we accredit then to evolutionary and social processes, the question is not "how we got to know morality" but rather "how we developed morality from absolute zero". You presuppose from the very beginning that morals are objective.
Concerning your answer to my second question: It isn't about guilt. It's the pain of losing him/her forever, knowing that he/she suffers etc. It certainly wouldn't fit into the picture of eternal happiness heaven promises.
@Archsage: Thanks for your lengthy and detailed argument! I throughoutly enjoyed reading it, but it couldn't convince me for the following reason.
Your argument comes down to faith as a grounding in the end. You then wrote: "So, that is my real answer. If you believe in yourself, and yourself is telling you that somethings are actually wrong, regardless of whatever anybody thinks (even yourself at times), and you have no other reason to doubt this, then it is most rational for you to accept that premise as True. Or, if you believe in someone as trustworthy, and they are telling you that somethings are actually wrong, regardless of whatever anybody thinks (even themselves, at times), and you have no other reason to doubt this, then it is most rational for you to accept that premise as True." It has taken me some time to properly articulate my concerns with this and I'm still not satisfied with the results, but here goes anyway. I do believe in my judgment, but it doesn't exclude the possibility that the values ingrained in me have a naturalistic explanation. Moreover, I have a good reason to doubt the objectivity of them. In my darkest days, I was absolutely convinced nothing is objectively wrong. I experienced this perfectly clearly. Now I know you included "even yourself at times" in your answer, but this clearly shows that morals can be modified this way and are dependent on subjects. How could they be objective then? You give an answer to this by saying "And yes, our understanding of morality is certainly determined by our biology.", but this also presupposes that morals are objective. If we formulate your statement this way: "our morality is certainly determined by our biology" leaving out the whole "understanding of" part, it won't be that reasonable to infer to objectivity from faith anymore. I have one more question. Maybe it should be written as a separate #3. one because it interests me greatly, but what you're saying sets the stage so perfectly. "There is a difference, between one's body and one's self. If they do not want to do something, or act a certain way, but they still act a certain way (doing the things that they do not want to do, thinking the way that they cannot control) then who is at fault? Who is to blame? Certainly not them! It's sad, as it is their physical bodies that are warring against them. What wretched people they are, but thank God for Jesus, through whom they'll have life, if they are willing. Be sure to make the distinction between your body and yourself. You won't be blamed for what your body does, and what your body wants and wills. It is an animal. And your body will die. But us? As long as we keep our minds off of the flesh but on things of God, even though our body dies, we will still live. But if we keep our mind on the flesh, when our body dies, we will die with it." You make a distinction between body and soul/mind/self, which is not hard to follow right until we get to what you wrote about sociopaths. "If they do not want to do something, or act a certain way, but they still act a certain way (doing the things that they do not want to do, thinking the way that they cannot control)" What is the soul then? If we accredit even our thoughts to the physical body, what remains to live after death at all? Aren't our thoughts and emotions the very things that make up our self? Some kind of pure, thoughtless consciousness wouldn't fit into the christian image of the afterlife. Sorry if I missed anything guys! I recommend watching this video: because it shows how our perception, the very thing we rely on to determine objectivity, can be influenced by all sorts of stuff. It deals with things such as why do we feel something to be sweet, cute, sexy or funny, but I think a line can be drawn from here straight to the question of morality (why we think things to be right or wrong, that is). |
| Loading... | |
