| QuestingFool |
| Posted 09/09/11 at 07:40 PM | Reply with quote #151 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
We can debate whether or not my axiom can support the conclusion "God exists". But, either way, my axiom is simpler - as yours requires mine.
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
Yes, mine requires yours, but yours hasn't got anything to do with morality so it requires an extra axiom too.
Not according to my earlier argument about morality. I see no reason why I should adopt an additional axiom.
Quote: This isn't an axiom, it is an argument. The conclusion follows logically from the axiom.
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
It's based on an axiom, which we have to axiomatically accept.
Agreed, but:
1. So are all conclusions, and
2. You have already stated that you accept it.
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
Things could have come into being through a number of causes. What makes morality so special it needs Goid as a cuase, as opposed to gravity, e.g.?
I don't argue that morality is unique in this respect. I'd suggest the same cause for the universe.
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
No, I reject the possibility that it can come from God.
On what grounds?
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
It's a strawman to suugest it is subjective. Isn't a personal entity subjective by definition?
Not that I am aware. I certainly agree that a finite personal entity would be subjective, but I don't see why an infinite, omniscient personal entity would have to be.
Quote: What sort of alternative are you suggesting?
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
The same alternative I suggest for every other objective fact: coincidence, evolution...
These do not produce objective moral values, they only produce a feeling inside human beings.
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
Unless you argue for completely different sorts of objective facts, it is clearly not fallacious to suggest the same sort of explanantion can describe it.
I am indeed suggesting different sorts of objective facts. The difference between the empirical and the non-empirical is vast.
Quote: Is increasing the well-being of conscious creatures good even in groups which do not consider it good?
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
Yes.
What makes it that way? Why wouldn't it be "irrelevant" to those groups?
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
What is love?
I'd define it as a relationship to other conscious beings consisting of trust, devotion, and an active desire for intimacy.
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
No, the unspoken premise here is that a thing which has no influence whatsoever on human beings is completely irrelevant to human beings.
I'm not, at the moment, discussing whether or not morality is relevant. I'd be happy to discuss this, but the current point was over whether or not it exists.
Quote: The influence of morality cannot be measured empirically, but this is not a valid test for whether or not a non-empirical claim is true.
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
Well, a non-empiralical test would do.
The non-empirical is not subject to public testing in the same way that the empirical is.
|
| Loading... | |
| QuestingFool |
| Posted 09/09/11 at 07:45 PM | Reply with quote #152 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by creator42
But of course, scriptures are man made, and even if they weren't, their interpretation is subjective, so there is no absolute morality there.
Whether or not they are man-made, the fact that we have to interpret facts does not mean that there is nothing to be learned from them. Science is full of the interpretation of facts (such interpretations are called theories). This does not mean that there is no truth in science.
Quote: Are you arguing that love is not good?
Quote: Originally Posted by creator42
Love can be both good and bad. Hence, the blues.
I'd agree that love can be a factor in making one feel unpleasant. That is quite a different thing from love being objectively immoral.
Quote: If so, what is your understanding of goodness? On what grounds to you call any particular thing immoral?
Quote: Originally Posted by creator42
I think Sam Harris's formulation, that what makes something moral or immoral is how it effects the health and happiness of sentient beings, is very close. Mind you,
I don't believe in absolute morality. That is to say, I do not think anything can be said to be absolutely moral or immoral.
You are certainly free to believe this, but I don't see any argument for it.
That being the case, I see no reason to demand an argument from those who believe in other forms of morality (such as theistic morality).
|
| Loading... | |
| belorg |
| Posted 09/10/11 at 03:16 AM | Reply with quote #153 |
|
I'm am just going to reply to the relevant partts here
Quote: Originally Posted by QuestingFool
I don't argue that morality is unique in this respect. I'd suggest the same cause for the universe.
That's not what the argument from morality is about. It does not say, 'Nothing can come into existence without God, so morality must come from God'. It uses a specific sort of reasoning. My question again, if morality is just an objective fact like gravity or photons, then why do you need a special argument in this case. You don't use separate argumernts for every elemantary particle in tghe universe, do you?
Quote: Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
No, I reject the possibility that it can come from God. On what grounds?
On the grounds that God has no moral influence on several personal beings.
Quote: Not that I am aware. I certainly agree that a finite personal entity would be subjective, but I don't see why an infinite, omniscient personal entity would have to be.
So God is nothing but a universes and morality generating automaton without any sort of free will?
Quote: These do not produce objective moral values, they only produce a feeling inside human beings.
That's what you say. However, if moral values are objective facts, and evolution can produce objective facts, then evolution can produce objective morality unless you have a specific argument that says it can't. But I have yet to hear such argument;
Quote: I am indeed suggesting different sorts of objective facts. The difference between the empirical and the non-empirical is vast.
A fact is a fact.
Quote: What makes it that way? Why wouldn't it be "irrelevant" to those groups?
Because it by definition applies to those groups. It is not just a definition the is only relevant to some strange non-physical being in a spooky supernaural realm.
Tghe well-being of all conscious creatures applies to all conscuious creatures. If not caring about your well-being actually increases your well-being then groups who don't care about their well-being have maximal well-being.
Quote: I'd define it as a relationship to other onscious beings consisting of trust, devotion, and an active desire for intimacy.
OK, now can you give an argument for why a God who does not have this 'love' leads to a logical contradiction?
Quote: I'm not, at the moment, discussing whether or not morality is relevant. I'd be happy to discuss this, but the current point was over whether or not it exists.
Morility that does not apply to me is not absolute and not objective. So the relevance of objective morality and it's existence go and in hand.
Quote: The non-empirical is not subject to public testing in the same way that the empirical is.
Well, does objective morality as you describe it have any effect on people who do not care about it, and what exactly (or even possibly) is this effect.
Now, I have been very patinet throughout this thread, but I am asking you for the third and last time:
what is the influence (or even the possible influence) of morality on those who do not care a bit for it?
I suspect you cannot answer this question, but if you can, please do. if you keep on dodging it, I can only conclude that your position is indefensible and I will have to leave this thread because rational discussion would be impossible.
|
| Loading... | |
| QuestingFool |
| Posted 09/10/11 at 08:27 AM | Reply with quote #154 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
That's not what the argument from morality is about. It does not say, 'Nothing can come into existence without God, so morality must come from God'. It uses a specific sort of reasoning. My question again, if morality is just an objective fact like gravity or photons, then why do you need a special argument in this case. You don't use separate argumernts for every elemantary particle in tghe universe, do you?
I agree that this is not the argument for the origin of morality. The reason why I do not accept an empirical explanation of morality is that it is non-empirical.
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
No, I reject the possibility that it can come from God.
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
On the grounds that God has no moral influence on several personal beings.
Other objections aside, on what grounds do you conclude that God has no moral influence on some people? Is their unawareness of any influence a reason to conclude that it has not occurred?
Quote: Not that I am aware. I certainly agree that a finite personal entity would be subjective, but I don't see why an infinite, omniscient personal entity would have to be.
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
So God is nothing but a universes and morality generating automaton without any sort of free will?
Is there a reason why having an objective perspective must necessarily preclude the possibility of free will?
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
That's what you say. However, if moral values are objective facts, and evolution can produce objective facts, then evolution can produce objective morality unless you have a specific argument that says it can't. But I have yet to hear such argument;
That a thing is able to produce objective facts of one kind does not mean that it can produce objective facts of another. For example:
Premise 1: Evolution can produce objective facts.
Premise 2: 2 + 2 = 4 is an objective fact
Conclusion: Evolution can produce the fact that 2 + 2 = 4
is clearly a fallacious argument.
Evolution through natural selection produces alterations in organisms. It can certainly produce feelings within organisms. It cannot, however, produce any sort of objective fact we can propose.
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
Tghe well-being of all conscious creatures applies to all conscuious creatures. If not caring about your well-being actually increases your well-being then groups who don't care about their well-being have maximal well-being.
Why should those who can maximize their well-being without regard for the well-being of others care about the well-being of others? Is the well-being of others relevant to them?
Beyond that, why accept this axiom in the first place? It seems simpler to accept my axiom alone.
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
OK, now can you give an argument for why a God who does not have this 'love' leads to a logical contradiction?
I see no reason to do so. I have said that, so long as it is even possible that love is part of God's nature, this line of questioning cannot find a contradiction between theism and morality. Whether or not there are contradictions in other views of God does not alter this fact.
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
Morility that does not apply to me is not absolute and not objective. So the relevance of objective morality and it's existence go and in hand.
I would not accept the premise that a thing which does not affect you is not objectively true.
However, you may be arguing that morality is a special case which ceases to exist if it cannot be shown to be applicable. I do not accept this either, but it seems to contradict your "a fact is a fact" statement. So, please let me know if this is your position.
Quote: The non-empirical is not subject to public testing in the same way that the empirical is.
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
Well, does objective morality as you describe it have any effect on people who do not care about it, and what exactly (or even possibly) is this effect.
I can't say that I know what you mean by "effect" here. It certainly has an effect in that those who do not adhere to it are being immoral. There are any number of non-empirical parts of life which this effects.
You, however, don't seem to want to discuss the non-empirical. Do you mean that the effect must be physically measurable? That it must be psychologically felt by every person on earth? Something else?
Please let me know which, as well as why you consider it to be the case.
Also, what is the effect of the idea that we should increase well-being on those who are not interested in doing so? Well-being applies to all, but the axiom that "we should seek [it]" doesn't seem to have any effect on my life.
|
| Loading... | |
| belorg |
| Posted 09/10/11 at 01:56 PM | Reply with quote #155 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by QuestingFool
I agree that this is not the argument for the origin of morality. The reason why I do not accept an empirical explanation of morality is that it is non-empirical.
That's what you say, but you are begging the question here.
Quote: Other objections aside, on what grounds do you conclude that God has no moral influence on some people? Is their unawareness of any influence a reason to conclude that it has not occurred?
On the grounds that I have already asked you three times to tell me about this 'influence' and you seem incapable of doing so.
Quote: Is there a reason why having an objective perspective must necessarily preclude the possibility of free will?
If I have an objective will and you have an objective will, the our wills are necessarily the same, so how do I have free will? I can only do those things that are objectively good.
Quote: That a thing is able to produce objective facts of one kind does not mean that it can produce objective facts of another. For example:
Premise 1: Evolution can produce objective facts.
Premise 2: 2 + 2 = 4 is an objective fact
Conclusion: Evolution can produce the fact that 2 + 2 = 4
is clearly a fallacious argument.
Now, we are getting somewhere, so you are NOT arguing for objective facts like gravity, but for neceesary truths.
So, so also think that for 1+1 to be 2, God is required, that the truth of 1+1 = 2 depends on God?
Quote: Why should those who can maximize their well-being without regard for the well-being of others care about the well-being of others? Is the well-being of others relevant to them?
It probably is, but let me remind you that it is you who requires that an objective moral truth should apply to everybody and cannot back up this claim.
Quote: Beyond that, why accept this axiom in the first place? It seems simpler to accept my axiom alone.
Because your axiom alone does not lead us anywhere without also accepting the axiom that there is some supernatural realm with some sort of objective personal being that you cannot even show the relevance of.
Quote: I see no reason to do so. I have said that, so long as it is even possible that love is part of God's nature, this line of questioning cannot find a contradiction between theism and morality. Whether or not there are contradictions in other views of God does not alter this fact.
You make the claim that love is an essential part of God's nature. Now, if you don't want to back up this claim, there is no point in discussing this any further.
Quote: I would not accept the premise that a thing which does not affect you is not objectively true.
Objectibe morality according to you applies to everybody. So, if it doesn't apply to me, it's not objective. That follows from your definition.
Quote:
However, you may be arguing that morality is a special case which ceases to exist if it cannot be shown to be applicable.
That follows from your definition. Objective morality applies to everybody. Now, you haven't shown me why your type of morality applies to me or to anyone else who does not care a bit about God, therefore, it's abundantly clear that your type of OM cannot possibly exist.
Quote: You, however, don't seem to want to discuss the non-empirical. Do you mean that the effect must be physically measurable? That it must be psychologically felt by every person on earth? Something else?
Well, I am asking you. You claim objective morality comes from God, so I would expect you to know what exactly you are talking about.
But that does not seem to be the case, so I am leaving this thread.
Thanks for the discussion anyway.
|
| Loading... | |
| creator42 |
| Posted 09/10/11 at 01:58 PM | Reply with quote #156 |
|
Quote:
Whether or not they are man-made, the fact that we have to interpret facts does not mean that there is nothing to be learned from them.
Certainly, but the fact that we have to interpret scripture in order to understand the
deity or deities therein makes our understanding subjective, rather than objective. Thus, neither scripture nor an understanding of a deity or deities can not be a foundation for objective morality.
Quote: I'd agree that love can be a factor in making one feel unpleasant. That is quite a different thing from love being objectively immoral.
Love can be both objectively moral and immoral, depending on the circumstances.
Quote: That being the case, I see no reason to demand an argument from those who believe in other forms of morality (such as theistic morality).
I make no demands. I just politely asked for examples of how divine command theory is applied in real world, or even hypothetical moral decision making, in an effort to better understand what makes divine command theory superior.
What I am specifically interested in is whether or not divine command theory is consequentialist. That is to say, does your deity judge intentions, consequences
or both? Is ignorance of consequences a mitigating factor, or does your deity impose an obligation to understand the consequences of moral decisions?
An example or two of how divine command theory copes with morally unintuitive problems would be instructive.
|
| Loading... | |
| creator42 |
| Posted 09/10/11 at 02:00 PM | Reply with quote #157 |
|
Quote:
Whether or not they are man-made, the fact that we have to interpret facts does not mean that there is nothing to be learned from them.
Certainly, but the fact that we have to interpret scripture in order to understand the
deity or deities therein makes our understanding subjective, rather than objective. Thus, neither scripture nor an understanding of a deity or deities can be a foundation for objective morality.
Quote: I'd agree that love can be a factor in making one feel unpleasant. That is quite a different thing from love being objectively immoral.
Love can be both objectively moral and immoral, depending on the circumstances.
Quote: That being the case, I see no reason to demand an argument from those who believe in other forms of morality (such as theistic morality).
I make no demands. I just politely asked for examples of how divine command theory is applied in real world, or even hypothetical moral decision making, in an effort to better understand what makes divine command theory superior.
What I am specifically interested in is whether or not divine command theory is consequentialist. That is to say, does your deity judge intentions, consequences
or both? Is ignorance of consequences a mitigating factor, or does your deity impose an obligation to understand the consequences of moral decisions?
An example or two of how divine command theory copes with morally unintuitive problems would be instructive.
|
| Loading... | |
| QuestingFool |
| Posted 09/10/11 at 08:04 PM | Reply with quote #158 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by QuestingFool
I agree that this is not the argument for the origin of morality. The reason why I do not accept an empirical explanation of morality is that it is non-empirical.
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
That's what you say, but you are begging the question here.
Are you arguing that morality is empirical? I see no reason to believe that.
Quote: Is there a reason why having an objective perspective must necessarily preclude the possibility of free will?
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
If I have an objective will and you have an objective will, the our wills are necessarily the same, so how do I have free will? I can only do those things that are objectively good.
I don't remember asking about an objective will. I meant to ask about an objective perspective, and whether or not there is a contradiction to free will.
Yes, it seems entirely possible that two people could see an objective truth, but choose to act differently in response to it.
Quote: That a thing is able to produce objective facts of one kind does not mean that it can produce objective facts of another. For example:
Premise 1: Evolution can produce objective facts.
Premise 2: 2 + 2 = 4 is an objective fact
Conclusion: Evolution can produce the fact that 2 + 2 = 4
is clearly a fallacious argument.
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
Now, we are getting somewhere, so you are NOT arguing for objective facts like gravity, but for neceesary truths.
So, so also think that for 1+1 to be 2, God is required, that the truth of 1+1 = 2 depends on God?
If you wish to draw a verbal distinction here, I have no objection with referring to what I have called "objective morality", the "necessary truth of morality".
I don't see a logical support for the necessary truth of morality via evolution. Do you?
Quote: Why should those who can maximize their well-being without regard for the well-being of others care about the well-being of others? Is the well-being of others relevant to them?
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
It probably is, but let me remind you that it is you who requires that an objective moral truth should apply to everybody and cannot back up this claim.
You don't require this?
To be clear, you don't feel that moral truth should apply to everybody? If that is the case, why have you asked me so many questions about applicability?
If, rather, you mean to say that my concept of morality should apply to all, but yours should not, why is that? Can I avoid bothering with Sam Harris' proposal of well being simply by not caring about it?
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
Because your axiom alone does not lead us anywhere without also accepting the axiom that there is some supernatural realm with some sort of objective personal being that you cannot even show the relevance of.
You have not yet provided a rebuttal of my argument:
Premise 1: One's basic mental experiences are objectively extant
Premise 2: Morality is a basic mental experience
Conclusion: Morality is objectively extant
I see no reference to a supernatural being there, yet it is obvious that my axiom leads to morality.
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
You make the claim that love is an essential part of God's nature. Now, if you don't want to back up this claim, there is no point in discussing this any further.
You asked a question; I answered it.
But I am not here to debate the particular essence of God's nature, I have merely responded to this line of questions because I thought you were planning on building an argument on them.
If, however, you are not going to do so, but simply demand that I build an argument about an issue I never had any interest in discussing, I see no reason why I should do so here. That is another topic entirely.
Quote: However, you may be arguing that morality is a special case which ceases to exist if it cannot be shown to be applicable.
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
That follows from your definition. Objective morality applies to everybody.
Yes, by definition, it applies to everyone in the sense that any who do not practice it are being immoral. What other effect do you feel it needs to have in order to fit my definition?
Quote: You, however, don't seem to want to discuss the non-empirical. Do you mean that the effect must be physically measurable? That it must be psychologically felt by every person on earth? Something else?
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
Well, I am asking you. You claim objective morality comes from God, so I would expect you to know what exactly you are talking about.
If you are asking me, I'd say the answer is clear. It applies to all in that all are moral or immoral based on its standards. That seems very straight forward.
Quote: Originally Posted by belorg
But that does not seem to be the case, so I am leaving this thread.
Thanks for the discussion anyway.
Have a great time, then.
But, as I apparently have been given the final word, I will definitely take advantage of it.
Here are my final points:
1. We don't need Harris' axiom
It is clear that the axiom I've provided supports the existence of objective morality. A syllogistic argument was given and never refuted (or even rebutted). That being the case, it is a clear violation of Occam's Razor to accept Dr. Harris' axiom above and beyond that.
What is called for instead, is not to simply claim a new axiom, but to ask ourselves what could logically support morality.
2. Theism provides an explanation for morality while non-theism does not
I've seen good arguments that any support for an objective "ought" would need to be an objective consciousness, and no good arguments for secular ethics (Harris admits that he has no arguments, and that his position is purely axiomatic).
Moreover, I agree that some concepts of God would not support ethics, but, as we are seeking such a support, those should be discarded in favor of examining those concepts which do provide support.
3. Morality is contingent on God, not on some unnamed empirical test
Demanding empirical effects as support for non-empirical propositions is both an obvious confusion of categories and a self-defeating argument. There is nothing in the axiom we both accepted which leads us to conclude that we should only accept that which affects the empirical. This is another axiom, which seems as unnecessary as Harris'.
Beyond that, this argument, if accepted, would completely destroy the suggestion that we ought to increase well-being, as that claim has no effect on those who do not care about it.
4. Objective morality is evidence for theism
In short, I've seen very good reasons to believe that morality is rooted in an objective consciousness, and no good reasons to believe that it is rooted in anything else. In terms of the Craig-Harris debate, I'd have to conclude that morality is, in fact, contingent on God.
|
| Loading... | |
| QuestingFool |
| Posted 09/10/11 at 08:32 PM | Reply with quote #159 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by creator42
Certainly, but the fact that we have to interpret scripture in order to understand the
deity or deities therein makes our understanding subjective, rather than objective. Thus, neither scripture nor an understanding of a deity or deities can not be a foundation for objective morality.
The fact that we are human beings makes our understanding of everything subjective. I see no reason why this can discredit the existence of any particular objective fact (let alone one fact without discrediting others).
Quote: I'd agree that love can be a factor in making one feel unpleasant. That is quite a different thing from love being objectively immoral.
Quote: Originally Posted by creator42
Love can be both objectively moral and immoral, depending on the circumstances.
What system of objective morality do you hold? I was under the impression that you believed that nothing was absolutely moral or immoral (that is, no universal objective morality exists).
Quote: Originally Posted by creator42
I make no demands. I just politely asked for examples of how divine command theory is applied in real world, or even hypothetical moral decision making, in an effort to better understand what makes divine command theory superior.
It is superior in that it offers a logical foundation for objective ethics. If, however, one does not offer a system to which it can be compared, there is no means of showing it to be superior or inferior.
Quote: Originally Posted by creator42
What I am specifically interested in is whether or not divine command theory is consequentialist. That is to say, does your deity judge intentions, consequences
or both? Is ignorance of consequences a mitigating factor, or does your deity impose an obligation to understand the consequences of moral decisions?
Divine Command Theory is both and neither. That is, there are various forms of it, some of which are consequentialist.
I'm not a utilitarian myself, however, and tend to believe that intentions are the significant factor. Thus, in my view, ignorance of consequences for one's self would not be a mitigating factor, though ignorance of consequences for others would be. Here, there is no obligation to understand, but there is an obligation to honestly seek to understand.
I hope that answer is satisfactory. In addition, please let me know how you would answer these questions regarding your own moral theory - as well as outlining the basis of what it is.
Quote: Originally Posted by creator42
An example or two of how divine command theory copes with morally unintuitive problems would be instructive.
One example that was used earlier was that of parents who drug their child into a blissful catatonic state, and otherwise provide for all present and future needs for the child.
A view based on promoting happiness would seem to conclude that this is a morally acceptable or commendable act. My view is that it is not, in that I consider there to be factors other than promoting happiness in being ethical.
|
| Loading... | |
| GreatPumpkin |
| Posted 02/12/12 at 05:15 PM | Reply with quote #160 |
|
The reason Dr. Craig mocked the questioner is because he didn't understand the deeper implications, or lacked the philosophical charity to extract the serious debate imbedded within it. Even in this thread, some of it is alluded to, but much is glossed over.
First, let's look at the possible claim:
1. "god revealed something to me"
2. "that revelation contradicts a revelation from someone else"
1a. First, we have no way of knowing this is true or not. Not from Noah, Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Mohammad, Andrea Yates, George Bush, Sai Baba, Joseph Smith, or the multitudes of people who have claimed revelations of one kind of supernatural source or another.
1b. Is the Christian doctrine that revelation no longer happened after the death of the apostles or not? After all, that means christians can't appeal to revelation to explain the Canon, which could, for example, throw out the books that claim homosexuality a sin. It would also make Dr. Craig wrong when he said god revealed himself to him, and that god reveals himself to people to this day... Something is horribly amiss with all Evangelicals if the Age of Revelation ended hundreds of years ago.
2a. There is no way of proving that a god doesn't reveal things to people today, since there is no way of knowing the Christian god is the right one, that the bible is completely revealed (Canon or text).
2b. Further, there is no reason a god can't reveal contradictions to old laws to a new generation. After all, that is the whole point of the NT, and one can see that in a short spam, god told people not to murder, then commanded them to murder... (kill illegally, which is what genocide is).
|
| Loading... | |
