Dr. Retard

Of course, it's easier with specific cases than general rules, but I think we have moral knowledge. I don't have an opinion on the exact character of moral knowledge (maybe it's like the knowledge we get from empirical observation? maybe not?), but I don't know any grounds for doubting that we have it. To put my cards on the table, there does seem to be something a bit "apart" about morality, but I have yet to see a good argument to such a conclusion. And I'm quite convinced that anything intolerably weird about morality cannot be solved by the existence of God. The two seem to have nothing to do with each other.

Sure, ok, then we'll stick with C1 (or something just like it, which refers to justified claims instead of knowledge).

Yes, and I'm stupid.

First, we need to know how in order to be justified in affirming C1'. I certainly can't see how and until I do, I probably won't give C1' much credence. This, of course, is not a request for how God does it in the real world, in your opinion. It's just a request for an in-principle theoretically-possible method for humans to gain moral knowledge in a God-world.

As regards your case, it suffers the same problem. Why should we believe God when he says, "I hold the belief that I never lie"? Perhaps he's putting us on. Another, much slighter problem is how we could come to know in the first place that this chatty being is truly omniscient. But the main problem is that we cannot be justified in trusting what the being says unless we are sure that he's always-honest. And how could we come to know that?

[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: Dr. Retard ]</p>

luvluv

Dr. Retard:

I've always been operating under the assumption that we were dealing with a God who was truly omniscient and HELD true beliefs (not that he necessarily told them to anyone). So whatever such a God might say, his KNOWLEDGE would provide a possible ground for the theist to learn of the true nature of value and morality. I still don't see that how we come to know this, or even IF we come to know this, is a significant issue. Verifying one's values is possible within theism and impossible within atheism.

But given, as Christians are, the belief in a God who does not lie and who is omniscient, why would his statements about what he holds to be true be enough?

Dr. Retard

About the signifance of those questions, I agree. But I think it's clearly a significant issue whether it's even POSSIBLE to come to know this. And this is what I am questioning. I grant that God's moral knowledge would reflect the true nature of value and morality. But I don't see how any human could access this knowledge. I mean, if atheism is true, the true nature of value and morality is "out there" -- it's part of reality. But the question is whether we can access it. You say it's impossible, which I grant for the sake of argument. The parallel question: is it possible to access God's moral knowledge?

Christians believe in an always-honest, omniscient God, sure. But the question is whether they are justified in this belief. An atheist can believe that he possesses an infallible moral faculty that grants him access to the true nature of value and morality. A Christian can believe that knows of an always-honest, omniscient God who shares his infallible moral knowledge. But can either of them justify their beliefs?

SRB

Luvluv
I explicitly said that the ease with which it is possible to know God's heart on moral issues is totally irrelavent to the argument.

SRB
Your main problem is that you don't really have any clear argument. For sure, you have things to say. But that's not the same thing as having an argument.


SRB
One problem, however, is that it is doubtful that there are any such people.

Luvluv
A) Prove it.

SRB
See <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/arguments.html" target="_blank">here.</a>

SRB

luvluv

Dr. Retard:

I disagree. It does not necessarily follow that if there is not God, then the true nature of value and morality is "out there" -- part of reality. (After all, many, if not most, atheists do not think that this is so) It is much easier to argue that if there is no God then the true nature of value and morality are "in there"... in the minds of humans. And since humans often disagree, then it would be easy to argue that given atheism there is no "true" nature of value or morality.

Yes. We could ask Him, and He could tell us.

Now can you describe, within atheism, how to arrive at the true knowledge of morality "out there"?

The question, again, was about the comparative abilities of each position to justify their moral structures. If said atheist was a rationalist or an empiricist, it would be nearly impossible for him to justify the belief that he has an infallible moral faculty. A Christian who believes that God has told Him some aspect of the nature of morality can believe that aspect to be true based on the laws of logic.

Again, my contention is regarding the internal consistency of the two positions vis a vis their abilities to justify rationally their moral convictions.

Thus, if there is no God, the atheist has no logical grounds for concluding that he or she has infallible moral knowledge. All empirical data and rational argument would suggest that this was not the case. The atheist could only preserve this opinion of his infallibility through naked faith in a highly unlikely proposition.

However, if there is a God, then the theist can know that whatever information about morality that he receives from God is true, because God holds it to be true. The conclusion would have rational support.

SRB:

None of that even approaches proving that there has never been anyone who has heard from God about the true nature of morality.

K

luvluv:

The theist is on equally shakey ground if he or she claims moral infallibility. The number of theists making such claims with contradictory morality is enough to disprove the infallibility of divine moral revelation.

If the theist believes in an omniscient god who is intent on unambiguously divulging the one true morality to that one individual theist (excluding billions of other theists and atheists in the world), then that theist is also basing his or her morality on "naked faith in a highly unlikely proposition."

luvluv

K:

Who said any of this?

The point of this thread, again, is that it is possible for the theist to rationally justify his moral beliefs and it is not possible for the atheist. I've said several times that I don't consider this a big point for theism (because theists do not hold that you can only believe something if it is completely rationally justified).

So EVEN IF the theist is unjustified (which I don't think he is), it's not that big of a deal. However, there is no justification for morality within the atheist system and therefore the atheist should hold no moral views to be true or untrue.

That's the only point I've been trying to make. No one said anything about God revealing moral truths to only one theist at the exclusion of other theists, only that it is clearly possible to prove moral facts within theism and, to date, clearly impossible to do it within atheism.

Nova Andromeda

--You are a complete idiot did you know that? All theistic beliefs are based on the supernatural belief in god(s)! This means that everything based on those belief including morality is irrational! In fact, you contradict yourself by saying theists can rationally base their morals because they don't have to rationaly justify something to believe in it!?!
-As for atheists' morals they are rationally based you bigoted moron. It is called humanism (for many atheists) and is based on the objective reality of things like pain, suffering, death, and the desire to minimize them. My own moral foundations are more detailed and rationally justify the moral base of minimizing pain and sufferring, but that is another story.

[ November 18, 2002: Message edited by: Nova Andromeda ]</p>

K

luvluv:

All I'm saying is that a theist is on no sturdier ground when making absolute moral claims than an atheist is. The theist may believe that she has a command from God just like the atheist may believe that he has tapped into some fundamental moral foundation. In the end, they are both unsupported beliefs.

However, I have seen relatively few atheists claiming moral objectivity. Most of the atheists I've come in contact with are moral relativists. Therefore, they make no claims that any moral claims are true in an objective sense.

Dr. Retard

Here is my joke answer to this: Atheism is true and moral objectivism is true, so by the truth-conditions of a conditional proposition, atheism entails moral objectivism.

Here is my real answer: I should have said "atheist moral realism". Right now, I take it, we're assuming the reality of (objective) moral facts, and asking whether atheism or theism provides us a means of justifying our belief in these facts.

That might be a way of accessing his knowledge. The Magic 8-Ball might be a way of accessing God's moral knowledge. The question is, is there a way we know we can trust? And until we have reason to believe that God's being honest with us, he cannot take his word for it.

How about the Magic 8-Ball? I'll suppose, only for the sake of argument, there is no means independent of God to arrive at moral truth. But that doesn't mean that God provides a means to arrive at moral truth. Perhaps there's no means at all for arriving at moral truth. This is, I think, the absurd consequence of the supposition we're entertaining.

What laws of logic allow you to deduce "p" from "God told me p"?

Hold on, how could empirical data and rational argument undermine the idea that we have an infallible moral faculty? I thought your position was that empirical data and rational argument could neither support nor counter moral claims.

If God holds p to be true, then p is true.

If God tells me that p is true, though, what follows? Only that God told me. I still have no idea if p is true, assuming that I have no other way to judge p's truth.

P.S. Hey, K, over here, moral objectivist.

[ November 19, 2002: Message edited by: Dr. Retard ]</p>