Philosoft

<strong>Dave: You have left out the fact that human beings are NOT, by nature, good. Much less are they, by nature, perfectly good.</strong>

Then you do not have an objective standard. To speak of God's morality as objective, as one would speak of, say, gravity is nonsensical. We cannot overcome gravity by behaving in a certain way or by holding certain subjective opinions, yet we can very easily do so with your so-called "objective morals." If morals are forces that govern our behavior, then they would rightly be called 'objective' if we were unable to betray them. But no matter how much semantic sleight-of-hand you wish to use, the fact that we have at least a superficially free choice whether to follow God's moral code (remember, multiple violations don't even guarantee a trip to hell) means the units of said moral code are no more than strong suggestions.

<strong>Furthermore, created beings are both ontologically, epistemologically, and ethically dependent upon the only authoratative standard, from which all meaning derives - God. God created the universe and made the rules. The standards that His creatures hold to must conform with God's standards.</strong>

Geez, even God isn't this authoritative. He's willing to let us into heaven after numerous moral code violations; all we have to do is repent a bit and believe in Hey-zeus.

<strong>Dave: I was not saying that I have met atheists who explicitly affirm that "chance is a basis for subjective morals".</strong>

What do you mean then? I suspect most atheists don't go around thanking "chance" for rewards that hard work brought them. And "chance" didn't have much to do with the deaths of two local college students this weekend; bad driving was the likely culprit.

<strong>Dave: yes, we must take God's word, because His word is the necessary precondition for humans to have any meaningful, non-arbitrary, coherent moral norms.</strong>

You have yet to show how his word is a)necessary; b)non-arbitrary. Merely asserting these things does not bestow truth.

<strong>Dave: you say "whatever this means"...and then you say it is non-sequitur?? You need to understand what I said before you can charge me with such a thing! In any case, you are simply not understanding that my defenition of "intrinsic" simply means "inherent to our nature". But it is indeed God who is the author of our nature.</strong>

Forgive me for my presumption. I was using this definition: "Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent." [emphasis mine]

This is getting rather tedious, but I'd say nothing God decrees can be "essential" by definition. It simply is. To say that God must have done something one way or another is an obvious violation of logical omnipotence.

DaveJes1979

rainbow walking

Dave: arbitrariness is certainly possible on the subjective end of things, but it does not follow that it is a necessary part of the objective standard. Much less does this fact make the standard itself arbitrary.

Or imagine this. Put 5 people into 5 different rooms, each with a copy of the Bible. They all come out with 5 interpretations. A problem, yes? Ahhh, but what is the variable in that scenario? The variable is PEOPLE. Thus, we have constructed a proof that one should not trust in people - not that the Bible is somehow not trustworthy.

[quote]You can’t tell me the church hasn’t dealt with this problem since its inception. It doesn’t matter if the morals are perfect and match the needs of all humans. The arbitrariness will surface in the enforcement of those moral values…every time. [QUOTE]

Dave: alas, in a world of sin, that is a correct assertion. But, once again, how does this do a discredit to the standard itself?

On the subjective end of things, the Scriptures tell us that God's Spirit guides Believers to a sufficient (yet imperfect) knowledge of the things He has revealed in the Scriptures. Understanding God's providence is what prevents sin from making the potential of arbitrariness into a reality.

Dave: your agnosticism precludes the possibility of any such warrant. Have you wondered, however, that a theistic worldview might have such a warrant?

Dave: what is this required? The whole point of objective truth is that it exists, and is true REGUARDLESS OF ANY SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS ON THE MATTER.


Dave: I am not sure what you mean by "evidence." All evidences must be interpreted by a set of presuppositions. I have argued that Christians presuppositions are necessary preconditions for man gaining any knowledge at all. I have yet to see how atheism can account for forms of knowledge such as morality.

So I have indeed ARGUED for my case.

Dave: then even in arguing with me, and attempting to put forward an alternate epistemology or theory of ethics, you have given me every reason to reject it, if arbitrariness is unavoidable. I might as well ground my theory of ethics in an ice cream cone than I would be compelled to accept your alternate scheme.

Dave: do we arbitrate arbitrarily?


Dave: I sincerely hope that you are not confusing arbitrary philisophical constructs with "arbitration". In any case, the ethical model you outlined is rather question-begging. Precisely, what makes something "beneficial" to do? What makes a "universal tendency" ethically good?

Dave: is this caricature supposed to be a meaningful part of your argument?

Dave: you keep attaching the phrase "we know" to your sentences. Precisely, how do you know? Precisely, why do we values our lives? Should we? How do you know you are not perfect? How do you define perfection? Your comments are all very question-begging.

Dave: again, more assertions without substantiation.

Dave: chance regulates? Does chance have ontological existence as well as causal powers? How can chance "regulate" - and bring order, when chance is antithetical to uniformity of any kind?

Dave: you are assuming, here, that community existence somehow becomes, or ought to become normative. Why?


Dave: ahhh, you "prefer" that, huh? I prefer vanilla ice cream. So what? How do you turn preference into an ethical system?

Dave: why do we, or should we believe they are valid? What is the criteria for validity, and what methodology should we use to test this?


Dave: and what, precisely, makes human life and liberty an ethically good thing?

Dave: more question begging. How does one determine what the "desired result" is?

Your ethical construct is not only arbitrary, but it raises more questions than it can answer by itself. A tower of meaningless assertions cannot stand.

Dave: and you are mistaking the packaging for the essence. Of course people commit atrocities "in the name of God". That does not make those actions a consistent expression of the Christian faith. You cannot blame the Christian faith itself for actions committed from a defective version of it. Are you to blame, if I go out and murder in the name of Rainbow Walking?

Dave: once again, Christian ethics do not somehow become arbitrary simply because unethical people exist. Thus, it is not a "pipe dream". And, yes, all human knowledge is dependent upon God- including the knowledge of ethical norms such as "murder is wrong".

Dave: you seem to ignore the fact that experience must be interpreted before it is meaningful. But in order to attach ethical meaning to experience, one must already have an ethical system in place.


Dave: all of your "what if" questions already presume that God doesn't exist. You are just arguing in circles.

Dave: what else is chance, except man's inability to predict the future with certainty?


Dave: really, NO ONE knows? Just because you don't know, why do you assume that no one knows, or can know?

Dave: because Hebrew slavery (as opposed to Roman slavery) was endorsed by Scripture.


Dave: the Bible is accepted presuppositionally, not through inductive verification.


Dave: if its not effective, then why are they so devout?

Dave: as a mere man, you are judging by outward appearances. I am sure you are surprised from time to time. Fortunately, God is not unaware of the struggles that exist in anyone, even His own advocates.

Dave: men have no problem "picking and choosing" because of sin. You know, if you would head the words of Scripture more closely, you would realise that sin has radical noetic effects, and you would not be so surprised at all of this.


Dave: why else would one embrace a philosophy, unless it is morally pure and superior? Are we to strive for an impure philosophy? Even in criticizing me, you are demonstrating that you have your own high horse.

Dave: God's self-revelation in the Bible.

Dave: then, are we to believe that God doesn't have a will to "see things fit"? Your conception of God is seriously defective.

Dave: the problem is that NO ONE has lived a moral life. And, yes, God will take out his just vengeance and wrath upon evildoers.

Dave: yep.


Dave: the Scriptures teach us that "vengeance is Mine, I will repay."

Dave: that's not a straw-man, its the conclusion to my argument. A straw-man is when an opponent's view is MISREPRESENTED. What did I misrepresent?

Dave: and you have failed to give us justification for your standards. Even if you have any "standards", you have already conceded that they must be arbitrary. So why should we believe them?

Dave: rather than trying to divert the issue to original sin, why don't you actually answer the challenge I gave. What is the criteria that determines what is a "right" or "wrong" consequence? What methodology does one use to test a given consequence?


Dave: and why should one ascribe value to human life?

Dave: so are you proposing an ethical democracy? Doesn't this hamper any attempt at reforming a given society, since it is the society that dictates what is ethical?

Dave: and what, precisely, should make us value other, or even ourselves? What criteria do we use to decide HOW MUCH we are to value an individual?

Dave: but your proposed ethical system entails that we actively confer value, and thus the right to live, based on our own standards of value.

Dave: try actually answering the dozens of questions that I posted on the last post, and in this post.

[quote]Dave: I never claimed that God's might makes Him right.

Rw: No? Then what was this?

God will enforce His laws as He sees fit. Even those who "get away" with evil in this life will surely not go unpunished in the life to come. God will repay. [QUOTE]

Dave: that statement says little more than the fact that God has might that He will use to DO right. But never did I say that His rightness is contingent upon his might.

Dave: this is a "fact" because it is axiomatic to the Christian worldview. This worldview, I have defended, is true because it is the necessary precondition to having true, non-arbitrary moral knowledge.

Dave: matter certainly has attributes, but attributes are abstract concepts. Gravity is still a material, physical force. Abstraction entails more than invisibility. Human thought is not an "attribute" of the human brain, although the human brain does facilitate human thought. Once again, if you define abstract concepts IN MATERIAL TERMS, then you have made the term meaningless.


[Rw: On the basis of their individual needs as a self aware human being and how they can integrate the fulfillment of those needs within the broader basis of their family and community with the least amount of resistance.

Dave: more question-begging. Precisely, how do we evaluate our "needs", define "fulfillment", etc. Even a theist could agree that we should seek fulfillment and provision for our needs. You haven't presented us with a meaningful alternative yet.

Dave: is that sentence arbitrary? Your assertions are self-refuting.

Dave: again, how does one evaluate what is or is not a "need", and how does one evaluate which community to be a part of, or to what extent this need/community compromise must take place? More questions than answers, friend.

Dave: maybe maximum results are bad. That is plausible, under the framework you have outlined for me.

Dave: if God did not intervene, then we would have no Scriptures, no church, and sin would prevail always.

Dave: these are based on defect value assignment do to the misuse of Scripture.

Dave: the wars that God commanded Israel to fight in the Old Testament.

Dave: many were not. I doubt that I will see the popes of the Crusades in heaven.

Dave: you didn't answer the question.

Dave: if there is no God, then why SHOULDN'T people just shrug? Again, its just matter in motion to the materialist. How can one be outraged by the products of chemical reactions?

Dave: its not a straw-man. I never denied that Islam or Christianity are derivatives of Judaism. But Islam and modern-day Judaism are defective derivatives of the faith of Abraham. I believe that the Christian worldview is "right", and I am more than willing to defend it from the Scriptures or philisophical argument. As a matter of fact, I have spent many hours doing just that in my Muslim outreaches.


Dave: once again, implicit in this thinking is the idea that moral norms must inherently prevent anyone from breaking them. Moral norms only entail that GUILT and punishment comes upon the lawbreaker - not that it prevents the existence of lawbreaking. This is not a law of physics!

Dave: because only the Christian view of theism can provide a coherent, non-arbitrary foundation for ethical conduct. Allah, for instance, in the Quran is quite arbitrary, since He does not consistently dispense justice.

Dave: but what sort of "expansion" is desirable, and what things do/should the constituency desire, that their "spirit" not be broke? What is community expansion even desirable to begin with?

Dave: and you ascribe value to human life because...? Bin Laden obviously did not share your value system. Why should we choose your value system over his?

Dave: that doesn't meaningfully answer the question. We both agree that one finds meaning in reality. My question is, how can your "reality", your worldview, provide a basis for meaning amidst any historical event?

Dave: because this atrocity was a manifestation of his curse, his wrath on humanity. God is glorified even in his just wrath.

Dave: are laws against arson as severe as laws against murder? Is there an injustice committed when a tree is chopped down?

I would also point out that your apparent utilitarianism grounds "value" in the subjective person. Of course, how can one truly object to Bin Laden, since those in the WTC were not worth much to him?

Dave: these are "unsupported" because, as I pointed out before, they are axiomatic.

Dave: so do I have the right to murder those who I have deemed have no yet actualized their own self-worth? Why not, since, on your own terms, they are worthless. If I do not have this right, from where do you ground their human rights?

Dave: why is it in their "best interest"??

Datheron:

Dave: hmmmm...your "game set match" depends on alot of strange assumptions. I never said that all atheists have to adopt Carl Sagan's views. I said that his statement encapsulates the general views of materialism. You may not want to start your victory party so prematurely.

Of course, this does leave room for the fact that some atheists are not "pure" materialists. There are inconsistent materialists. But they are just that - inconsistent.

Dave: once again, how is one to avoid any emotional element when discussing moral injustice?

Dave: human life is not cheapened by realizing what God designed us to do.

Dave: certainly, some have done atrocities in Christ's name, but such cannot be demonstrated to be a consistent expression of the Christian worldview (being defined by the Scriptures).

Dave: I dunno. I could probably whack a few people that I don't like, and I'd still have alot.

Dave: the "most" being defined as???? This is question-begging.


Dave: why do you take the result of historical, unguided chemical processes to be a moral precedent?

Dave: well, we are indeed sinners. As such, we deserve God's wrath. But that does not make us worthless to God, since God can restore us to new life, that we may serve and enjoy Him forever.

I would also note that this life does not "mean nothing", since the actions of this life affect our eternal destinies. The future life aside - we still live to serve and enjoy God. Eternal life is TODAY for Christians, not just in thefuture.

Dave: seeing as how materialism seems to be the majority report around atheistic circles, I saw fit to use it as an example. Thus, your charge of a "straw man" is not justified. I did not say, nor imply, that all atheists were materialists.

And I do deny that "matter can represent the abstract in some shape of form", because representation is itself a form of abstraction.


Philosoft:
Dave: I mean that, explicit or not, many atheists seem to want to make "chance" a universal principle operative in the universe.


Dave: I have argued this by noting that since God, by His nature, is good, eternal, and unchanging, He alone can provide the necessary preconditions of making moral norms meaningful. Atheism, by defenition, does not have any such Concrete Universal to ground their knowledge in.

Dave: well, I think your understanding of God's omnipotence is flawed. I have posted my exposition fo the Christian understanding of omnipotence under the "omnipotence is circular" thread, that I can recommend you consult. The short end of the stick is that God acts according to His nature. His actions are not arbitrary, but flow from His eternally good, wise, and necessary nature.

Dave Gadbois

DaveJes1979

P.S. to Rainbow:

perhaps you can retain some brevity in your posts from now on, by refraining from using a "shot gun" scatter method of argumentation. Focus in on a few issues, don't ask unnecessary questions, and don't go off on diversionary tangents. Please also omit "rants" that contain no logically argumentative content.

I'm sure everyone will appreciate it.

Dave Gadbois

Jack the Bodiless

Let me get this straight.

Are you a Jew, Christian or Muslim? If not, what are you?

If you believe that the Biblical God is the "normative standard of good", then (to use just one of many, many examples) killing the innocent firstborn sons of a group of people you don't like, purely to demonstrate your own power, is one of the "normative standards of good"?

"God is a non-arbitrary standard because He is, by nature, eternally and perfectly good". WRONG. Some people have arbitrarily decreed that the Biblical God exists and is "by nature" eternally and perfectly good. Your argument is as follows:

1. Grab an arbitrary standard.
2. Declare it to be absolute.
3. Don't let anyone else do this with any other standard.
4. Declare your standard to be superior because it's (supposedly) non-arbitrary.
5. Declare victory.

Anyone can do that, with ANY standard.

For instance, "because there is no God", morality based on evolution is, by definition, "right", because it is based on fact. Therefore all other systems of morality are both false and arbitrary. You have no case, because your arbitrary God cannot "account for" anything at all: "God did it" is not sufficient.

Jack the Bodiless

This is odd:
So the very existence of the Bible and the Church is proof of the existence of the Christian God? They could not exist without God?

But the Koran isn't proof of the existence of Allah, the Vedas aren't proof of the existence of Vishnu, etc etc etc...

Can you not see how arbitrary this is?

anarchocyclist

anarcho: What I have done is summarize the scientific findings of a few zoologists who have been searching for a biological (naturalistic) explanation for the development of what humans call "ethics." I'm not attempting to found a new field here, and I don't pretend to have the intellectual or edcational experience of other frequent posters. I have come to the conclusion that the universe explains itself without the need for a deity, and these theories of evolutionary ethics seem sound to me.

Dave: and this STILL leaves you with no defensible ethical system.

I may have missed something, but I didn't promise or attempt to deliver a "defensible" ethical system. As a matter of fact, I tried to avoid that side of the argument altogether.

anarcho: Even so, correctness is different than morality, even if the concepts are linked. I may indeed be "right" (correct) in coming to the conclusion that evolutionary theory adequately explains morality, but this has nothing to do with moral "rightness."

Dave: they are indeed linked, as you point out. But this contradicts your claim that "this has NOTHING to do with moral righteness."

Forgive my hyperbole. Now then: Do you really believe that factual correctness is equal to moral correctness?

anarcho: What I meant to say was: You SHOULD believe it if it seems sound to you.

Dave: why should I believe something if it "seems sounds" to me? What is soundness? All of these things presuppose an ethical system - the very thing you have not provided!

By "sound" I meant logical. If the conclusion appears to flow logically from the evidence, I will put some stock in it, perhaps even adjust my behavior accordingly. If I conclude that walking off the edge of a cliff will result in grievous bodily harm to myself, I will avoid the edge. Is this morally correct?

anarcho: To paraphrase a certain effective debater from these very forums (fora? fori? forae? Latin is so confusing), I don't believe; I either know it to be true, know it to be untrue, or come to a conclusion based on the evidence available to me. Such conclusion is subject to change upon the discovery of new evidence. I don't care what you believe, as long as you don't impose it on me. So, no, I guess you shouldn't believe it after all.

Dave: indeed, I shouldn't. Unfortunately, your appeal that I shouldn't "impose" my beliefs on you ignores the fact that we don't live in a sociological vacuum. Any contact we have with others can potentially involve imposition. Of course, we ought to have ethical systems that guide us, so that we don't wrongfully impose ourselves when that happens!!

I agree, ethical systems are necessary and effective in our world, which you rightly conclude is not a sociological vacuum. You've found a flaw in what I meant to be an offhanded statement, and it's a good one. I apologize for not expressing myself clearly enough to avoid the need for clarification, but let me offer this: I don't care what you hold to be true, as long as your belief does not conflict with my ability to express myself or live with some measure of liberty. I suppose this does imply an ethical system, but let me reiterate: I was deliberatley avoiding that side of the argument.

However, in my original post I attempted to support the arguments of others here who conclude that ethical systems based on reasonable evaluation of the evidence are preferable to systems based on the assertion that "God said so, so it must be true." Is God held to any rules of ethics? He must have created them himself, since he created everything. Sounds arbitrary and meaningless to me.

[edited to include the following:]

My apologies to those who may have already covered this ground in this post. I solipsistically paid attention only to the sections which applied to me. Time to go back and reread the rest of the discussion.

[ May 13, 2002: Message edited by: anarchocyclist ]</p>

anarchocyclist

"...which you rightly conclude..."

By the way, I was using the definition of right which refers to factual correctness rather than moral superiority. Just to avoid any confusion.

jlowder

You're using "objective morality" in a totally non-standard way, so your "semantic sleight-of-hand" accusation is completely out of line. To say that morality is objective is NOT to make a claim about the possibility of someone acting contrary to objective moral laws. Rather, to say that morality is objective is to claim that moral laws are true independently of anyone's opinion.

jlowder

jlowder

This is just a series of assertions. I'm still waiting for an argument. You say, "if one abandons the universal God, one must turn to a non-universal. Thus, non-objective." A "non-universal" what? And WHY would automatically be "non-objective"?

You still haven't explained what you mean by "universal." I don't want to make any assumptions about what you have in mind. Why can't necessary ethical truths be a "universal"? Necessary ethical truths are based on neither preference nor convention.

I would glady do that if I had an opinion, but I am undecided on which ethical system I think is true.

Then we need an argument for the existence of the Christian god.

The problem is that you haven't provided any arguments yet. All you have done is states a series of assertions or ... presuppositions. You haven't shown that "God is the necessary precondition of any knowledge or meaning whatsoever." I'm still waiting for an argument.

What good is it? It shows that a favorite theistic argument is fallacious. Consider a parallel from recent scholarship on the problem of evil. In response to so-called "logical" arguments from evil, all the theist has to do in order to refute such arguments is demonstrate that it is logically possible for God and evil to co-exist. Of course, atheists can instead argue (and in fact do argue) that certain facts about evil are more probable on the assumption of atheism than on the assumption of theism. But that is a different argument.

Similarly, in response to "logical" moral arguments, all the atheist has to do in order to refute such arguments is demonstrate that it is logically possible that objective morality can exist without God. Of course, theists could argue that certain facts about ethics are more probable on the assumption of theism than on the assumption of atheism. But that is a different argument.

Agreed, but point (1) was never intended to construct a positive system.

You're still begging the question that I have to answer that question in order to refute your moral argument.

I stand by what I wrote above. The universe is unpredictable given our limited and finite knowledge, but that doesn't mean it is random.

What is the foundation of objective ethics? I don't know ... yet. There are some options available to the atheist. However, I would like to focus on your presupposition that an objective ethics needs a foundation. On the assumption that ethics is objective, why should we believe it has or needs a foundation?

But remember that I posed a meta-ethical question when I started this thread.

jlowder

Philosoft

How can a "law" that essentially says, "you should not murder another person" be considered objective? Objective standards of what you should do? Absurd.