Danielboy

Yeah! Only Jews should die for working on sabbath! Don't you even know that!

So much for objectivity.

[ January 21, 2002: Message edited by: Danielboy ]</p>

Scrutinizer

Bill,

This seems pretty inconsequential. If we were talking about knowledge, we could say that God is omniscient by nature. One could, therefore, make the same argument for bin Laden, claiming that bin Laden is omniscient by nature, but what's the point? If what is "good" is defined by God's nature, it is an objective rather than subjective good. We're not just talking about any other subjective being's opinion of what is good -- we're talking about the Ground of Being, the very being that defines the nature of reality. Thus, the comparison to bin Laden seems to confuse categories, as God's "opinion" isn't just an opinion like bin Laden's.

Regards,

- Scrutinizer

Ms. Siv

Religious morality, by definition, is subjective.

There is no reason not to kill, steal, lie, rape, etc. other than that God told us not to. Indeed, if God had commanded the opposite, we would be morally required to kill, steal, lie, rape, or whatever God commanded.

But if you define morality as strategies which work well in a group/tribe, then yes, such strategies exist (as per game theory) and are called ESS - Evolutionarily Stable Strategies.

- Sivakami.

Jamie_L

But if God's nature must be interpretted (as seems to be the case since so man Christians disagree, and since the OT seems to be used sometimes and not used others), then the morality of CHRISTIANS seems subjective, even if it is still derived from some objective standard.

How Christians act and back up their behavior seems very subjective.

Jamie

thaiboxerken

It seems strange to me that this "objective" morality changed from society to society and from time to time in the Bible. The Christians say that the OT laws don't apply to them, but they do for the Jews. If morality is objective, why would it be different for the Jews vs everyone else? Why is the OT so harsh and strict with death penalties but the NT is all about love and forgiveness? Wouldn't an objective morality be constant throughout all time?

I guess "God" realized some mistakes in his "laws" so he changed them. OMG.. I just said that "God" has flaws. Hmmm..

copernicus

If Christians are not bound by the Old Testament, then why do they get so worked up over not being allowed to post the Ten Commandments in our public schools? And why are the Christian Commandments different from the Jewish ones? Didn't Moses give the same laws to both groups?

This conundrum of objective vs. subjective morality is a little bit scary. So-called "objective" morality refers to a moral code that is external to the individual. Presumably, atheists follow their own subjective moral instincts. What this suggests to me is that there is some difference between God's external sense of right and wrong and their own internal sense of what is right or wrong. That's why very religious people make me nervous. Given that their religious foundations are built on "faith"--a seriously subjective element--does anyone really want to be around a Christian who is experiencing a crisis of faith? Worse yet, what happens when a Christian subjectively believes that killing is wrong but that God designates it as "moral"? That's when we have pro-lifers shooting doctors and blowing up clinics, or islamic fundamentalists piloting planes into buildings.

Bill Snedden

This is non sequitur.

1) The definition of "objective" is "having reality independent of the mind."

2) Morals are based on values.

3) "Value" presupposes a "valuer". Values, by definition then, cannot be objective because they cannot exist independently of the mind.

4) Morals, therefore, cannot be objective.

If it is any beings' opinion that X is good, then it is a subjective and not an objective judgement regardless of from whose mind it originates, even God's.

Even were we to grant that value could somehow be objective, the claim that this alleged "objective value" is somehow rooted in "God's nature" fares no better. Consider:

A) Things are good because God commands them to be so.
B) God only commands that which is good.

What is the difference between A & B? I submit that unless we have an external standard, which you would seem to deny, there is no way to tell the difference. What is good? In both cases, it's whatever God commands. It doesn't matter that God's nature is good and that He could never command evil; we would never be able to know the difference. In other words, there's no way to test this hypothesis; it's completely unfalsifiable.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

Ms. Siv

Is that your position ?

Because 2 and 3 are not true.

- Sivakami.

Bill Snedden

It is my position. In fact, I would say that 2 & 3 are self-evident.

2) Morals are based on values. For example, "do not kill" presupposes the value of human life, "do not steal" presupposes the value of personal property, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" presupposes the value of one's own life. I could go on and on.

To refute this, all you would need to do is provide an example of a moral rule that requires no values in order to be held true.

3) "Value" presupposes a "valuer". This one seems so self-evident to me that I'm not sure how to provide an example. Why are little gold rocks considered to be of such value that we can exchange them for goods and services? Because we agree that they are. What would little gold rocks be worth without people? Nothing. The same can be said for every other valuable thing of which I can imagine.

To refute this, all you would need to do is provide an example of a value that exists independently of subjective consideration.

Good luck.

Bill Snedden

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

scombrid

Copernicus said:

Funny you should mention that. James Kennedy's sermon on Sunday this week was on the meaning of the commandment "thou shalt not kill". He eventually got around to saying that it really should be translated as "thou shalt not murder". In that he explained that unjustified killing, such as abortion (he really harped on abortion), was murder. However, killing a convicted murderer or killing somebody in war was justified in the eyes of God and not murder. He quoted some other scripture to support this stance. The jist of the sermon was that abortion is murder and war and the death penalty are fine and anybody that tells you otherwise is twisting the bible. It seems to me that his interpretation of scripture is entirely subjective here, as I know many theists that would disagree with him and claim that he is twisting the bible.