Atheism and Ad Absurdum

[Kylie]

One thing that really bothers is: why do religious people get to call their idea of a God-revealed or God-judged morality "objective" at all? I mean, its the very least objective of any theory of morality out there. No one can show us a shred of evidence for it.

And if the morality is objective because it comes from God, would they be comfortable if their God required them to kill someone? I mean, if they truly believed it, then they should be convinced that it is objectively good to take the life, right? And so have no problems doing it.

 

[durangodawood]

However, you are unable to provide information for this objective basis for morality. How far does it extend? You seem to have suggested that it works for murder, that is, murder is objectively wrong. But I assume that when we go for milder and milder examples, it gets less and less objective until we get to things like what is a suitable punishment for when your toddler draws all over the walls. At what point is the cut off? When the objective morality applies, how exactly do we apply it? All you've done is say there's some objective component to morality and left the rest to speculation. Are you able at all to be specific?

Yeah, murdering your neighbors is objectively wrong IF we're the kind of creatures that naturally value life, safety, and basic happiness.

And yes, punishing kids is a great example where they gray area is fairly large. Not all gray though. I dont think any culture hold that cutting off a finger is acceptable.

I'm not able to be specific about all kinds of cases off the cuff. Each case requires some pretty deep examination of human nature, culture, and history. We could take one and explore it. Like gay rights for instance. Or slavery.

 

[durangodawood]

And if the morality is objective because it comes from God, would they be comfortable if their God required them to kill someone? I mean, if they truly believed it, then they should be convinced that it is objectively good to take the life, right? And so have no problems doing it.

What does that even mean, the bolded part?

What exactly is the "objective" part of a mere claim about the origin of morality?

If anyone can show me that morality is revealed by a god, then I'll call it "objective" too.

 

[Speedwell]

Well I never said there is "an objective morality" as if its all or nothing.

For like the millionth time, Ive said that enduring morality is based on the the objective facts about human living. That leave open all sorts of other influences on morality as well, like cultural contingency and even personal opinion.

So many people here say there is no objective basis for morality at all. That all I'm fighting against.

You're wasting bandwidth. I've been trying that same line to no avail in the "morality" thread. It's either that moral precepts are the pronouncements of God or they are arbitrary man-made constructs with no more relevance to the fundamentals of human nature than the by-laws of a quilting club. Both sides of the argument want it framed in that way and poor old Aristotle is rolling in his grave.

 

[Kylie]

Yeah, murdering your neighbors is objectively wrong IF we're the kind of creatures that naturally value life, safety, and basic happiness.

How is that objective? Can you show the reasoning behind it? Since you say it's objective, you should be able to provide support that's to the same standard as for any other objective fact.

I'm not able to be specific about all kinds of cases off the cuff. Each case requires some pretty deep examination of human nature, culture, and history. We could take one and explore it. Like gay rights for instance. Or slavery.

So it's NOT objective?

 

[Kylie]

What does that even mean, the bolded part?

What exactly is the "objective" part of a mere claim about the origin of morality?

If anyone can show me that morality is revealed by a god, then I'll call it "objective" too.

Many Christians seem to me to set the standard for what is good or not on what God says. God is the final authority on the matter, they say. So morality, having come from God, is objective. God has the final say on the matter. And if God makes some moral proclamation, then that can no more be argued with that you can argue with 2+2=4.

 

[Kylie]

You're wasting bandwidth. I've been trying that same line to no avail in the "morality" thread. It's either that moral precepts are the pronouncements of God or they are arbitrary man-made constructs with no more relevance to the fundamentals of human nature than the by-laws of a quilting club. Both sides of the argument want it framed in that way and poor old Aristotle is rolling in his grave.

Are you suggesting a sliding scale of objectivity in morality?

 

[Speedwell]

Are you suggesting a sliding scale of objectivity in morality?

Why would a sliding scale be necessary? Are you suggesting that there is a sliding scale of objectivity in the conclusions of social psychology?

 

[durangodawood]

Many Christians seem to me to set the standard for what is good or not on what God says. God is the final authority on the matter, they say. So morality, having come from God, is objective. God has the final say on the matter. And if God makes some moral proclamation, then that can no more be argued with that you can argue with 2+2=4.

Makes no sense. Even for believers there's nothing objective about it. They cant present God's revelations for objective scrutiny of any sort... not even to other believers, let alone to atheists. Its a matter entirely of faith.

Are you suggesting a sliding scale of objectivity in morality?

Of course morality is not just based on objective facts. There's all kinds of other factors in the mix when you get away from certain core issues like murdering your neighbor. Your example of punishment illustrates this well.

 

[durangodawood]

Why would a sliding scale be necessary? Are you suggesting that there is a sliding scale of objectivity in the conclusions of social psychology?

I think the evolution of human morality has other drivers in addition to responding to objective realities. There's all kinds of culturally contingent morality that holds sway until it become untenable. Human sacrifice in Aztec culture might be a good example.

 

[durangodawood]

The binary thinking on an issue this complex is pretty staggering.

 

[Speedwell]

Makes no sense. Even for believers there's nothing objective about it. They cant present God's revelations for objective scrutiny of any sort... not even to other believers, let alone to atheists. Its a matter entirely of faith.

There is no morality for believers. Obeying the arbitrary dictates of an omnipotent being who promises to punish the least lapse with an eternity of torture is not morality, it is merely expedience.

 

[Kylie]

Why would a sliding scale be necessary? Are you suggesting that there is a sliding scale of objectivity in the conclusions of social psychology?

Okay, so then there's no sliding scale.

Is there a cut off point then? Can you tell me what moral issues are objective and which moral issues are subjective? How serious does an issue need to be in order to be objective? Or is seriousness not the measure of which is which? In that case, what is the measure? Can you just tell me clearly how it actually works?

 

[Kylie]

Makes no sense. Even for believers there's nothing objective about it. They cant present God's revelations for objective scrutiny of any sort... not even to other believers, let alone to atheists. Its a matter entirely of faith.

I have seen many believers claim that a thing is objectively good simply because God proclaimed that it was good.

Of course morality is not just based on objective facts. There's all kinds of other factors in the mix when you get away from certain core issues like murdering your neighbor. Your example of punishment illustrates this well.

Glad we agree on that.

 

[Ken-1122]

Answer to post 236

I don't quite understand the question, but I'll give it a try.

An objective fact of human living, is that living humans breath, and have heartbeats and brainwaves.
Humans are mammals
Humans live on Earth and are land based omnivores.



But if we start to consider their wants and preferences, these are subjective to each human.
If we state that most humans value property and recognise that most other animals don't value property we could say that valuing property is subjective to the human experience.

He was trying to make the case that morality was objective. Your explanation does not make his case.

 

[Ken-1122]

Anything a scientist would learn about how humans thrive (or wither) without having recourse to their subjective opinions.... using the same methods we would to study the health of, say, a caribou herd, or a pod of whales.

Those objective facts will result in some people believing specific behaviors are good, and other people believing the same behaviors are bad. IOW objective facts does not lead to objective morality.

 

[stevil]

He was trying to make the case that morality was objective. Your explanation does not make his case.

I wasn't trying to support his case at all. Quite the opposite.

 

[Speedwell]

Those objective facts will result in some people believing specific behaviors are good, and other people believing the same behaviors are bad. IOW objective facts does not lead to objective morality.

What people believe doesn't enter into it. It's whether specific behaviors assist the species to prosper.

 

[durangodawood]

Those objective facts will result in some people believing specific behaviors are good, and other people believing the same behaviors are bad. IOW objective facts does not lead to objective morality.

More all-or-nothing binary thinking.

The other odd thing is how you think everyone comprehends objective facts perfectly correctly just because theyre objective, and always draw the best conclusions reliably.

For you its like: the process either works to perfection, or its totally invalid. Your crazy standard would even deny the validity of science itself, in which we go down dead ends sometimes and controversy is always with us.

 

[Speedwell]

Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind