Is morality objective, even without God?

[Bradskii]

Nothing new here, just word salad to deflect.

Let me help you out. Here's an example of a concrete moral question.

An atheist, let's call him Brewski, joins a Catholic chat group. In the group Brewski tries in vain to export the misery of his atheist worldview. So, against forum rules, he reenters as an alias, let's say as Fredski, in order to become in his alternate persona an even more aggressively sarcastic atheist. He then posts in his other atheist forums bragging that he has duped the Catholics.

Object: Member reenters forum against the rules to which he agreed to abide as an alternate alias to deceive other members as to his identity.
Intention: Deception.
Circumstances: Brags to others in another forum how he has duped the members of that forum.

Now, kindly give us your moral judgement on that act.

Bad Fred. Now do you have any divine guidance for the moral problem regarding the place of a woman within a marriage? Should my wife be subject to me?

 

[Bradskii]

If reality is deterministic then WE don't actually decide what we consider to be moral, we just believe that we do. It's actually the antecedent conditions that are determining morality for us...

You're still making a decision. That choice still represents who you are. Do you have any choice about who that person is? Not really. You can change. Or rather you can be changed. So if you offer me a good argument for not acting in a particular way, if you can persuade me, then I will change my views.

Just bear in mind that this happens whether you have free will or not. It's just that here's no 'mini me' somewhere making decisions on my behalf without reference to the conditions. Without considering your arguments. Without being determined by antecedent conditions.

As regards morality, if the universe is deterministic then there will only be one answer to a moral problem. In that sense it could then be described as objective. But not objectively true. We decide that.

 

[Neogaia777]

I spoke a little bit about the beauty of determinism in this thread I started over in the Physical and Life Sciences forum a bit. It centers around the fact of us "not knowing", etc.

Quantum Superposition, Simulations, Simulated realities, and other thoughts.

Quite a bit of random information to be dropped here, so be ready? The point is discussion, and to discuss, etc. Some of my thoughts about quantum theories made me think of this, or brought this up, if you want to discuss this scientifically, etc. I guess video games is maybe where I should...

www.christianforums.com

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Jo555]

Going to try and share the difference. In my cultural heritage, back in the days, and even seen some today, if a man were to walk in a woman's home without her spouse being home, that would be offensive to her and and her spouse. That is morality as i see it.

Now let's say you are the man looking to walk in and you think, well, what's wrong with that? That is old fashion thinking and they need to get with the times, and you disregard their feelings on the matter (all other variables nonexistent) that can cause injury to their conscience and hurt in their heart, then that is a heart issue on your part that is wrong

Nothing new here, just word salad to deflect.

Let me help you out. Here's an example of a concrete moral question.

An atheist, let's call him Brewski, joins a Catholic chat group. In the group Brewski tries in vain to export the misery of his atheist worldview. So, against forum rules, he reenters as an alias, let's say as Fredski, in order to become in his alternate persona an even more aggressively sarcastic atheist. He then posts in his other atheist forums bragging that he has duped the Catholics.

Object: Member reenters forum against the rules to which he agreed to abide as an alternate alias to deceive other members as to his identity.
Intention: Deception.
Circumstances: Brags to others in another forum how he has duped the members of that forum.

Now, kindly give us your moral judgement on that act.

I suspected something like that was going on. You can sense the threads that appear to be doing that.

The authors just appear to be quite clueless as to basic principles regarding God's love and goodness, and some even appear to have a hidden agenda. I'll still drop what i know if i think it will help, just no point in continuing the conversation if they don't appear to be open. Have to let the Spirit work.

I don't need to defend God, but I'll supply an answer if i think it may help, and advise them to seek Him for answers. Just don't expect him to answer your question in the way you expect. He prefers to reveal Himself to you, and reveal you to you because if you don't have that, there will just be more questions along the same lines.

 

[Neogaia777]

Bad Fred. Now do you have any divine guidance for the moral problem regarding the place of a woman within a marriage? Should my wife be subject to me?

You probably don't want my answer @Bradskii, but the rest of Paul's words, and what he has to say about the relationships between a man and woman, and women and men in marriage, etc, were actually very, very much progressive for that day and age and time way back then, etc, and would already be culturally shocking enough for people back in that day, and in that day and age and time and culture way back then, etc. But I think where you are talking about what Paul had to say in this instance was that either Paul himself actually believed that, or it was to prevent himself from being stoned to death or worse at the time, etc, because that was the way all of those cultures was/were back in that day and age and time back then, and was what they all believed back in that age and day and time back then, etc, but some of Paul's other words about a relationship between a man and a woman, was already going to be way, way much culturally shocking enough for the people of that day and age and time way back then, etc. So either that was what Paul actually believed, or he was saying it as butter for the bread as to what he was going to say after that, or what he was going to say next, etc, which would already be way more than culturally shocking enough for them way back then, and in that day and age and time and culture way back then, etc. I think it's kind of outdated now for the most part either way, etc. And that Paul, if he really did really truly and genuinely believe that back then, was speaking from his own humanity in those instances, and also maybe as being a victim to his own culture as well maybe way back in that day and age and time way back then, etc.

And that's my take on that anyway, and maybe some of the other things people of Bible sometimes said and/or did/taught sometimes way back in that day and time and age way back then, etc.

People, and societies, have had nearly 2000 years of social/societal evolution since then, etc. Which would mean that some things would be bound to change between now and then, or since way back then, etc.

And regardless as to whether other people want to believe it or not, God was not always directly speaking through all the apostles/disciples/people who served/followed Him, all of the time and always way back then, etc, but we also have some things that are from their own humanity/flesh sometimes, and/or also their sometimes somewhat limited point of view and/or perspective sometimes (talking about having some of that due to culture here in this instance) back in that day and age and time way back then, etc.

Take Care/God Bless.

 

[Jo555]

Bad Fred. Now do you have any divine guidance for the moral problem regarding the place of a woman within a marriage? Should my wife be subject to me?

Going to go for it as i have quite a bit of spare time today.

The divine guidance is that a woman should subject herself to her husband ... But there is more, the husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church, giving his life for us.

The order is just a framework for when there are disagreements within the marriage. That doesn't mean she puts up with abuses and whatever carnal inclination he has. It is a framework to keep peace and harmony within the marriage.

Should you be subjected to your boss?

Should children be subjected to their parents?

Should we be subjected to the law?

The last one i put in bold as the gospel is quite simple and it all fits into that simplicity, no matter how we spin it.

The law is a framework of God's heart. A shadow of it. It helps to keep things in harmony. Far from perfect harmony, but in harmony until the hearts are united in God's.

If a guy loved me as Christ loved the church, I'd kiss and wash his feet.

 

[Bradskii]

And that's my take on that anyway, and maybe some of the other things people of Bible sometimes said and/or did/taught sometimes way back in that day and time and age way back then, etc.

Of course. It was a patriarchal society. If it was a matriarchal one then you might have had God sending her daughter to save us.

 

[Bradskii]

That doesn't mean she puts up with abuses and whatever carnal inclination he has.

Who decides what she can put up with?

Should you be subjected to your boss?

My wife doesn't work for me.

Should children be subjected to their parents?

Only until they mature.

Should we be subjected to the law?

The last one i put in bold as the gospel is quite simple and it all fits into that simplicity, no matter how we spin it.

So if the gospel said that men should be subject to women, you'd think that would be wrong?

If a guy loved me as Christ loved the church, I'd kiss and wash his feet.

And the reverse, if you loved a guy, would also be true?

 

[Jo555]

Bad Fred. Now do you have any divine guidance for the moral problem regarding the place of a woman within a marriage? Should my wife be subject to me?

Going to go for it as i have quite a bit of spare time today.

The divine guidance is that a woman should subject herself to her husband ... But there is more, the husband is to love his w

Of course. It was a patriarchal society. If it was a matriarchal one then you might have had God sending her daughter to save us.

Who decides what she can put up with?
so
My wife doesn't work for me.

Only until they mature.

So if the gospel said that men should be subject to women, you'd think that would be wrong?

And the reverse, if you loved a guy, would also be true?

You missed the point. Whether a boss or child or law, it's all a structure until perfected in God's love.

No. You are not understanding scripture. All are first and foremost subjected to God out of love for Him foremost, then love for neighbor as self. You need to see scripture in context.

If he wants to kiss and wash my feet out of gratitude too, I'd welcome it, but I'd tell him he may want to wait for me to get a pediicure first.


Just lightening the mood.

 

[Jo555]

It also seems you both have ventured away from scripture and the truth therein. Not that i claim to know it all myself, but you need a foundation to stand on and doesn't seem like we are in the same one. Don't know how productive this will be and I've been on here a long time. I do need to get on with some things but keep asking, with a sincere heart to know, not with any hidden agendas in your heart because if we venture in with hidden agendas that won't help.

 

[Jo555]

Do have to say ine more thing. Sometimes God does call us to put up with abuses for what He is looking to do, but whether we do or don't, it should be by his leading via his Spirit. More i can say on that another time ...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Bad Fred. Now do you have any divine guidance for the moral problem regarding the place of a woman within a marriage? Should my wife be subject to me?

Yes, your wife should be subject to you. But, there are times that, as the Letter to the Ephesians momentarily states, you'll need to be subject to your wife.

 

[Zaha Torte]

No. Why would I?

Look, the facts of the situation are just that. The facts. What you do with them will vary from person to person.

Exactly.

Therefore, our decisions are not ultimately based on any facts - but on our own perception of what we believe is best - or Good.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Do you expect to crank out moral decisions everyone agrees with without a process of discussion?

Is morality decided by consensus?

The claim was made that objective truth was determined by the scientific method.

I asked if the scientific method could determine objective moral truth, and I am still waiting for a satisfactory response.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, your wife should be subject to you. But, there are times that, as the Letter to the Ephesians momentarily states, you'll need to be subject to your wife.

Well...yeah. That's the way that good partnerships work.

 

[QvQ]

Therefore, our decisions are not ultimately based on any facts -

The decisions are circumstantial.
The fact is a person cannot commit theft if everything in his immediate vicinity belongs to him.
If there aren't any other warm bodies around, any sexual sins with same are purely theoretical.
Providence is a major player in "sin." Providence is the Will of God.
So as @Bradskii has stated several times, "It was You who decided or chose the action"(subjective)
That is not entirely correct, even in small regard, due to the limitations of Providence.
Providence is objective.

 

[Bradskii]

Is morality decided by consensus?

The claim was made that objective truth was determined by the scientific method.

I asked if the scientific method could determine objective moral truth, and I am still waiting for a satisfactory response.

No, that claim has never been made. Please stop misrepresenting what has been explained to you. If you are in any doubt, then please use the quote facility and it will be cleared up.

We base our decisions on moral acts on the facts of the matter. You need facts presented before you can make a decision. You cannot make a decision in a vacuum. You need some information on which to base it. Now I cannot for the life of me put that any clearer.

 

[Bradskii]

Exactly.

Therefore, our decisions are not ultimately based on any facts - but on our own perception of what we believe is best - or Good.

No. Good grief, why are you making this so hard...

Our decisions are obviously our personal beliefs about what is the best course of action. Based on the facts of the matter. If I give you no facts then you cannot make a decision.

 

[Bradskii]

The decisions are circumstantial.
The fact is a person cannot commit theft if everything in his immediate vicinity belongs to him.
If there aren't any other warm bodies around, any sexual sins with same are purely theoretical.
Providence is a major player in "sin." Providence is the Will of God.
So as @Bradskii has stated several times, "It was You who decided or chose the action"(subjective)

I completely agree.

That is not entirely correct, even in small regard, due to the limitations of Providence.
Providence is objective.

If it is the will of God, asyou said, then if two people who say that they know what that is gives my contradictory advice, then how do I know which one of them is right (notwithstanding that they could both be wrong)?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Is morality decided by consensus?

I think pretty much.

The claim was made that objective truth was determined by the scientific method.

I asked if the scientific method could determine objective moral truth, and I am still waiting for a satisfactory response.

I am thinking that scientific method could give us a best consensus.
I don't know that there is an objective moral truth.
That sounds like a religious belief.