What would you lose if Christianity were not true?

holo · Nov 19, 2019

Silmarien said:
I don't know how you can argue against both me and @Sanoy here. He seems to be trying to push your towards an objective standard of morality, whereas I'm doing the opposite. Welcome to the postmodern nihilistic nightmarescape, where we only think things are good because Western society (which for a good 1500 years meant Christianity) has conditioned us to think they're good. Take away Christianity, and the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. If you want to say Christianity can sometimes be a force for goodness, you need to contradict what you've been telling Sanoy and come up with an objective moral framework to measure that.

I'm not claiming anything objective moral truth, but that doesn't mean I think nothing matters. I'm just trying to show that morality is subjective for all of us. Of course I can say slavery is wrong, and you could say the opposite (though I know we would agree). Nothing comes tumbling down if we take away Christianity, people will have moral intuitions anyway. Morality will continue to change and evolve, and the tendency seems to be that we will include more and more people and other beings into the group we care about. Like I said to Sanoy, I freely admit that I can't point to objective moral standards, but neither can he.

trulytheone · Nov 19, 2019

To answer the question of the OP:
It depends on what essential article of Faith was debunked.

If the Resurrection were false, I would be a Noahide (a Gentile who believes that the Orthodox Jews have the true faith). If it were the case that both the Old and New Testaments were debunked, then I would either be a Muslim or a Neo-platonist.

Sanoy · Nov 19, 2019

holo said:
True, I have no grounds to say it's "objectively" wrong to murder. But then neither have you, because when you say it's because God says so, you're pointing to a commandment, not an obvious apparent moral law. Morality would be whatever God says, not what appears to be inherently moral. And we see the consequences of that kind of thinking in religious societies - Jehova's Witnesses is a good example. People will excommunicate their own family members, which will obviously go against their own moral judgments, but they still believe it's right because God says so (or so they think).

No, there are examples of whole tribes, including obviously innocent children, being slaughtered for no sin of their own.

You and I both believe genocide is wrong, but you get the additional problem of having to defend a supposedly moral God committing obviously immoral acts. I really don't feel I've lost insanity along with my faith. In many ways, the world has stopped being insane.

Again, no difference between you and I there. I believe some things are right and wrong, as we all do, whether we like it or not. But it's you who have to believe that theft is good, if that's what God happens to command.

The "purpose" of my mental faculties is, when push comes to shove, survival. We're programmed, as it were, to do whatever it takes to spread our genes, which explains both selfishness and compassion. It's why we can sacrifice ourselves for our kin while also thinking that we are more valuable than dogs.

I admit I can't point to some sort of ultimate morality, but then neither can you. You point to another being's sense of morality, not morality itself. Unless you believe morality exist apart from and independently of even God.

How do you know God's actions are good?

Holo, you have now begun to strawman my position. I never said that something is Good because God says so. That is the Euthyphro, which I denied. I said that the term Goodness refers to God's nature. An inch refers to a ruler, and goodness refers to God's nature. For you Goodness refers to a chemical reaction in your brain, and you object to any moral standards so why do you bring up the excommunication of family members by the Jehovah's witness as if that should mean anything? This is dipping back into my world view to secure your own. If your world view can't stand up on it's own power, you should reject it.

The text you refer to is an ancient military text. No one was wiped out, the language you morally object too is not literal language but common place military rhetorical language. But here is that insanity bubbling up again. You perceive a world where genocide is wrong, but know in your head that there is nothing wrong with it at all. You are mistaken, I don't have to defend God's actions because there is no standard to convict him by except a chemical reaction in your brain. Worse there is no standard for conviction because all is permissible. You are going to have to step out of your world view to achieve this, but that will just condemn your world view as inadequate.

Don't use "purpose" in quotes, no one knows what that means because it doesn't mean purpose under evolution. Don't use programmed, because you aren't. These terms are an equivocation with the hope to achieve their attributes. I heard no reason why you should have intellectual faculties that lead to true belief. Also, you say that neither of us can point to an ultimate source of morality. But that isn't true. I do point to an ultimate source of morality, because God created all that there is. He is the final source of what is, and that is exactly what Ultimate means.

The difference between our beliefs is this. I believe that there is no Good but God, you believe that there is no Good. You keep moving to the Euthyphro here, but terms refer to standards. You can ask the Euthyphro for any term and get the same dilemma so we can deny all terminology if you want, or you can accept my position as I stated it, that Good refers to God's nature.

holo · Nov 19, 2019

Sanoy said:
Holo, you have now begun to strawman my position. I never said that something is Good because God says so. That is the Euthyphro, which I denied. I said that the term Goodness refers to God's nature.

I apologize if I've misunderstood your position. But I don't see the difference between "it's God's nature" and "because God says so." In either case morality doesn't seem to be something that exists in and of itself, but is an attribute, or opinion, of God's.

To put it another way, imagine if God died. Would morality cease to exist in the universe?

Sanoy said:
An inch refers to a ruler, and goodness refers to God's nature.

OK, but again, how do you determine that God is good? Does it just so happen to be that he is? Or are you measuring his supposed actions against some moral standard you already have?

Sanoy said:
For you Goodness refers to a chemical reaction in your brain

No, goodness is goodness, but our perception of it is, when it comes down to the physics of it, chemical reactions as you say.

Sanoy said:
and you object to any moral standards

No, I just don't see evidence of some sort of objective moral standard. I don't even know how such a thing could be proven.

Sanoy said:
If your world view can't stand up on it's own power, you should reject it.

My worldview stands just fine. I have morality and an opinion on the origins of it. I don't see the problem. I think the burden of proof would have to be on those who claim objective morality exists.

Sanoy said:
The text you refer to is an ancient military text. No one was wiped out, the language you morally object too is not literal language but common place military rhetorical language.

OK, I'm glad to see you don't read those stories as most Christians seem to do, which is basically that God commands genocide and infanticide.

Sanoy said:
You are mistaken, I don't have to defend God's actions because there is no standard to convict him by except a chemical reaction in your brain.

I'm not asking you to defend God by my standards, but by your own

Sanoy said:
Worse there is no standard for conviction because all is permissible.

I've never said all is permissible though.

And you may of course say, "says who?"
And that would be my reply to you as well, if you point to God as the ultimate authority - "says who? God? Which one? How do you know? Where is he?" etc etc

Sanoy said:
Don't use "purpose" in quotes, no one knows what that means because it doesn't mean purpose under evolution.

I say purpose in quotes because evolution doesn't have a purpose per se, but we can still say that the purpose of the eye is to see, etc.

Sanoy said:
I heard no reason why you should have intellectual faculties that lead to true belief.

Because I don't think we should have that. We can probably infer some truth about the world through our senses and reasoning, but it's obviously not as if we were designed to do that - no matter if we're the product of creation or evolution, as far as I can tell.

Sanoy said:
Also, you say that neither of us can point to an ultimate source of morality. But that isn't true. I do point to an ultimate source of morality, because God created all that there is. He is the final source of what is, and that is exactly what Ultimate means.

Does that mean that if God happened to be evil, then murder and theft would actually be good things?

Sanoy · Nov 19, 2019

holo said:
I apologize if I've misunderstood your position. But I don't see the difference between "it's God's nature" and "because God says so." In either case morality doesn't seem to be something that exists in and of itself, but is an attribute, or opinion, of God's.

To put it another way, imagine if God died. Would morality cease to exist in the universe?

OK, but again, how do you determine that God is good? Does it just so happen to be that he is? Or are you measuring his supposed actions against some moral standard you already have?

No, goodness is goodness, but our perception of it is, when it comes down to the physics of it, chemical reactions as you say.

No, I just don't see evidence of some sort of objective moral standard. I don't even know how such a thing could be proven.

My worldview stands just fine. I have morality and an opinion on the origins of it. I don't see the problem. I think the burden of proof would have to be on those who claim objective morality exists.

OK, I'm glad to see you don't read those stories as most Christians seem to do, which is basically that God commands genocide and infanticide.

I'm not asking you to defend God by my standards, but by your own

I've never said all is permissible though.

And you may of course say, "says who?"
And that would be my reply to you as well, if you point to God as the ultimate authority - "says who? God? Which one? How do you know? Where is he?" etc etc

I say purpose in quotes because evolution doesn't have a purpose per se, but we can still say that the purpose of the eye is to see, etc.

Because I don't think we should have that. We can probably infer some truth about the world through our senses and reasoning, but it's obviously not as if we were designed to do that - no matter if we're the product of creation or evolution, as far as I can tell.

Does that mean that if God happened to be evil, then murder and theft would actually be good things?

God's nature is different from the two horns of the Euthyphro dilemma you are invoking. Essential natures are different than saying something. Why does goodness need to be something that exists in and of itself? You ask if God died would morality cease. The proposition of God ceasing to exist is identical to the proposition of a square circle, both are incoherent, so lets change that to 'without God'. Without God our moral faculties point nowhere in particular. We can call what they point to morality if we want but that is no more privileged than calling north facing tree branches moral.

You ask how we determine that God is good. We have moral faculties that coerce our behavior, those intellectual faculties point toward God's nature. Treasure is defined by the treasure map. When our moral intuitions tell us "this is good" it is pointing to God or nothing in particular.

You say there is no evidence of a moral standard but your actions say otherwise here. You have continually brought up moral actions here as if there were some standard that they fall short of. Your actions don't match your claims either from a moral perspective or from an intellectual perspective. You say that your world view can stand on it's own, but on what can it stand? You have no intellectual or moral faculties. The burden of proof is on both of us as we are each making claims. My position provides me with the moral and intellectual faculties to make claims about reality, your position denies the moral and intellectual faculties to make claims even about your own position. You want evidence that I have these moral and intellectual faculties? God is the evidence for my moral and intellectual faculties, because without Him, I have them not. I say that I have them, you deny that you have them, but act as though you do when you say in one breath....

"Because I don't think we should have that (Intellectual faculties)"

...and in the next.

"I just don't see evidence of some sort of objective moral standard".

Do you see what I mean? You keep borrowing from my worldview to allow your own wordview to stand. In one breath you claim not to have any reason to believe you have intellectual faculties, and in the next operate as if evidence is an intellectual prerequisite toward a high standard of truth. It doesn't work Holo, you never truly gave up Christ because you are still holding on to His nature and creation, you have only given up on your responsibilities.

You say that you judge God by his own standard but that makes no sense. He is the standard, there is not another ruler to compare this inch too. He defines the inch, the inch does not define Him. It's true that you haven't said that all is permissible in your world view, but it seems to be a logical consequent. What wouldn't be permissible in your world view, and what/who would declare what is or isn't permissible? You ask me who am I to say that God is the ultimate authority. I am not declaring it, that is what the word means. Ultimate means the final thing in a series of things, by definition God is the final thing in a series of things (going backwards or forwards, Alpha and Omega)

The purpose of the eyes is not to see. We mustn't equivocate words to attribute faulty meaning to them because we can trick ourselves into wrong thoughts and perceptions. (evolutionists use "purpose", but they do so because we are intellectually wired to see things as teleological. Another point of insanity, living in a world contrary to our perceptions of that world. For a metaphysical discussion such words can only trick our thinking)

holo · Nov 19, 2019

Sanoy said:
God's nature is different from the two horns of the Euthyphro dilemma you are invoking. Essential natures are different than saying something. Why does goodness need to be something that exists in and of itself?

If it doesn't, then morality is just whatever God happens to say it is, or how God happens to be. In which case we're just lucky if God happens to be good. He could just as easily have been evil. In fact he may be evil, and we are condemned to see whatever he is or does, as good.

Which as you know is something that causes a lot of headache and cognitive dissonance for many believers: they're absolutely sure that genocide is wrong, but when God does it, it must still somehow be a good thing because he's doing it.

Sanoy said:
You ask if God died would morality cease. The proposition of God ceasing to exist is identical to the proposition of a square circle, both are incoherent, so lets change that to 'without God'. Without God our moral faculties point nowhere in particular.

To me that sounds like we're not obliged to do what is right in and of itself, but to follow God's commandments, whatever they may be.

Sanoy said:
We can call what they point to morality if we want but that is no more privileged than calling north facing tree branches moral.

I think the key concept here is suffering. The way tree branches point doesn't cause any suffering, or if it did, it wouldn't be the tree's "fault." To expand on that idea, I believe that the more we know, the less we will pass moral judgment. An example from today: my wife got a dirty look from a pedestrian because she was sitting alone in the car with the engine idling. Had the pedestrian known that she was freezing and can't drive because she's on heavy meds (she was waiting for me to run an errand), she wouldn't have condemned her. I think it's that way in all cases where we condemn each other: had we known people's full history and all the reasons they do what they do, we would have compassion for them rather than judging them.

So while moral intuitions are certainly useful, they are also often misguided.

Sanoy said:
You ask how we determine that God is good. We have moral faculties that coerce our behavior, those intellectual faculties point toward God's nature.

That's assuming God exists in the first place, and that moral intuitions can't be a product of evolution.

Sanoy said:
Treasure is defined by the treasure map. When our moral intuitions tell us "this is good" it is pointing to God or nothing in particular.

Just because it doesn't point to God doesn't mean it's pointing at nothing though. Evolution provides convincing reasons (to me at least) why we have moral faculties. And it explains why morality itself is evolving and changing.

If morality came from God, like I said earlier, I would expect it to be other than it is, and more uniform, especially among those who are supposedly born again.

Sanoy said:
You say there is no evidence of a moral standard but your actions say otherwise here. You have continually brought up moral actions here as if there were some standard that they fall short of.

They do fall short of a standard, just not an objective one.

Sanoy said:
You have no intellectual or moral faculties.

I think you're misreading me. I have moral faculties, I just disagree on where they come from.

Sanoy said:
You want evidence that I have these moral and intellectual faculties? God is the evidence for my moral and intellectual faculties, because without Him, I have them not.

God doesn't work as an explanation for me when I'm not convinced he exists.

It looks a little like circular reasoning to me. Objective morality exists, therefore God exists. God exists, therefore objective morality exists. I would need to see convincing arguments for at least one of those claims, for the other claim to follow.

Sanoy said:
I say that I have them, you deny that you have them, but act as though you do when you say in one breath....

"Because I don't think we should have that (Intellectual faculties)"
...and in the next.

"I just don't see evidence of some sort of objective moral standard".
Do you see what I mean?

When I say "I don't think we should," I mean that I don't see a higher purpose behind it. It's like saying I don't see why we should have eyes. We happen to have them, most likely because sight is beneficial, but in principle we could have gotten by with having other stronger senses, or a different kind of vision, like seeing heat waves etc. But in the environment humans evolved in, the way we are turned out to be the most beneficial with regards to our chances for survival and reproduction.

Part of my morality is seeing my kids as the most valuable and deserving beings that have ever existed. Of course I know intellectually that this is not the case, but I still can't escape it or stop acting as if it's true. I think this is the case for any other moral intuition I have as well: I can't say something is objectively right or wrong, but it certainly feels that way. That's what makes morality "work," as it were, isn't it? If it didn't feel so fundamentally true, we wouldn't be guided by it.

Sanoy said:
You keep borrowing from my worldview to allow your own wordview to stand. In one breath you claim not to have any reason to believe you have intellectual faculties

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Sanoy said:
It doesn't work Holo, you never truly gave up Christ because you are still holding on to His nature and creation, you have only given up on your responsibilities.

Which responsibilities do you reckon I have given up on?

Sanoy said:
You say that you judge God by his own standard but that makes no sense. He is the standard, there is not another ruler to compare this inch too. He defines the inch, the inch does not define Him.

That's mostly an argument I have against inherent inconsistencies in the Christian religion (depending on how you interpret the scriptures). If you say something to the effect of "good is as good does" and that God is good, you'll quickly run into some problems with God's behaviour, especially in the OT.

Sanoy said:
It's true that you haven't said that all is permissible in your world view, but it seems to be a logical consequent. What wouldn't be permissible in your world view, and what/who would declare what is or isn't permissible?

We do. And even keeping in mind the atrocities of the world, I think that in the large picture, we're doing a pretty good job, especially if you accept the idea that we evolved from animals. Morality, on the whole, seems to be getting better, i.e. more and more people and animals are considered to have certain rights.

Sanoy said:
The purpose of the eyes is not to see. We mustn't equivocate words to attribute faulty meaning to them because we can trick ourselves into wrong thoughts and perceptions. (evolutionists use "purpose", but they do so because we are intellectually wired to see things as teleological. Another point of insanity, living in a world contrary to our perceptions of that world. For a metaphysical discussion such words can only trick our thinking)

I agree we have to be careful using words like purpose when we talk about strictly naturalistic things. I guess in most cases function would be a better term than purpose.

Silmarien · Nov 19, 2019

holo said:
I'm not claiming anything objective moral truth, but that doesn't mean I think nothing matters. I'm just trying to show that morality is subjective for all of us. Of course I can say slavery is wrong, and you could say the opposite (though I know we would agree). Nothing comes tumbling down if we take away Christianity, people will have moral intuitions anyway. Morality will continue to change and evolve, and the tendency seems to be that we will include more and more people and other beings into the group we care about. Like I said to Sanoy, I freely admit that I can't point to objective moral standards, but neither can he.

I have a couple of problems with this. For one, it is entirely possible that someone's moral intuitions change along with their beliefs. I was at one point a moral nihilist. Take away Christianity, and my moral intuitions will collapse into cynicism and anti-natalism, so yes, things could very easily come tumbling down.

Secondly, there's no guarantee that morality will continue to exhibit a Christian character in an increasingly post-Christian world. There are powerful alternative moral pictures to the Judeo-Christian concern for the downtrodden, such as Nietzscheanism, and the further removed society becomes from the source of its moral principles, the more valid I suspect they'll begin to look. I think this is already happening with the rise of the secular far right, and it's somewhat naive to cheerfully expect Western morality to hold course.

And thirdly, @Sanoy can pretty easily point to objective moral standards. One of the central claims of Christianity is that God took on mortal flesh and lived a perfect life, so there is a pretty clear standard set in the Gospel. If your axioms about reality are true, then there are no moral standards. If his are true, then there are, so you're really not in the same boat here at all.

holo · Nov 20, 2019

Silmarien said:
I have a couple of problems with this. For one, it is entirely possible that someone's moral intuitions change along with their beliefs. I was at one point a moral nihilist. Take away Christianity, and my moral intuitions will collapse into cynicism and anti-natalism, so yes, things could very easily come tumbling down.

They could, but they don't have to. If we're feeling lost, depressed or cast away, our sense of moral obligation to others (and ourselves, for that matter) can down the chute. I think the more we condemn ourselves (often subconsciously), the more prone we are to condemning others.

Silmarien said:
Secondly, there's no guarantee that morality will continue to exhibit a Christian character in an increasingly post-Christian world. There are powerful alternative moral pictures to the Judeo-Christian concern for the downtrodden, such as Nietzscheanism, and the further removed society becomes from the source of its moral principles, the more valid I suspect they'll begin to look. I think this is already happening with the rise of the secular far right, and it's somewhat naive to cheerfully expect Western morality to hold course.

That's true. We've seen moral values collapse in large communities before, like in Germany before the war. Berlin used to be a peaceful place for gays, for example, before the tides turned. Still, if we zoom out even further, things are generally better. Especially when it comes to the lives of gay people (I'm not talking about whether or not we "like" homosexuality, but whether or not they are bullied, discriminated and jailed), it's gotten WAY better, and that's very much in spite of Christianity, not because of it.

Silmarien said:
And thirdly, @Sanoy can pretty easily point to objective moral standards.

I'm curious to see what those would be

I have no doubt that we'll agree on a lot of moral questions, such as "is it ever right to torture a child for fun," but I have no idea how anyone would prove that it's an objective truth.

Silmarien said:
One of the central claims of Christianity is that God took on mortal flesh and lived a perfect life, so there is a pretty clear standard set in the Gospel. If your axioms about reality are true, then there are no moral standards. If his are true, then there are, so you're really not in the same boat here at all.

I could make claims about absolute, objective morality too, though. I could say "no wait, you have the wrong idea of God. He doesn't want X, he wants Y. I know because that's how I interpret the scriptures." But that's just what it boils down to in either case, right? Claims about what some supreme being really means.

Sanoy · Nov 20, 2019

holo said:
If it doesn't, then morality is just whatever God happens to say it is, or how God happens to be. In which case we're just lucky if God happens to be good. He could just as easily have been evil. In fact he may be evil, and we are condemned to see whatever he is or does, as good.

Which as you know is something that causes a lot of headache and cognitive dissonance for many believers: they're absolutely sure that genocide is wrong, but when God does it, it must still somehow be a good thing because he's doing it.

To me that sounds like we're not obliged to do what is right in and of itself, but to follow God's commandments, whatever they may be.

I think the key concept here is suffering. The way tree branches point doesn't cause any suffering, or if it did, it wouldn't be the tree's "fault." To expand on that idea, I believe that the more we know, the less we will pass moral judgment. An example from today: my wife got a dirty look from a pedestrian because she was sitting alone in the car with the engine idling. Had the pedestrian known that she was freezing and can't drive because she's on heavy meds (she was waiting for me to run an errand), she wouldn't have condemned her. I think it's that way in all cases where we condemn each other: had we known people's full history and all the reasons they do what they do, we would have compassion for them rather than judging them.

So while moral intuitions are certainly useful, they are also often misguided.

That's assuming God exists in the first place, and that moral intuitions can't be a product of evolution.

Just because it doesn't point to God doesn't mean it's pointing at nothing though. Evolution provides convincing reasons (to me at least) why we have moral faculties. And it explains why morality itself is evolving and changing.

If morality came from God, like I said earlier, I would expect it to be other than it is, and more uniform, especially among those who are supposedly born again.

They do fall short of a standard, just not an objective one.

I think you're misreading me. I have moral faculties, I just disagree on where they come from.

God doesn't work as an explanation for me when I'm not convinced he exists.

It looks a little like circular reasoning to me. Objective morality exists, therefore God exists. God exists, therefore objective morality exists. I would need to see convincing arguments for at least one of those claims, for the other claim to follow.

When I say "I don't think we should," I mean that I don't see a higher purpose behind it. It's like saying I don't see why we should have eyes. We happen to have them, most likely because sight is beneficial, but in principle we could have gotten by with having other stronger senses, or a different kind of vision, like seeing heat waves etc. But in the environment humans evolved in, the way we are turned out to be the most beneficial with regards to our chances for survival and reproduction.

Part of my morality is seeing my kids as the most valuable and deserving beings that have ever existed. Of course I know intellectually that this is not the case, but I still can't escape it or stop acting as if it's true. I think this is the case for any other moral intuition I have as well: I can't say something is objectively right or wrong, but it certainly feels that way. That's what makes morality "work," as it were, isn't it? If it didn't feel so fundamentally true, we wouldn't be guided by it.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

Which responsibilities do you reckon I have given up on?

That's mostly an argument I have against inherent inconsistencies in the Christian religion (depending on how you interpret the scriptures). If you say something to the effect of "good is as good does" and that God is good, you'll quickly run into some problems with God's behaviour, especially in the OT.

We do. And even keeping in mind the atrocities of the world, I think that in the large picture, we're doing a pretty good job, especially if you accept the idea that we evolved from animals. Morality, on the whole, seems to be getting better, i.e. more and more people and animals are considered to have certain rights.

I agree we have to be careful using words like purpose when we talk about strictly naturalistic things. I guess in most cases function would be a better term than purpose.

You keep going back to this horn of the Euthyphro. Morality isn't whatever God says it is, as I have said morality refers to God's nature. God's nature is a discrete thing, apart from what God says. God's commands are according to His nature, they are semantic descriptions involving His nature. You say we are lucky that God is good, and that He could be evil, but that is the same thing as a square circle on two levels. First it is a contradiction in terms. God by definition is a maximally great being, saying God is evil is the same thing as speaking of a square circle. Second Evil is not an independent term like Good is, Evil is the privation of Good. Evil, refers to the lack of Good not a stand alone referent.

You say that suffering is a key concept, but suffering is no more privileged than a north facing branch. The suffering that Jeffery Dahmer caused his victims is categorically the same as the north facing branch of a sapling as both are things our faculties could have referred too. Here again you step into my world view as if there is an objective standard to appeal too.

Moral and intellectual properties can be a product of evolution, however there is no reason why it would be likely that they do. If you have them, thank God for them.

I did not say that if God didn't create our moral and intellectual faculties that they don't point toward nothing, I said "nothing in particular". They could literally refer to north facing tree branches. But you are right, you do have moral faculties, I spoke to incompletely. The issue is whether they point to anything in particular.

You say you are using a standard, but what non objective moral standard have you been appealing to here in your attempt to convince me to abide by certain expectations? Is the moral standard potassium and sodium ions? Is it the moral standard the polar coordinates of a tree branch? You very much are presenting a standard with the expectation that I would abide by it, so I think you might be outside your world view again.

If you have intellectual and moral faculties that point toward truth and what you ought to do, then thank God for them. Now you clearly believe that you have those faculties, because you say you are not convinced. Convinced means "certain", so you clearly have a high expectation regarding your faculties. Those expectations are unwarranted on your world view, but they are on mine. So if you have them, that is evidence for God.

You say that you meant that you don't see a higher purpose behind your intellectual faculties, but that in no way resembles what you actually said.

I said - "I heard no reason why you should have intellectual faculties that lead to true belief."

You replied immediately - "Because I don't think we should have that". "That" in this statement refers to "intellectual faculties that lead to true belief"

Nothing here about higher purpose, or in the following statement "We can probably infer some truth about the world through our senses and reasoning, but it's obviously not as if we were designed to do that - no matter if we're the product of creation or evolution, as far as I can tell." So it is very clear from your statement that you don't believe you should have intellectual faculties that that lead one to true belief. And yet you speak of certainty and demand evidence as if you do have intellectual faculties that lead to true belief. I'm not trying to do a gotcha here, I'm trying to point out something that is not easily noticed in this type of world view.

Think about what you are saying. You are compelled to think that your kids are the most valuable and deserving beings that ever existed, and yet in your mind you know they are not. That is the sanity we lose without God. When you left God you left your kids actually having any value, and you left the opportunity to teach your kids that they actual have value. If something were to happen to them, God forbid, your response to their suffering would rightly be called insane. Think about that, think about how upside down you have made the world when you left God. Your mourning and love for you kids is identical to the person who talks to Gnomes at the buss stop. The actions of Jeffery Dahmer are identical to the actions of the north facing section of a tree. This thread is about what one losses without God, and you have lost everything Holo...even the value of your own kids. My God man, you can return to Christ as the prodigal son did and be welcomed back from this mad and updside down world you have run off too. (I'm going to end here, because this is the most important thing I want to say. If I left out any questions you had for me, remind me in the next reply.)

LittleLambofJesus · Nov 20, 2019

BigV said:
If this life is all there is, and you followed a Christian lifestyle, what would be your loss if this life is the only existence we have?

Just to elaborate, I know Christians who claim they would lose nothing, but I think it's a contradiction, because same Christians claim they have given ALL to Christ also, like the hymn says... "I surrender all.."

Our mortal life?
Christ says we obtain everlasting life. That is good enough for me..........

Perhaps the greatest question of all mankind and all religions is, what lies on the other side of death after judgement.
=================
Dan 7:10
A flood of fire is proceeding and coming forth from before Him, a thousand thousands do serve Him, and a myriad of myriads before Him do rise up,
The Judge is seated, and the books have been opened.

Rev 20:12
And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened.
And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life.
And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.
=========================
Brings to mind this rather unique movie concerning "judgment city" in the afterlife..............

Defending Your Life (1991) - IMDb

Defending Your Life is a 1991 romantic comedy-fantasy film about a man who dies and arrives in the afterlife only to find that he must stand trial and justify his lifelong fears in order to advance to the next phase of life; or be sent back to earth to do it again. The film was written by, directed by, and stars Albert Brooks. It also stars Meryl Streep, Rip Torn, Lee Grant, and Buck Henry.

=================
Daniel finds himself strapped to a seat on a tram poised to return to Earth, when he spots Julia on a different tram. On an impulse, he unstraps himself, escapes from the moving tram, and risks electrocution and injury to get to Julia. Although he cannot enter her tram at first, the entire event is being monitored by Diamond (and Foster), who convinces the judges that this last-minute display of courage has earned Daniel the right to move on. The judges agree and open the doors on Julia’s tram, allowing Daniel in, reuniting him with Julia and allowing them to move on to the next phase of existence together.

========================================
Yuppie Daniel Miller is killed in a car accident and goes to Judgment City, a waiting room for the afterlife. During the day, he must prove in a courtroom-style process that he successfully overcame his fears (a hard task, given the pitiful life we are shown); at night, he falls in love with Julia, the only other young person in town. Nights are a time of hedonistic pleasure, since you can (for instance) eat all you want without getting fat.
==========================================
Albert Brooks definitely gives us his take on the afterlife. After watching movies such as "Chances Are" "Ghost" and "Heart and Souls" afterlife hasn't looked better. Brooks is a comedic genius but not only as an actor but a writer and director as well.

In addition, Brooks was joined in this film by Rip Torn and Meryl Streep, who are phenomenal talents of their own. Their additions to the movie makes it that much funnier and dramatically better.

Aside from "What Dreams May Come," "Defending Your Life" is the best afterlife film I've seen because it is different than all the others. Brooks is a relief since his comedy is genuinely funny.

This movie was a joy to watch because of the fun cast, unique plot and fun loving environment. Brooks, the writer, created the script with laughter in mind and enjoyment in his heart.

The setting of "Defending Your Life" was very creative because it seemed so unique yet so real and true to life on earth. I was very impressed by the set designers at what they came up with to use as sets.

Brooks created each scene with humor and wanted the film to be as original as possible. He succeeded because I enjoyed and laughed throughout the film and only original films do that for me.

"Defending Your Life" will go down movie history as one of the more original and funnier films dealing with the afterlife. This is a must see for everyone.

Silmarien · Nov 20, 2019

holo said:
They could, but they don't have to. If we're feeling lost, depressed or cast away, our sense of moral obligation to others (and ourselves, for that matter) can down the chute. I think the more we condemn ourselves (often subconsciously), the more prone we are to condemning others.

What does feeling lost, depressed, or cast away have to do with anything? Why are you bringing up condemnation at all? If morality is a fiction, then it is a fiction. I would not be able to believe in things like universal human dignity or the sanctity of life without Christianity, because they're simply incoherent concepts otherwise.

holo said:
That's true. We've seen moral values collapse in large communities before, like in Germany before the war. Berlin used to be a peaceful place for gays, for example, before the tides turned. Still, if we zoom out even further, things are generally better. Especially when it comes to the lives of gay people (I'm not talking about whether or not we "like" homosexuality, but whether or not they are bullied, discriminated and jailed), it's gotten WAY better, and that's very much in spite of Christianity, not because of it.

This is extremely incoherent. How can things be getting "generally better" or "way better" if there is no objective standard of morality? Moral progress is not possible if morality is a matter of subjective preference.

holo said:
I'm curious to see what those would be
I have no doubt that we'll agree on a lot of moral questions, such as "is it ever right to torture a child for fun," but I have no idea how anyone would prove that it's an objective truth.

Why would you need to prove that it's an objective truth? Christian truth claims rely upon revelation, and that revelation needs to be taken as an axiom. You don't prove axioms; they're you're starting point. Given that starting point, Christians have a framework for objective morality.

holo said:
I could make claims about absolute, objective morality too, though. I could say "no wait, you have the wrong idea of God. He doesn't want X, he wants Y. I know because that's how I interpret the scriptures." But that's just what it boils down to in either case, right? Claims about what some supreme being really means.

No, you couldn't make claims about absolute, objective morality, because you reject objective morality altogether. Christians (and other moral realists) can certainly get involved in discussions concerning what is and isn't moral, and can also get into debates about to what degree it's legitimate for the individual to rely upon personal interpretation of Scripture in the first place, but you cannot, because you reject the very notion of moral standards. If your argument is that if you were Christian, you could make claims about objective morality also, then I agree, but the fact that you're not is what puts you in a very different boat.

holo · Nov 21, 2019

Sanoy said:
You keep going back to this horn of the Euthyphro. Morality isn't whatever God says it is, as I have said morality refers to God's nature. God's nature is a discrete thing, apart from what God says. God's commands are according to His nature, they are semantic descriptions involving His nature.

If what God says is according to his nature, then it's basically the same thing.

You're making assertions here. "Ultimate is good," "absolute moral values exist" and "God exists." It's circular reasoning. We know objective morality exists because God exists. We know God exists because objective morality exists.

I don't see how it follows that just because God is ultimate, he must also be good. Why is that? Is there some sort of natural law, that applies even to God, that says this?

Sanoy said:
You say that suffering is a key concept, but suffering is no more privileged than a north facing branch.

As an a-theist, yes, nothing is more or less "privileged" to the universe. The universe doesn't care. People care.

You seem to assume that just because I can't say that anything "ultimately matters," then nothing at all will ever matter in any way to anyone.

Sanoy said:
Here again you step into my world view as if there is an objective standard to appeal too.

No, I repeatedly say that there is no objective standard. It's your claim that there is. What's the proof of that? Our moral intuitions? They are, by your own admission, corrupted. In other words, had you been a white Christian in the American south hundreds of years ago, chances are you would see slavery as morally acceptable. How can that be, if morality is divine? Why does everybody instinctively see their own children as more valuable than other people's, if God gave them morality? It's perfectly in line with what we'd expect evolution to do.

What would perfect morality look like?

Sanoy said:
Moral and intellectual properties can be a product of evolution, however there is no reason why it would be likely that they do.

Except that they are how we would expect them to be if evolution is true. Evolutionary speaking, it makes perfect sense that we care more about our own than about others.

Sanoy said:
I did not say that if God didn't create our moral and intellectual faculties that they don't point toward nothing, I said "nothing in particular". They could literally refer to north facing tree branches.

They could, but we have other terms for things like that.

Sanoy said:
But you are right, you do have moral faculties, I spoke to incompletely. The issue is whether they point to anything in particular.

It's not like people's morality is completely random though.

Sanoy said:
You say you are using a standard, but what non objective moral standard have you been appealing to here in your attempt to convince me to abide by certain expectations?

I'm not making a moral argument for my case. I don't think you're morally obliged to agree with me.

Sanoy said:
If you have intellectual and moral faculties that point toward truth and what you ought to do, then thank God for them. Now you clearly believe that you have those faculties, because you say you are not convinced. Convinced means "certain", so you clearly have a high expectation regarding your faculties. Those expectations are unwarranted on your world view, but they are on mine. So if you have them, that is evidence for God.

I don't agree that they're unwarranted. Like I've said, evolution explains it.

Sanoy said:
You say that you meant that you don't see a higher purpose behind your intellectual faculties, but that in no way resembles what you actually said.

I said - "I heard no reason why you should have intellectual faculties that lead to true belief."

You replied immediately - "Because I don't think we should have that". "That" in this statement refers to "intellectual faculties that lead to true belief"

Nothing here about higher purpose, or in the following statement "We can probably infer some truth about the world through our senses and reasoning, but it's obviously not as if we were designed to do that - no matter if we're the product of creation or evolution, as far as I can tell." So it is very clear from your statement that you don't believe you should have intellectual faculties that that lead one to true belief. And yet you speak of certainty and demand evidence as if you do have intellectual faculties that lead to true belief. I'm not trying to do a gotcha here, I'm trying to point out something that is not easily noticed in this type of world view.

Again, when I say we "shouldn't" it's in the sense that there's no ultimate, higher, hidden purpose to conform to. If we're designed to know the truth about things, it's only to the degree that it helps us pass on our genes.

Sanoy said:
Think about what you are saying. You are compelled to think that your kids are the most valuable and deserving beings that ever existed, and yet in your mind you know they are not.

Yes, and don't you agree? On what basis could I say that my children are in fact worth more than other children? To me they are, of course.

Sanoy said:
When you left God you left your kids actually having any value, and you left the opportunity to teach your kids that they actual have value.

Wait, it's not like your children would cease to be valuable to you if God disappeared. And when we teach children they have value, we're implying that they have value in and of themselves, not that they need to feel valuable to someone else, like humans or a god.

Sanoy said:
If something were to happen to them, God forbid, your response to their suffering would rightly be called insane. Think about that, think about how upside down you have made the world when you left God. Your mourning and love for you kids is identical to the person who talks to Gnomes at the buss stop.

No, they are very very different things, as you know. Just because I don't think Led Zeppelin will matter to anyone when the universe collapses on itself in a gazillion years, doesn't mean I have no "real" reason to enjoy their records now.

Sanoy said:
This thread is about what one losses without God, and you have lost everything Holo...even the value of your own kids.

What kind of strawman is this?

Sanoy said:
My God man, you can return to Christ as the prodigal son did and be welcomed back from this mad and updside down world you have run off too. (I'm going to end here, because this is the most important thing I want to say. If I left out any questions you had for me, remind me in the next reply.)

You didn't answer which responsibilities you think I've given up on.

Also, if your morals are both God-given and corrupted, how do you really know what's morally right in any case?

holo · Nov 21, 2019

Silmarien said:
What does feeling lost, depressed, or cast away have to do with anything? Why are you bringing up condemnation at all?

Because our moral judgments are clearly influenced by what we know, how tired we are etc. The more we realize that, the less prone we will be to judge one another. Even if there were to exist some sort of absolute moral standard, it's clear that in practice, moral judgment depends on a whole lot of things that themselves have nothing to do with morality. Parents love their children to death, but deprive them of sleep for a few days and see what happens to their moral judgment when the kid throws a tantrum.

Silmarien said:
If morality is a fiction, then it is a fiction.

Morality is obviously real, but it doesn't exist in and of itself. If it does, what's the evidence for it? It's real in the same way that money and game rules are real.

Silmarien said:
I would not be able to believe in things like universal human dignity or the sanctity of life without Christianity, because they're simply incoherent concepts otherwise.

Yet there are millions of atheists, agnostics, and followers of other religions, who do believe in human sanctity. We're born with a sense of morality, which thankfully evolves for most of us, so that past the baby stage, we tend to care more and more about others.

Silmarien said:
This is extremely incoherent. How can things be getting "generally better" or "way better" if there is no objective standard of morality? Moral progress is not possible if morality is a matter of subjective preference.

I'm not judging it to some supposed objective standard, that's the point.

Are you? What exactly is that moral standard? How do we know what it is?

Silmarien said:
Why would you need to prove that it's an objective truth? Christian truth claims rely upon revelation, and that revelation needs to be taken as an axiom. You don't prove axioms; they're you're starting point. Given that starting point, Christians have a framework for objective morality.

Sure, but axioms can be literally anything. Like, "God exists" or "objective moral values exist." How has that axiom been revealed to you? I know it's an extremely strong intuition, maybe the strongest one humans have, but that of course doesn't mean it's objectively true, especially when there are naturalistic explanations for it.

Silmarien said:
No, you couldn't make claims about absolute, objective morality, because you reject objective morality altogether. Christians (and other moral realists) can certainly get involved in discussions concerning what is and isn't moral, and can also get into debates about to what degree it's legitimate for the individual to rely upon personal interpretation of Scripture in the first place, but you cannot, because you reject the very notion of moral standards. If your argument is that if you were Christian, you could make claims about objective morality also, then I agree, but the fact that you're not is what puts you in a very different boat.

Again, our morals feel objective, that's why we call them morals. I'm not saying things aren't right and wrong, but that they aren't right or wrong to God. I see several of you seem to think that if I don't think something matters to God, then I can't say that it matters to anyone.

But yes, it boils down to axioms. I do believe some things are better than others. Not because some invisible entity cares about it, but because we all would like to avoid suffering and maximize happiness. Personally, I think such a view will result in more well-being for more people, than when we throw God into the mix, because then we'll have all sorts of claims about what matters to him. If God is your foundation for moral values, then we can only hope you happen to believe in a benevolent God. I think we'll fare better if we try to agree on moral values rather than trying to dechiper God's. History is full of examples of what that has led to...

Sanoy · Nov 21, 2019

holo said:
If what God says is according to his nature, then it's basically the same thing.

You're making assertions here. "Ultimate is good," "absolute moral values exist" and "God exists." It's circular reasoning. We know objective morality exists because God exists. We know God exists because objective morality exists.

I don't see how it follows that just because God is ultimate, he must also be good. Why is that? Is there some sort of natural law, that applies even to God, that says this?

As an a-theist, yes, nothing is more or less "privileged" to the universe. The universe doesn't care. People care.

You seem to assume that just because I can't say that anything "ultimately matters," then nothing at all will ever matter in any way to anyone.

No, I repeatedly say that there is no objective standard. It's your claim that there is. What's the proof of that? Our moral intuitions? They are, by your own admission, corrupted. In other words, had you been a white Christian in the American south hundreds of years ago, chances are you would see slavery as morally acceptable. How can that be, if morality is divine? Why does everybody instinctively see their own children as more valuable than other people's, if God gave them morality? It's perfectly in line with what we'd expect evolution to do.

What would perfect morality look like?

Except that they are how we would expect them to be if evolution is true. Evolutionary speaking, it makes perfect sense that we care more about our own than about others.

They could, but we have other terms for things like that.

It's not like people's morality is completely random though.

I'm not making a moral argument for my case. I don't think you're morally obliged to agree with me.

I don't agree that they're unwarranted. Like I've said, evolution explains it.

Again, when I say we "shouldn't" it's in the sense that there's no ultimate, higher, hidden purpose to conform to. If we're designed to know the truth about things, it's only to the degree that it helps us pass on our genes.

Yes, and don't you agree? On what basis could I say that my children are in fact worth more than other children? To me they are, of course.

Wait, it's not like your children would cease to be valuable to you if God disappeared. And when we teach children they have value, we're implying that they have value in and of themselves, not that they need to feel valuable to someone else, like humans or a god.

No, they are very very different things, as you know. Just because I don't think Led Zeppelin will matter to anyone when the universe collapses on itself in a gazillion years, doesn't mean I have no "real" reason to enjoy their records now.

What kind of strawman is this?

You didn't answer which responsibilities you think I've given up on.

Also, if your morals are both God-given and corrupted, how do you really know what's morally right in any case?

God's nature is not the same, or basically the same as what he says. A semantic statement attempts to represent ones nature, ones nature is itself ones nature. Use the law of identity if you want, they are logically and terminologically different. I didn't say "ultimate is Good" as you quote of me, ultimate means the final in a series. Nor did I say that Ultimate implies good. I would say God and absolute moral values and duties exist. It's not circular reasoning, it is "abductive" reasoning. If I have moral and intellectual faculties then God is the best explanation for them, and not God is the most unlikely explanation for them.

You can say something matters, but when you act as if it should matter to me then you are acting contradictory to your world view. That you bring up morals as if they should matter to me is in fact counter evidence to the world view that you claim to hold in that it shows that it is a world view that one is unable to sustain with any regularity.

You are committing the genetic fallacy when you appeal to the origin of a belief to deny the truth value of moral faculties. I think we value our own children more because it is our personal and unique responsibility and duty to take care of them, whereas it is our general duty to take care of others. Regarding this condition being evidence of Evolution I disagree. The love we have for our children is enormously superfluous to the evolutionary paradigm of genetic survival. Genghis Khan is the ultimate evolutionary father, not soccer mom, and loving dad. I don't know what perfect morality would look like because I don't have it.

I have asked you to explain why intellectual faculties that lead to true beliefs would be likely on Evolution. You have replied that you don't believe that you have intellectual faculties that lead to true belief. But now you claim that our moral and intellectual properties are expected on evolution. You are again relying on the very intellectual faculties you deny having to make claims. I don't think the claim is right either, as I just mentioned our moral faculties are superfluous in regard to genetic survival. They have somethings that overlap, but the bulk of it is entirely inconsistent to what we would expect given a system that orients only upon genetic survival. Surely one can ad hoc their way into bridging what is observed, with how something could happen through evolution, but those are merely ad hoc stories that rely on the unlikely at every step. Upon actual expectation, they fall short.

It doesn't matter what subcategories we assign to what a moral faculty points to. All those subcategories fall into the broad category of "things that exist in the world". None of them are particular in any way. What do you mean when you say peoples morality is not random when you attribute their faculties to evolution? Evolution is not guided. Even if you attribute it to a constrained system of guidance, the system itself unguided.

You again change your expression of "Shouldn't" into ultimate terms, but that in no way reflects your very clear statements in response to my statement. Applying your new meaning back to that statement which I outlined in my last reply makes no sense. I think you are re-attributing your meaning here Holo.

I agree that your kids are the most valuable and deserving beings that ever existed because they ARE and I can state so with sanity on my world view. You cannot state that sanely, and even more horrific, you are their father and you deny that they are the most valuable and deserving beings that every existed. One of us is sane, and one of us is just as insane as the man at the Bus stop who speaks to Gnomes (according to your world view). God cannot cease to exist, If God never existed I doubt I would either, but if I did the value of my children would be a delusion. If I taught them they had value I would be lying to them, but that would be perfectly permissible, or I could eat them too, and I might even call that moral.

I don't see why the ephemeral value of Led Zeppelin has anything to do with why your world view doesn't make human beings insane. Your behavior matches your perceptions, but your perceptions of reality don't match reality... you are no different than the insane person who talks to Gnomes at the Bus stop.

I am stating that you have lost the real value of your kids. That isn't a strawman because I am not referring to your position, I am stating what you have lost. And that claim is congruent with your own statements regarding the real value of your kids - "Of course I know intellectually that this is not the case"

Questions I missed.
When I say you have given up on your responsibilities I mean those duties given by God. That is to image God's nature on earth (this is different than merely performing good actions)

My moral faculties are God given. Sometimes I don't know what the right action would be, and that is for various reasons. Sometimes my own heart gets in the way, sometimes I lack the knowledge to identify the variables properly, sometimes I fail to consider all of God's attributes because some attributes are opposed to each other, like Justice and Mercy. I trust the Holy Spirit to transform me into a better imager of God on a daily basis, and I fast once a week toward that end. My faith (trust) is not in my intellectual and moral faculties, but in the transformative work of the Holy Spirit. (That is not to say that I would have no trust in my moral faculties apart from the Holy Spirit, but that greater wisdom is trusting in the transformative work of the Holy Spirit to transform me rather than rely solely on my own ability)

holo · Nov 21, 2019

Sanoy said:
God's nature is not the same, or basically the same as what he says. A semantic statement attempts to represent ones nature, ones nature is itself ones nature. Use the law of identity if you want, they are logically and terminologically different.

Sure, but my point is, what's the practical and relevant difference between saying "because God says so" and "because God is so?" We would expect God to speak according to his nature, right?

Sanoy said:
I didn't say "ultimate is Good" as you quote of me, ultimate means the final in a series. Nor did I say that Ultimate implies good.

My bad then. It was how I understood this:

Sanoy said:
God by definition is a maximally great being, saying God is evil is the same thing as speaking of a square circle.

To me that seems to be equivalent to saying that because God is maximally great, he must be good. Maybe you could clarify it.

Sanoy said:
I would say God and absolute moral values and duties exist.

That's an assertion. And correct me if I'm wrong, but the only evidence I see here that such a thing exists, is that we have moral intuitions.

Sanoy said:
It's not circular reasoning, it is "abductive" reasoning. If I have moral and intellectual faculties then God is the best explanation for them, and not God is the most unlikely explanation for them.

Would you see the (supposed) existence of objective moral values as evidence for God, if you hadn't already believed in God?

Sanoy said:
You can say something matters, but when you act as if it should matter to me then you are acting contradictory to your world view. That you bring up morals as if they should matter to me is in fact counter evidence to the world view that you claim to hold in that it shows that it is a world view that one is unable to sustain with any regularity.

I'm not saying it should matter to you, I'm assuming that we share most of our moral values and intuitions. So if I say something like "joy is obviously better than pleasure" I'm not referring to some objective standard, but to a subjective one I'm sure we agree on. I guess I should've made that clearer.

Sanoy said:
You are committing the genetic fallacy when you appeal to the origin of a belief to deny the truth value of moral faculties. I think we value our own children more because it is our personal and unique responsibility and duty to take care of them, whereas it is our general duty to take care of others. Regarding this condition being evidence of Evolution I disagree. The love we have for our children is enormously superfluous to the evolutionary paradigm of genetic survival. Genghis Khan is the ultimate evolutionary father, not soccer mom, and loving dad. I don't know what perfect morality would look like because I don't have it.

Morality isn't the only thing driving our actions. It's a balancing act between greed and charity and many other competing desires. Probably what you'd call corrupted morality, but that makes assumptions I don't share, like there being a god, the existence of objective morality etc. It seems to me you have to invoke certain supernatural claims for your idea of morality. And if you don't know what perfect morality is since you don't have it, how can you possibly say for a fact that anything is inherently good or evil?

Sanoy said:
I have asked you to explain why intellectual faculties that lead to true beliefs would be likely on Evolution. You have replied that you don't believe that you have intellectual faculties that lead to true belief. But now you claim that our moral and intellectual properties are expected on evolution. You are again relying on the very intellectual faculties you deny having to make claims. I don't think the claim is right either, as I just mentioned our moral faculties are superfluous in regard to genetic survival. They have somethings that overlap, but the bulk of it is entirely inconsistent to what we would expect given a system that orients only upon genetic survival. Surely one can ad hoc their way into bridging what is observed, with how something could happen through evolution, but those are merely ad hoc stories that rely on the unlikely at every step. Upon actual expectation, they fall short.

I'm pretty sure we can, and do, know some truth about reality. We certainly don't see the whole picture, I think we can agree on that. It is possible that I'm the only consciousness that exists, but I find it unlikely and "other people are conscious" is one of the axioms I assume. The faculties and abilities that have allowed us to survive and thrive have also given us some level of figuring out how the world works, beyond what is strictly needed for survival. We're designed (as it were) to live and survive on the savanna in the stone age, but the same qualities and strengths have also allowed us to, accidentally you may say, travel to the Moon and back.

Sanoy said:
It doesn't matter what subcategories we assign to what a moral faculty points to. All those subcategories fall into the broad category of "things that exist in the world". None of them are particular in any way.

It's true that they aren't particular to the universe. They are particular to us. It's pointless to talk about something being particular in and of itself, like it's an inherent quality.

This is the gist of it: value, like meaning, is inherently subjective. It can't possibly be objective. Meaning and value are assigned to things, they're not inherent in them. Take money for example. What's the objective value of a dollar bill? If you think about it, you see that the question doesn't make sense. You can't even say that its objective value is zero, because value isn't some "thing" that may or may not exist in the dollar bill, it's whatever value we place on it and nothing else. The entire world may agree on the value of a dollar bill for as long as there are humans, but it will never have objective value. Objective value is a contradiction in terms.

Value depends on a subject. Even if God is the greatest thing imaginable, whatever means something to him would still be subjective. If morality were to be objective, it would have to exist in and of itself regardless of God's existence.

Sanoy said:
What do you mean when you say peoples morality is not random when you attribute their faculties to evolution? Evolution is not guided. Even if you attribute it to a constrained system of guidance, the system itself unguided.

What I mean is that morals aren't "all over the place". We have most of it in common, but there is still enough variation that I have a hard time seeing how it can be divine.

Sanoy said:
You again change your expression of "Shouldn't" into ultimate terms, but that in no way reflects your very clear statements in response to my statement. Applying your new meaning back to that statement which I outlined in my last reply makes no sense. I think you are re-attributing your meaning here Holo.I

I'm sorry but I'm not following you here. I don't know what you're referring to.

Sanoy said:
I agree that your kids are the most valuable and deserving beings that ever existed because they ARE and I can state so with sanity on my world view.

Wait, surely you don't think they are more valuable than other children?

Sanoy said:
You cannot state that sanely, and even more horrific, you are their father and you deny that they are the most valuable and deserving beings that every existed. One of us is sane, and one of us is just as insane as the man at the Bus stop who speaks to Gnomes (according to your world view).

I think you can do better than outright claiming I'm insane. Not that I think you actually mean it.

What I mean, of course, is that my children are the most valuable thing in the world TO ME. I don't expect other parents to agree with that, and I don't imagine that they are sort of objectively the most valuable beings in existence.

Sanoy said:
God cannot cease to exist, If God never existed I doubt I would either, but if I did the value of my children would be a delusion. If I taught them they had value I would be lying to them, but that would be perfectly permissible, or I could eat them too, and I might even call that moral.

I don't see why the ephemeral value of Led Zeppelin has anything to do with why your world view doesn't make human beings insane. Your behavior matches your perceptions, but your perceptions of reality don't match reality... you are no different than the insane person who talks to Gnomes at the Bus stop.

To go with music albums and physical stuff: does your favourite album have an objective value? If not, does that mean it has no value at all?

Sanoy said:
I am stating that you have lost the real value of your kids. That isn't a strawman because I am not referring to your position, I am stating what you have lost.

You said I've lost the value of my kids. Well, l haven't. It's the same as it always were, or possibly greater than before.

Sanoy said:
Questions I missed.
When I say you have given up on your responsibilities I mean those duties given by God. That is to image God's nature on earth (this is different than merely performing good actions)

Well, it's hard to keep up responsibilities to an entity you no longer believe exists

I lost faith very much against my own will and in spite of years of desperate prayer to keep it. I'm fine with it now, and I'm not mentioning it as if it's some sort of evidence against God, but just in case you thought I'm no longer a believer because of frustration with God or rebellion against him. I still miss having faith sometimes.

Sanoy said:
My moral faculties are God given. Sometimes I don't know what the right action would be, and that is for various reasons. Sometimes my own heart gets in the way, sometimes I lack the knowledge to identify the variables properly, sometimes I fail to consider all of God's attributes because some attributes are opposed to each other, like Justice and Mercy. I trust the Holy Spirit to transform me into a better imager of God on a daily basis, and I fast once a week toward that end. My faith (trust) is not in my intellectual and moral faculties, but in the transformative work of the Holy Spirit. (That is not to say that I would have no trust in my moral faculties apart from the Holy Spirit, but that greater wisdom is trusting in the transformative work of the Holy Spirit to transform me rather than rely solely on my own ability)

The point I'm trying to make is that even when you deem God to be ultimately/objectively good, that judgment itself is subjective.

Sanoy · Nov 21, 2019

holo said:
Sure, but my point is, what's the practical and relevant difference between saying "because God says so" and "because God is so?" We would expect God to speak according to his nature, right?

My bad then. It was how I understood this:To me that seems to be equivalent to saying that because God is maximally great, he must be good. Maybe you could clarify it.

That's an assertion. And correct me if I'm wrong, but the only evidence I see here that such a thing exists, is that we have moral intuitions.

Would you see the (supposed) existence of objective moral values as evidence for God, if you hadn't already believed in God?

I'm not saying it should matter to you, I'm assuming that we share most of our moral values and intuitions. So if I say something like "joy is obviously better than pleasure" I'm not referring to some objective standard, but to a subjective one I'm sure we agree on. I guess I should've made that clearer.

Morality isn't the only thing driving our actions. It's a balancing act between greed and charity and many other competing desires. Probably what you'd call corrupted morality, but that makes assumptions I don't share, like there being a god, the existence of objective morality etc. It seems to me you have to invoke certain supernatural claims for your idea of morality. And if you don't know what perfect morality is since you don't have it, how can you possibly say for a fact that anything is inherently good or evil?

I'm pretty sure we can, and do, know some truth about reality. We certainly don't see the whole picture, I think we can agree on that. It is possible that I'm the only consciousness that exists, but I find it unlikely and "other people are conscious" is one of the axioms I assume. The faculties and abilities that have allowed us to survive and thrive have also given us some level of figuring out how the world works, beyond what is strictly needed for survival. We're designed (as it were) to live and survive on the savanna in the stone age, but the same qualities and strengths have also allowed us to, accidentally you may say, travel to the Moon and back.

It's true that they aren't particular to the universe. They are particular to us. It's pointless to talk about something being particular in and of itself, like it's an inherent quality.

This is the gist of it: value, like meaning, is inherently subjective. It can't possibly be objective. Meaning and value are assigned to things, they're not inherent in them. Take money for example. What's the objective value of a dollar bill? If you think about it, you see that the question doesn't make sense. You can't even say that it's objective value is zero, because value isn't some "thing" that may or may not exist in the dollar bill, it's whatever value we place on it and nothing else. The entire world may agree on the value of a dollar bill for as long as there are humans, but it will never have objective value. Objective value is a contradiction in terms.

Value depends on a subject. Even if God is the greatest thing imaginable, whatever means something to him would still be subjective. If morality were to be objective, it would have to exist in and of itself regardless of God's existence.

What I mean is that morals aren't "all over the place". We have most of it in common, but there is still enough variation that I have a hard time seeing how it can be divine.

I'm sorry but I'm not following you here. I don't know what you're referring to.

Wait, surely you don't think they are more valuable than other children?

I think you can do better than outright claiming I'm insane. Not that I think you actually mean it.

What I mean, of course, is that my children are the most valuable thing in the world TO ME. I don't expect other parents to agree with that, and I don't imagine that they are sort of objectively the most valuable beings in existence.

To go with music albums and physical stuff: does your favourite album have an objective value? If not, does that mean it has no value at all?

You said I've lost the value of my kids. Well, l haven't. It's the same as it always were, or possibly greater than before.

Well, it's hard to keep up responsibilities to an entity you no longer believe exists
I lost faith very much against my own will and in spite of years of desperate prayer to keep it. I'm fine with it now, and I'm not mentioning it as if it's some sort of evidence against God, but just in case you thought I'm no longer a believer because of frustration with God or rebellion against him. I still miss having faith sometimes.

The point I'm trying to make is that even when you deem God to be ultimately/objectively good, that judgment itself is subjective.

On the Euthyphro.
That God's nature is the good means that it's neither arbitrary nor not God which is the point of invoking the Euthyphro. Yes, God can only act according to His nature, but the Good does not refer to what He says, but God's nature.

MGB
God is maximally Good, which is a part of what is entailed by maximally great.

Evidence vs Assertion on God and Faculties
There are other reasons to believe in God besides moral faculties, but that, and intellectual faculties is all I am talking about here. You have repeatedly behaved as if you do have faculties to point toward true belief and moral oughts. Abuductivley, the best explanation for that is God, rather than not God. The evidence is your behavior, the inference is God. You ask if I would see the 'apprehension' of objective moral values as evidence for God if I didn't believe, yes, I would.

Claims vs Actions
You brought up genocide as if it were a standard I would abide by, it was a gambit rather than merely a moral proposition I would recognize. You expected me to act accordingly, that is an external standard that you relied upon.

Moral competition and absolute moral epistemology.
In your reply you objectively stated that Morality isn't the only thing driving our actions and that they are in competition, such as Greed vs Charity. But this is just another example of you appealing to a moral standard because Greed and Charity are both potential morals under your world view, and yet you speak of one as if it is a moral, and the other as if it is not. This is again another vacillation into my world view to prop up your own.

I don't follow your statement here that I need to know what perfect morality is or I don't have it. Someone without perfect intelligence doesn't seem to lack intelligence. That doesn't seem to follow. I get my moral faculties from the same source as my intellectual faculties, if I can't speak of moral facts, then why should I be able to speak of any facts.

Intellectual Faculties and true belief
You have not been appealing to intellectual faculties that 'know some truth about reality'. You have spoken of certainty, and called for evidence. You have been appealing to a fully functional intellectual faculty while denying that it has any attaining degree. You say that evolution can give you some degree of efficacy, but survival does not require true belief, survival only requires survival behavior. You don't have enough reason to even warrant your belief that you are capable of knowing some truth.

Subjective vs objective value.
I agree with your portrayal of subjective value to an extent. The issue is that you are using humans for the example rather than God. Life will always have an eternal value because there will always be one who values it. There are people who don't value life, you for instance (intellectually), but that doesn't change it's value. Not believing in the present value of a dollar doesn't change how much that dollar can purchase, the price tag objectively determines the value of the dollar regardless of the subjective value of the dollar. If God sets the price tag, none can change it.

Uniformity of morals among humans.
We have been around for what 300,000 years? Our morals are no where near optimized for passing on genes. Why not? They aren't even close, the best among us was Genghis Khan, and he was actually a detraction from the norm. So, without ad hoc attribution, how does this uniformity of morals, which goes against the best man evolution has ever provided us with, exemplify evolution. You spoke earlier about how strange it was that Christian morals progressed over time. But it seems evolutionary morals are devolving over time rather than evolving as slavery has largely been eradicated and we are more concerned with not passing on our genes than passing them on, both proactively and retroactively.

Mental Consequences of this world view
I don't think you are insane, I think you are mistaken. But according to your world view you would be insane. It doesn't matter if you feel that your children are the most valuable thing in the world. The issue is that you are behaving in accordance with your perception of reality, and your perception of reality is the opposite of reality. That is no different than the person that talks to Gnomes at the bus stop. Insane is the right word.

Led Zepplin
Whether a music album has objective value or not has nothing to do with whether or not objective value exists.

What you lost without Christ
When you were a Christian your Kids had objective and real value. When you turned away from Christ for this world view they lost that value. Now if you never thought your kids have objective value even when you were a Christian

Responsibilities
When I said you gave up your responsibilities, I am referring to when you left Christianity.

Objectivity of a moral standard.
God either is or is not ultimate. Goodness either does or does not refer to God's nature. Those questions have objective answers that are wholly apart from my subjective judgement. So this is not subjective, I am and have been proposing objective facts.

Silmarien · Nov 21, 2019

holo said:
Because our moral judgments are clearly influenced by what we know, how tired we are etc. The more we realize that, the less prone we will be to judge one another. Even if there were to exist some sort of absolute moral standard, it's clear that in practice, moral judgment depends on a whole lot of things that themselves have nothing to do with morality. Parents love their children to death, but deprive them of sleep for a few days and see what happens to their moral judgment when the kid throws a tantrum.

You're equivocating on the use of the term "moral judgment." The fact that a person is more liable to snap at someone if they're tired doesn't mean that their moral opinions change depending on their mood. If that were the case, they wouldn't feel guilt afterwards. I still don't see what this has to do with anything, though.

holo said:
Morality is obviously real, but it doesn't exist in and of itself. If it does, what's the evidence for it? It's real in the same way that money and game rules are real.

Money and especially game rules are social constructs. I see no reason not to be cynical about either one of these things, so comparing morality to them doesn't help you in any way. If cheating is not inherently wrong, then why not cheat if you can get away with it?

holo said:
Yet there are millions of atheists, agnostics, and followers of other religions, who do believe in human sanctity. We're born with a sense of morality, which thankfully evolves for most of us, so that past the baby stage, we tend to care more and more about others.

Yes, in the same way that you care about the capitalist system and the rules of monopoly, apparently. Color me impressed.

holo said:
I'm not judging it to some supposed objective standard, that's the point.

Are you? What exactly is that moral standard? How do we know what it is?

The word "better" is ultimately meaningless if you toss out the notion of a standard. You can't use comparatives and superlatives without having some underlying method of comparison. One apple can be more or less red than another, but only if we have a fixed idea of what point on the color spectrum the word "red" refers to. If you have literally no way to judge the difference between what you're comparing when you say that one thing is better than another, we're at an odd sort of linguistic impasse. Might as well say that one thing is more awefcre than another.

holo said:
Sure, but axioms can be literally anything. Like, "God exists" or "objective moral values exist." How has that axiom been revealed to you? I know it's an extremely strong intuition, maybe the strongest one humans have, but that of course doesn't mean it's objectively true, especially when there are naturalistic explanations for it.

People have proposed naturalistic explanations for the axiom that effects have causes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that causality isn't an objectively true fact of nature. If you're asking for axioms to be "revealed," you're in trouble, since that isn't the way first principles work.

Anyway, my concern is one of coherency rather than proof. Every belief system is to a certain extent circular and unprovable, but some are internally consistent and others are not. "There is no objective morality, but what great moral progress we've made in the past century!" is really just an unfathomably terrible error in reasoning. At least the utilitarians bothered to try.

holo said:
Again, our morals feel objective, that's why we call them morals. I'm not saying things aren't right and wrong, but that they aren't right or wrong to God. I see several of you seem to think that if I don't think something matters to God, then I can't say that it matters to anyone.

But yes, it boils down to axioms. I do believe some things are better than others. Not because some invisible entity cares about it, but because we all would like to avoid suffering and maximize happiness. Personally, I think such a view will result in more well-being for more people, than when we throw God into the mix, because then we'll have all sorts of claims about what matters to him. If God is your foundation for moral values, then we can only hope you happen to believe in a benevolent God. I think we'll fare better if we try to agree on moral values rather than trying to dechiper God's. History is full of examples of what that has led to...

It's also full of naturalists with their eugenics, not to mention the utopian dreams of the Soviet Union, drenched in blood. None of which can be truly condemned if morality is just a convenient fiction, so again, I'm really not impressed.

FireDragon76 · Nov 23, 2019

Sanoy said:
God's nature is different from the two horns of the Euthyphro dilemma you are invoking. Essential natures are different than saying something. Why does goodness need to be something that exists in and of itself? You ask if God died would morality cease.

Morality is a concept, but that concept doesn't necessarily exist in reality in the way that Christians claim God does, as something separate from peoples own moral intuitions.

People simply don't need the "insights" of the Bible to be moral. And I believe even Jesus himself understood this, which is why he often used parables that drew from pastoral imagery of his day, rather than from religion.

FireDragon76 · Nov 23, 2019

Silmarien said:
Y
It's also full of naturalists with their eugenics, not to mention the utopian dreams of the Soviet Union, drenched in blood. None of which can be truly condemned if morality is just a convenient fiction, so again, I'm really not impressed.

I don't think it's true that morality must be a fiction if it's not absolute. It exists relationally, and is therefore relative. That's not nihilistic, contrary to your assertion, that's realistic and actually potentially life-affirming. That means we can think rationally about morality beyond the superstition of religion and conceive of truly life-affirming values, like not burning witches at the stake, or allowing gays to marry instead of stoning them to death.

yeshuaslavejeff · Nov 23, 2019

Healing includes using the law properly, or there is chaos or anarchy or increased wickednesses hurting everyone.

What would you lose if Christianity were not true?

former Christian

Active Member

Well-Known Member

former Christian

Well-Known Member

former Christian

Existentialist

former Christian

Well-Known Member

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Existentialist

former Christian

former Christian

Well-Known Member

former Christian

Well-Known Member

Existentialist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

Similar threads