Atheism and nihilism

Speedwell said:

"Skeptic of the Bible" = "Disagreeing with Steve about what it means."

Click to expand...

Hi again Speedwell. Actually it is disagreeing with what the majority of Biblical scholars and Christians agree.

Aha! Punishment. Departing from naturalistic morality has consequences.

Click to expand...

The problem with departing from naturalistic morality is that there is no such thing. You may be able to depart from some prudential standard of what some should to or not to to achieve certain outcomes but that is not morality. Just because doing x can be shown to cause pain or pleasure doesn't make it morally wrong. So equating this to consequences of breaching moral laws doesn't make any sence.

Apparently, departing from divine command morality has none except God's displeasure, so punishments must be contrived.

Click to expand...

God's moral laws are still rational and know to us all, so they make sense and have consequences. No just consequences from God's judgment but also directly from not adhering to those moral laws which will bring negative consequences IE "the wages of sin is death". Not just spiritual death but physical death and all sorts of other problems.

The difference is they are grounded in an independent rational and unchanging source that sets the standard of what is morally right and wrong and not a changeable, and arbitrary source based on subjective preferences.

Yes, only objective morality is objective morality, and subjectivity morality is not objective morality.

Click to expand...

I'll make it simple. Without an independent transcendent entity such as God to ground moral values, there can be no morality.

durangodawood said:

Because morality exists as a feature of human species and culture precisely to ensure the success of a society. And for societal success, social order and individual satisfaction must go hand in had more or less, or else collapse will result. Thats what morality is: the tried and true rules for social order as recorded in our wisdom traditions, layered on top of certain biological features of our brain.

Click to expand...

No that is not morality. That is prudential standards. If you want to make a healthy and happy life then exercise and eat well. If you want to create an ordered society then have rules and provide what people need. But there is no moral obligation to have to do those things and anyone who does not live up to these standards is not being morally wrong.

Yes it could be this order imposed from an untouchable other-realm. We cant prove it isnt. But that seems farfetched and is definitely unnecessary as an explanation for the emergence of a sense of right/wrong in the human mind.

Click to expand...

The emergence of a sense of right and wrong from the human mind is another way of describing subjective morality and subjective morality has no way of establishing moral truth and objectivity. Moral objectivity has to come from beyond the human mind and needs to be grounded in a personal being because morals only apply to persons. You cannot be morally obligated to a rock.

Anyway, it seems all this effort to find some way of grounding morality and making it objective is just contrary to what most people in today's society believe which is that morality is subjective. So you are still supporting objective morality which is still supporting the idea that there are no moral values unless they are objectively grounded making subjective morality meaningless.

stevevw said:

....I'll make it simple. Without an independent transcendent entity such as God to ground moral values, there can be no morality.

Click to expand...

Thats true if morality is rules that exist independently from the human mind and culture. But I dont see how one could ever demonstrate that.

stevevw said:

No that is not morality. That is prudential standards. If you want to make a healthy and happy life then exercise and eat well. If you want to create an ordered society then have rules and provide what people need. But there is no moral obligation to have to do those things and anyone who does not live up to these standards is not being morally wrong.

The emergence of a sense of right and wrong from the human mind is another way of describing subjective morality and subjective morality has no way of establishing moral truth and objectivity. Moral objectivity has to come from beyond the human mind and needs to be grounded in a personal being because morals only apply to persons. You cannot be morally obligated to a rock.

Anyway, it seems all this effort to find some way of grounding morality and making it objective is just contrary to what most people in today's society believe which is that morality is subjective. So you are still supporting objective morality which is still supporting the idea that there are no moral values unless they are objectively grounded making subjective morality meaningless.

Click to expand...

Thats what I think morality is: prudential standards coded into the human mind in such a way that violation feels like a sort of internal pain, and encoded into the society such that violation incurs a social pain which also manifests in the psyche. Morality doesnt need to be anything else in order to explain its origin and effectiveness.

And "objective" is absolutely the wrong word to use for divine-origin morality. If thats objective, then show it to me.

stevevw said:

Hi again Speedwell. Actually it is disagreeing with what the majority of Biblical scholars and Christians agree.

Click to expand...

Be careful when you invoke "the majority of Christians." It might not always be true about what you believe.

The problem with departing from naturalistic morality is that there is no such thing. You may be able to depart from some prudential standard of what some should to or not to to achieve certain outcomes but that is not morality. Just because doing x can be shown to cause pain or pleasure doesn't make it morally wrong. So equating this to consequences of breaching moral laws doesn't make any sence. God's moral laws are still rational and know to us all, so they make sense and have consequences. No just consequences from God's judgment but also directly from not adhering to those moral laws which will bring negative consequences IE "the wages of sin is death". Not just spiritual death but physical death and all sorts of other problems.

Click to expand...

Physical death and all sorts of other problems? I thought you said that morality couldn't have consequences like that.

The difference is they are grounded in an independent rational and unchanging source that sets the standard of what is morally right and wrong and not a changeable, and arbitrary source based on subjective preferences.
I'll make it simple. Without an independent transcendent entity such as God to ground moral values, there can be no morality.

Click to expand...

So basically what you have done (and all you have ever done) is to define "morality" in such a way that it can only exist if it is objective, and what subjective moralists call morality doesn't meet the standards of your definition, so it's not morality therefore objective morality wins. Ta Daa!
So moral precepts of which you can never have more than subjective knowledge exist objectively.

Moral Orel said:

First off, I'm not looking for you to prove anything. Hopefully the amount it can be explained is at least somewhat satisfying, that's all I'm looking for.

So thus far, something is good because God imbued it with the quality of goodness?

As an analogy, say there's a painter that loves the color blue and paints nothing but abstracts in shades of blue. We would say that such and such painting of his is blue because he made it that way. Seem apt so far?

So is goodness a real quality in the way that blueness is? What makes something good? Why is "created" a necessary quality for something that is "good"? I don't expect you to answer these questions line by line. They're quasi-rhetorical in that I'm trying to find a good question that gets me a better understanding of "goodness" itself from your view.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you don't expect me to answer these questions line by line, but being I've pointed out many times in the past that because the Bible isn't comprehensive in its "information," then something like a complete and compelling answer to each and every question.............isn't really possible when we're exploring Christian Theology. Wouldn't you agree? There are some things that I don't have the details on by which to manufacture an answer for you, or for anyone else.

Yet, it seems to me that tons of skeptics show up and kind of expect each and every question that their minds can concoct should somehow be...............................answerable when "God" is in the picture. I'm not sure why? I'm guessing it has something to do with an insistence by skeptics that Christians being fully justified (according to the skeptics 'terms') when they utter just about any syllable that falls from their mouths. Of course, I think such a position is bogus since epistemology doesn't really work that way for anybody...............on much of any thing.

Yet, let me attempt an answer, even if it's not for sure a knowable one: The God of the bible created everything. Apparently, it was "Good" in His sight. I'm going to assume from the simple narratives I find in the bible that at least some aspect of the "Good Creation" is to be seen in that the thing created has some amount of function rather than dysfunction inherent within it. So, I'm guessing that from God's perspective, things are 'Good' that follow his designs and/or intentions for functional existence.

But who knows? Maybe God is evil and wants us all to suffer egregiously forevermore ...

However, my point in presenting my angle on "Creation Ethics" is to assert that God is Good and that part of His goodness is the know-how to make something according to His intentions that is functional. But since the Creation itself isn't God, then it stands to reason that this doesn't mean that a "Good Creation" can't still mal-function.

2PhiloVoid said:

I'm glad you don't expect me to answer these questions line by line, but being I've pointed out that because the Bible isn't comprehensive in its "information," then something like a complete and compelling answer to each and every question.............isn't really possible when we're exploring Christian Theology? Wouldn't you agree? There are some things that I don't have the details on by which to manufacture an answer for you, or for anyone else.

Click to expand...

I guess so. Some things that seem central to Christian theology ought to have satisfying answers though, dontcha think?

2PhiloVoid said:

Yet, it seems to me that tons of skeptics show up and kind of expect each and every question that their minds can concoct should somehow be...............................answerable when "God" is in the picture. I'm not sure why?

Click to expand...

I think it's because there's invariably going to be a Christian around with "the answer". In all the times an atheist has asked a question around here, has there ever been an instance where all the Christians agreed, "I dunno"? I've never seen it.

2PhiloVoid said:

Yet, let me attempt an answer, even if it's not for sure a knowable one: The God of the bible created everything. Apparently, it was "Good" in His sight. I'm going to assume from the simple narratives I find in the bible that at least some aspect of the "Good Creation" is to be seen in that the thing created has some amount of function rather than dysfunction inherent within it. So, I'm guessing that from God's perspective, things are 'Good' that follow his designs and/or intentions for functional existence.

Click to expand...

Okay, so if a thing fulfills the function it was designed for it is good. That's fair. I saw someone else use an analogy of a knife a long while back. If it cuts things well, then it is a good knife.

2PhiloVoid said:

But who knows? Maybe God is evil and wants us all to suffer egregiously forevermore ...

Click to expand...

Nyaaaa, could be, could be...

2PhiloVoid said:

My point, though, in presenting "Creation Ethics" is to assert that God is Good and that part of His goodness is the know-how to make something according to His intentions that is functional. But since the Creation itself isn't God, then it stands to reason that this doesn't mean that it can't mal-function.

Click to expand...

I don't understand how creation ethics can say whether God is good or not. If something isn't created, wouldn't it need different criteria? God wasn't designed with a purpose like the things He created were, so what makes God "good"?

Moral Orel said:

I guess so. Some things that seem central to Christian theology ought to have satisfying answers though, dontcha think?

Click to expand...

Honestly speaking? Not always. I can understand the desire to want "satisfying" answers, but being that the whole notion of "satisfying" as we typically conceive it emerges out of our good and bad experiences with other people, then I'd say we'd need to tone down our expectations if we know we're dealing with a whole other Ontological category of being--- i.e. a Supreme Being.

I think it's because there's invariably going to be a Christian around with "the answer". In all the times an atheist has asked a question around here, has there ever been an instance where all the Christians agreed, "I dunno"? I've never seen it.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that in a mortal, human frame of mind, any human being's thoughts should be expected to exactly coincide, and at all times and in parallel fashion, to those of another human being. I could be wrong, but I think that to ask this of all Christians is to ask the impossible, especially if we know from the outset that we don't have comprehensive information, AND the information we do have is .......... kind of encrypted to varying degrees.

Don't get me wrong. It's not like I haven't had my moments in life when I've mulled over the ideas of Christianity and felt like quietly saying: "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH, Oh, God why ??? Why ??? !!! " ... and then a passerby, if his ear was listening, might have heard something slam inside my place of residence.

Okay, so if a thing fulfills the function it was designed for it is good. That's fair. I saw someone else use an analogy of a knife a long while back. If it cuts things well, then it is a good knife.

Nyaaaa, could be, could be...

Click to expand...

I don't understand how creation ethics can say whether God is good or not. If something isn't created, wouldn't it need different criteria? God wasn't designed with a purpose like the things He created were, so what makes God "good"?

Click to expand...

Creation ethics doesn't say God IS good, at least not my version of it anyway. What I'm saying is that the 'report' we have FROM the Bible is that "God is good," but we have only a modicum of 'data' on what that exactly means. Nevertheless, I kind of intuit that what it means isn't something exactly like what YOU and I might mean if we're left to ourselves to define what "the Good" is.

So, whether or not we each think God is Good is a whole other epistemological and ontological inquiry. Somewhere in all of this is the Existential decision that we each ultimately will make on this inquiry. I've landed just to the side of the debate that says, "Yes, Jesus, I think I can go with you on this....however crappy and painful it may seem to be at the present moment."

durangodawood said:

Thats true if morality is rules that exist independently from the human mind and culture. But I dont see how one could ever demonstrate that.

Click to expand...

That still doesn't mean that it is not the case. It makes more sense as people continually keep appealing to morality through intuition like it is real and they are putting a "truth" statement out into the world. In fact, even when people claim that they don't support objective morality or that there are no moral truths they still appeal to moral truths or are bound by moral truths whether they like it or not. In that sense, it is like there is some independent moral truth apart from them that is holding them accountable.

Speedwell said:

Be careful when you invoke "the majority of Christians." It might not always be true about what you believe.

Click to expand...

I think I am pretty safe with most Christians, in fact, I can say all Christians as somehow I don't think any Christians would say God is evil somehow.

Physical death and all sorts of other problems? I thought you said that morality couldn't have consequences like that.

Click to expand...

No, I said that using those measures alone and basing objectivity on scientific evidence of those consequences cannot be used as the basis. It stands to reason that God's morality has consequences. Goodness implies certain qualities and morality implies obligations. Obligations imply consequences.

The Bible speaks of these consequences. A Christian doesn't just follow God's laws blindly and we can reason the benefits of God's morality. God speaks about rest for the weary and Christ speaks about peace in times of conflict and that He gives an abundance of life. The moral argument for God is based on an independent transcendent being who is rational and necessary.

So basically what you have done (and all you have ever done) is to define "morality" in such a way that it can only exist if it is objective, and what subjective moralists call morality doesn't meet the standards of your definition, so it's not morality therefore objective morality wins. Ta Daa!
So moral precepts of which you can never have more than subjective knowledge exist objectively.

Click to expand...

I never said people cannot know moral values. I said that subjective morality should equate to there being no morality as it not really about morality is it? At least that is what subjectivists seem to say. That it is more about "likes and dislikes or opinions.

I think it is hard to keep morality to one's self and it inevitably spills out into the world. So it is more than just personal views but speaking truths. Therefore it needs some independent grounding. The fact that even atheists try to appeal to moral facts (objectivity) through naturalism seems to lend support for this. It is just that many ethicists disagree with naturalism as morality is more about the metaphysical than scientific or physical facts.

2PhiloVoid said:

I'm not sure that in a mortal, human frame of mind, any human being's thoughts should be expected to exactly coincide, and at all times and in parallel fashion, to those of another human being. I could be wrong, but I think that to ask this of all Christians is to ask the impossible, especially if we know from the outset that we don't have comprehensive information, AND the information we do have is .......... kind of encrypted to varying degrees.

Don't get me wrong. It's not like I haven't had my moments in life when I've mulled over the ideas of Christianity and felt like quietly saying: "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHH, Oh, God why ??? Why ??? !!! " ... and then a passerby, if his ear was listening, might have heard something slam inside my place of residence.

Click to expand...

What I was getting at is that you guys encourage us to pester you with questions. As long as there are Christians to say, "I have the answer to that!" there will be unbelievers demanding answers.

2PhiloVoid said:

Creation ethics doesn't say God IS good, at least not my version of it anyway. What I'm saying is that the 'report' we have FROM the Bible is that "God is good," but we have only a modicum of 'data' on what that exactly means. Nevertheless, I kind of intuit that what it means isn't something exactly like what YOU and I might mean if we're left to ourselves to define what "the Good" is.

Click to expand...

What can you say about what makes God good? Is that something that is simply accepted axiomatically?

And you haven't really commented on my analogies. Are they apt? Do they give the impression that I'm understanding what you're saying, or am I missing the mark?

stevevw said:

That still doesn't mean that it is not the case. It makes more sense as people continually keep appealing to morality through intuition like it is real and they are putting a "truth" statement out into the world. In fact, even when people claim that they don't support objective morality or that there are no moral truths they still appeal to moral truths or are bound by moral truths whether they like it or not. In that sense, it is like there is some independent moral truth apart from them that is holding them accountable.

Click to expand...

Yes it is very like that. But subjective moralists are allowed to regard certain moral precepts which they have learned through nurture and which reside in their superegos as "independent moral truth apart from them that is holding them accountable." They don't need your permission.

stevevw said:

That still doesn't mean that it is not the case. It makes more sense as people continually keep appealing to morality through intuition like it is real and they are putting a "truth" statement out into the world. In fact, even when people claim that they don't support objective morality or that there are no moral truths they still appeal to moral truths or are bound by moral truths whether they like it or not. In that sense, it is like there is some independent moral truth apart from them that is holding them accountable.

Click to expand...

Yes. Because religion, with gods and divine realms etc, has been the typical repository of human wisdom, us humans have been conditioned to think about morality as rules-from-on-high. But that doesnt mean its necessarily so.

Also, eons of biological conditioning and total cultural immersion do make internal moral sentiments very strong. But thats also no necessary indication of divine decree.

Also also, I see youre persisting in calling divine decree morality "objective". So it should be easy to show it to me. Please do!

Moral Orel said:

What I was getting at is that you guys encourage us to pester you with questions. As long as there are Christians to say, "I have the answer to that!" there will be unbelievers demanding answers.

Click to expand...

That could be, but we might want to tease out what each Christian means when he or she says, "I have to answer that!"

What can you say about what makes God good? Is that something that is simply accepted axiomatically?

Click to expand...

It's mainly accepted axiomatically, but for my part, I can't say that Christian Theology, in proffering its intuitions of "God's Goodnesses," makes for a nicely coherent package of easily acceptable conclusions, and I may have to also admit --to which I all to often do-- that it's something I have adopted into my thinking rather than just finding myself assuming it, and I do this existentially, mostly.

And let's face the further fact, I'm an English speaking American who was born into a somewhat libertarian-esque family in the 20th century, now living in the 21st. I can't really say that I've ever naturally and even culturally "just assumed" God and His Goodnesses. But if I had been born Jewish and lived in Israel in the 1st century, maybe then I might have found myself just assuming all of this kind of thing axiomatically, both ontologically and axiologically.

And you haven't really commented on my analogies. Are they apt? Do they give the impression that I'm understanding what you're saying, or am I missing the mark?

Click to expand...

I'd say your "knife" analogy is fairly apt, with the usual qualifiers in tow of course.

Speedwell said:

Why the Bible, particularly?

Click to expand...

Mainly because other religious books and worldviews haven't struck a chord with me philosophically like the Bible and Christianity have. (?)

Lord Vega said:

To reiterate my point: because nearly all atheists are hostile towards religion, particularly Christianity, a faith that provides a good moral foundation and enables believers to avoid eternity in hell and inherit salvation, it therefore makes sense to think that atheism and nihilism go hand in hand.

Click to expand...

According to islam, christianity doesn't enable its believers to avoid hell.

stevevw said:

That still doesn't mean that it is not the case. It makes more sense as people continually keep appealing to morality through intuition like it is real and they are putting a "truth" statement out into the world. In fact, even when people claim that they don't support objective morality or that there are no moral truths they still appeal to moral truths or are bound by moral truths whether they like it or not. In that sense, it is like there is some independent moral truth apart from them that is holding them accountable.

Click to expand...

Yes it is very like that. But subjective moralists are allowed to regard certain moral precepts which they have learned through nurture and which reside in their superegos as "independent moral truth apart from them that is holding them accountable." They can even do the same for moral precepts which they create themselves and agree to in solemn convention. They don't need your permission.

2PhiloVoid said:

It's mainly accepted axiomatically, but for my part, I can't say that Christian Theology, in proffering its intuitions of "God's Goodnesses," makes for a nicely coherent package of easily acceptable conclusions, and I may have to also admit --to which I all to often do-- that it's something I have adopted into my thinking rather than just finding myself assuming it, and I do this existentially, mostly.

Click to expand...

Can you expand on what made you adopt it into your thinking? Is there a way to describe what makes God good?

Moral Orel said:

Can you expand on what made you adopt it into your thinking? Is there a way to describe what makes God good?

Click to expand...

What made me 'think' that the report in the Bible about God's Goodness is accurate? That's a complex question, Moral.

How about I propose that the impetus for me to adopt the essentially Jewish idea of God's goodness first came about because, as a teenager, I thought that as far as objective experiences went, death was among my primary concerns, and death was "bad"; there was that, and I had a personal fear about the whole process of finding a woman to marry and have sex with. In my having those two concerns at the time, I felt I needed more than what this world had thus far offered me through science to help quell the fears I had about both of these objective potentialities.

I will admit that of the two fears I had, subjectively, death was scarier for me at the time since I recognized that it was a definite eventuality. And like I've said elsewhere, I felt that death was by my own subjective definition, "bad." But of course, so were both the present realities of loneliness and my social isolation I had on the one hand, and my social anxiety about being deficient as a romantic interest for a woman I might like on the other. Both of these later two states of my existence at the time were "bad" in quality for me too.

So, although we might say all of this initial axiological thought I was contemplating was on a very rudimentary level, I still had something by which to contrast some minimal idea of "bad" with some "good," and I kind of held out hope for some "good" out there that I knew not which it was or what it could be in that moment of my life.

And at 17, I began to read the Bible. I read it and was impressed by the character and words of Jesus, and His "talk" about God. I was also impressed by Paul and some of the other N.T. writers in what they seemed to have to relate about God and His reported "goodness," goodness I wasn't really experiencing in my life at the time.

I'll stop with that. It goes without saying, too, that there's been 33 years more of developing thought I've had afterward, but every account regarding a definition of "the good" has to start somewhere, right?

2PhiloVoid said:

What made me 'think' that the report in the Bible about God's Goodness is accurate? That's a complex question, Moral.

Click to expand...

Aren't they all?

2PhiloVoid said:

How about I propose that the impetus for me to adopt the essentially Jewish idea of God's goodness first came about because, as a teenager, I thought that as far as objective experiences went, death was among my primary concerns, and death was "bad"; there was that, and I had a personal fear about the whole process of finding a woman to marry and have sex with. In my having those two concerns at the time, I felt I needed more than what this world had thus far offered me through science to help quell the fears I had about both of these objective potentialities.

I will admit that of the two fears I had, subjectively, death was scarier for me at the time since I recognized that it was a definite eventuality. And like I've said elsewhere, I felt that death was by my own subjective definition, "bad." But of course, so were both the present realities of loneliness and my social isolation I had on the one hand, and my social anxiety about being deficient as a romantic interest for a woman I might like on the other. Both of these later two states of my existence at the time were "bad" in quality for me too.

So, although we might say all of this initial axiological thought I was contemplating was on a very rudimentary level, I still had something by which to contrast some minimal idea of "bad" with some "good," and I kind of held out hope for some "good" out there that I knew not which it was or what it could be in that moment of my life.

And at 17, I began to read the Bible. I read it and was impressed by the character and words of Jesus, and His "talk" about God. I was also impressed by Paul and some of the other N.T. writers in what they seemed to have to relate about God and His reported "goodness," goodness I wasn't really experiencing in my life at the time.

I'll stop with that. It goes without saying, too, that there's been 33 years more of developing thought I've had afterward, but every account regarding a definition of "the good" has to start somewhere, right?

Click to expand...

It sounds like you're describing God's goodness in an entirely different manner than any other kind of goodness. Are there two kinds of goodness that are wholly separate, or am I just missing the connection thus far?