Can morality exist without God cont..

[Ed1wolf]

Here's where the confusion on this subject lies IMO.

First of all, intelligence and morality are similar inasmuch both of these are abstract concepts that are merely derivative of how we describe certain patterns in reality.

Let's take on intelligence first. When we talk about intelligence, the way you seem to define or refer to it is to create some "non-material" demarcation, detaching it from what intelligence is made up of as a process - matter reacting to other matter.

Matter has properties. These properties define its behavior and reaction with the other matter that have similar or different properties. We have a long list describing how matter reacts with matter, and we abstract these complex and simple reactions into processes, and further into concepts.

Intelligence and morality are such concepts. Intelligence describes a complex process generally found in a function of a brain. Morality is a pattern of behavior that we judge as proper. Intelligence is a process by otherwise "non-intelligent" matter, and that's the problem wish such demarcation - the continuum problem.

When it comes to morality, morality is our situational assessment. To say "how can morality can come from non-morality" is a malformed question. Morality is not something that "emerges" from somewhere on its own. It's a label we give to a stereotypical judgement. That's what morality is.

So you are basically saying that they don't exist. If intelligence doesn't exist then science becomes impossible, if morality doesn't exist then moral responsibility doesn't exist and Stalin did nothing wrong.

 

[Dave Ellis]

So you are basically saying that they don't exist. If intelligence doesn't exist then science becomes impossible, if morality doesn't exist then moral responsibility doesn't exist and Stalin did nothing wrong.

Except that's not what he said.

He never said intelligence and morality don't exist, in fact his argument depends on both of those things existing. He argued that your take on them are nonsensical, stop strawmanning his argument.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Nowhere in the section on Aristotle is it claimed that he doesn't view the world as real. The closest I see is this:

Like Plato, he recognizes the true being of things in their concepts, but denies any separate existence of the concept apart from the particular objects of sense. They are inseparable as matter and form. In matter and form, Aristotle sees the fundamental principles of being. Matter is the basis of all that exists; it comprises the potentiality of everything, but of itself is not actually anything. A determinate thing only comes into being when the potentiality in matter is converted into actuality. This is effected by form, inherent in the unified object and the completion of the potentiality latent in the matter.

Aristotle always sees matter and form as united in the natural universe. Matter without form would not actually be anything, but that is not what the natural universe is like. Matter has potentials that are progressively actualized, and what we experience in nature is what is actualized. All that is actualized can be studied with the help of the senses.

I have serious doubts about your comprehension of Aristotle's philosophy. His views, while still tinged a bit with Plato's ideas, are very much pro-science. By uniting form and matter in the natural universe (instead of placing form in some super-natural reality as Plato did) he paved the way for science.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Ok, I concede that Aristotle may be an exception. But most elite Greeks believed as Plato did. So they never developed modern experimental science and would have been unlikely to ever have.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Is your personal experience falliable?

Yes, but it can be corrected by the Holy spirit thru His written word.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, but it can be corrected by the Holy spirit thru His written word.

And you know this how?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Ok, I concede that Aristotle may be an exception. But most elite Greeks believed as Plato did. So they never developed modern experimental science and would have been unlikely to ever have.

Aristotle is a huge and influential exception. It took the reintroduction of Aristotle in the West to really get an intellectual rebirth going.

IMV, it wasn't Christianity so much as Aristotle that made modern science possible. Christianity had miracles, supernatural realms, talking snakes, looking beyond "this world", and other trappings of Plato and mythology. Christianity literally demonized "this world" with its talk of floating demons in the sky that rule "this world". There's no sufficient reason to think that Christianity had what it took to produce science, other than the influence of Aristotle and some of the other Greeks, such as Democritus. Primarily, we have Aristotle to thank for the modern naturalism that is a precondition for science. Aristotle helped to bring Christianity down to earth much as he did for Plato. He might also have done so for the pagans if they hadn't been replaced by Christians.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[devolved]

So you are basically saying that they don't exist. If intelligence doesn't exist then science becomes impossible, if morality doesn't exist then moral responsibility doesn't exist and Stalin did nothing wrong.

That's not what I'm basically saying. I'm basically saying that you cast physical processes of the brain as "just a bag of chemicals" in order to minimize what they are and maximize you unsubstantiated necessity for them to be more than that.

It's sort of like someone tearing up a letter from my wife and saying "Hey, it's just ink on paper, so it's just chemicals with no meaning". The whole point of this thread is whether we need God to have meaning... and you are begging the question by making it a necessity without demonstrating why.

I'm trying to point out a fact that we derive meaning from observable attributes of reality. That's what meaning is. You are attempting to give it some supernatural nature in order for meaning to be "more meaningful", but it doesn't make it anymore meaningful. It turns out to be exactly the same thing that we already doing. You are merely attaching an extra baggage of the "unseen reality" and "origins" that seems very unintuitive and awkward when we attempt to reconcile into reality.

 

[anonymous person]

That's not what I'm basically saying. I'm basically saying that you cast physical processes of the brain as "just a bag of chemicals" in order to minimize what they are and maximize you unsubstantiated necessity for them to be more than that.

On a materialistic view of the world, our brains and brain functions are reducible to matter. Chemicals, molecules, atoms, whatever you want to call them. This is a conclusion that secular scientists have drawn.

It's sort of like someone tearing up a letter from my wife and saying "Hey, it's just ink on paper, so it's just chemicals with no meaning".

That is exactly what it is. Paper and ink. Any meaning it has, has to be assigned as a subjective evaluation by you or the one reading it or writing it. Alone, it has no meaning. We assign value and meaning to such things.

The whole point of this thread is whether we need God to have meaning... and you are begging the question by making it a necessity without demonstrating why.

The word meaning can be used in more than one sense. If by subjective meaning, then no, no God is required. If by meaning, you refer to something objective, then yes. God is required.

I'm trying to point out a fact that we derive meaning from observable attributes of reality. That's what meaning is.

That is one sense in which the word can be used. You derive meaning from letters written by your wife. In them you derive a sense of well-being and happiness. These are subjective evaluations.

You are attempting to give it some supernatural nature in order for meaning to be "more meaningful", but it doesn't make it anymore meaningful. It turns out to be exactly the same thing that we already doing. You are merely attaching an extra baggage of the "unseen reality" and "origins" that seems very unintuitive and awkward when we attempt to reconcile into reality.

He is attempting to contrast subjective meaning that can be derived in the absence of God, with objective meaning that can only be had if God exists.

 

[devolved]

On a materialistic view of the world, our brains and brain functions are reducible to matter. Chemicals, molecules, atoms, whatever you want to call them. This is a conclusion that secular scientists have drawn.

That's where you misunderstand the materialistic view of the world. Conclusion isn't that there may not be something else. The conclusion is that based on the evidence that we observe consistently, there seems to be no good reason to presuppose another layer without demonstrable necessity.

Scientific view is always an open-ended book, pending that evidence is provided that would validate the view.

That is exactly what it is. Paper and ink. Any meaning it has, has to be assigned as a subjective evaluation by you or the one reading it or writing it. Alone, it has no meaning. We assign value and meaning to such things.

Sure, I'm not saying anything different. We assign these meaning and that's precisely the point. We've invented the language, which is essentially a collection of labels for various processes and entities, and we are using language to communicate these ideas. That's what gives it all meaning - our subjective view.

The word meaning can be used in more than one sense. If by subjective meaning, then no, no God is required. If by meaning, you refer to something objective, then yes. God is required.

Objective doesn't mean what you think it means, especially in a scope of morality. In a world without human beings morality is meaningless. Thus, it's always a subject to human evaluation of behavior in a specific sets of circumstances.

He is attempting to contrast subjective meaning that can be derived in the absence of God, with objective meaning that can only be had if God exists.

Again, see the above. "Objective" is not something you'll have in a world where we have to learn and communicate information, and process it via our own understanding and perception. Objective, in the way we generally use it, means that we attempt to, as much as possible, detach our conclusions from our biases. That's why we generally deal with objectivity through some means like peer-review, where a lot of people get to weigh in and deconstruct any potential fallacies.

It's not a full-proof method, but it's the best one we've got.

 

[anonymous person]

That's where you misunderstand the materialistic view of the world. Conclusion isn't that there may not be something else. The conclusion is that based on the evidence that we observe consistently, there seems to be no good reason to presuppose another layer without demonstrable necessity.

Scientific view is always an open-ended book, pending that evidence is provided that would validate the view.



Sure, I'm not saying anything different. We assign these meaning and that's precisely the point. We've invented the language, which is essentially a collection of labels for various processes and entities, and we are using language to communicate these ideas. That's what gives it all meaning - our subjective view.



Objective doesn't mean what you think it means, especially in a scope of morality. In a world without human beings morality is meaningless. Thus, it's always a subject to human evaluation of behavior in a specific sets of circumstances.




Again, see the above. "Objective" is not something you'll have in a world where we have to learn and communicate information, and process it via our own understanding and perception. Objective, in the way we generally use it, means that we attempt to, as much as possible, detach our conclusions from our biases. That's why we generally deal with objectivity through some means like peer-review, where a lot of people get to weigh in and deconstruct any potential fallacies.

It's not a full-proof method, but it's the best one we've got.

Objective can be used in more than one sense. The sense in which I use the term is to be understood as "independent of humans".

To help you understand this better I will use the word in a sentence.

Objective moral values and duties, if they exist, are values and duties that are grounded in something other than the shifting sands of human opinion and preference. They are grounded in something outside of and independent of human opinion.

 

[devolved]

Objective moral values and duties, if they exist, are values and duties that are grounded in something other than the shifting sands of human opinion and preference. They are grounded in something outside of and independent of human opinion.

So, your personal opinion is that the above is the case?

 

[anonymous person]

So, your personal opinion is that the above is the case?

I think some things are wrong and the wrongness of such things is not dependent upon the shifting sands of human preference, but are wrong objectively.

I think the grounds for these things being wrong are God's commands and not the shifting sands of human opinion.

So yes, I am of the opinion that there is good evidence that some things are objectively wrong and that God's commands furnish an objective grounds for such moral obligations.

The evidence must be interpreted like anything else and people draw different conclusions and I do not think anyone is completely objective (for clarification, here I am using the term to mean unbiased) when it comes to interpreting the evidence. I believe everyone has a bias either for or against the implications and this bias has more of an affect on our conclusion than we would like to admit sometimes. I do however believe that there is a right answer to the questions, "Do objective moral values and duties exist?" and "Are they grounded in God's commands?"

I am of the opinion that the answer to those questions is either yes or no. If someone says no, then I would ask them to provide reasons for thinking not.

I think this is reasonable don't you?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I think some things are wrong and the wrongness of such things is not dependent upon the shifting sands of human preference, but are wrong objectively.

I think the grounds for these things being wrong are God's commands and not the shifting sands of human opinion.

So yes, I am of the opinion that there is good evidence that some things are objectively wrong and that God's commands furnish an objective grounds for such moral obligations.

Enter Euthyphro.

The evidence must be interpreted like anything else and people draw different conclusions and I do not think anyone is completely objective (for clarification, here I am using the term to mean unbiased) when it comes to interpreting the evidence. I believe everyone has a bias either for or against the implications and this bias has more of an affect on our conclusion than we would like to admit sometimes. I do however believe that there is a right answer to the questions, "Do objective moral values and duties exist?" and "Are they grounded in God's commands?"

As discussed previously, you've used at least two different definitions of "objective." Your first definition rendered the first premise of your version of the moral argument tautological. Your second definition excluded a personal God as being the foundation of morality.

 

[anonymous person]

Enter Euthyphro.

And he left some time ago when it was shown that his dilemma was a false one.

As discussed previously, you've used at least two different definitions of "objective." Your first definition rendered the first premise of your version of the moral argument tautological. Your second definition excluded a personal God as being the foundation of morality.

The word can be used in more ways than one as I am sure you are aware. Since this is the case, it is the responsibility of the arguer to make clear how he uses the term, which I feel I have done. You feel otherwise and that is fine. If you find my case ambiguous or fallacious or unsound or wrong or false or deceptive or anything else, and you desire to see another defense or formulation of it, simply reference the works by professional philosophers who defend the argument. Maybe their arguments will be more clear or more acceptable for you. Thanks.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And he left some time ago when it was shown that his dilemma was a false one.

When was that?

The word can be used in more ways than one as I am sure you are aware. Since this is the case, it is the responsibility of the arguer to make clear how he uses the term, which I feel I have done. You feel otherwise and that is fine. If you find my case ambiguous or fallacious or unsound or wrong or false or deceptive or anything else, and you desire to see another defense or formulation of it, simply reference the works by professional philosophers who defend the argument. Maybe their arguments will be more clear or more acceptable for you. Thanks.

I'm only going by the definitions you've given. Your most recent definition raises a question: to be "objective," must it also be independent of the preferences of demons? Or is it just humans?

 

[anonymous person]

When was that?

Ever since people realized that there’s a third alternative i.e. that God wills something because He is good i.e. God’s own nature determines what is the good.

People have realized this for quite some time. A historical summary of the various responses to the supposed dilemma can be found on the web.

I'm only going by the definitions you've given. Your most recent definition raises a question: to be "objective," must it also be independent of the preferences of demons? Or is it just humans?

Reference the works of professional scholars and philosophers on the various formulations of the moral argument from the existence of objective moral values and duties. In their work, hopefully you will find the answers you are looking for and if not, maybe you can write them and ask them about demons and such and whether or not they mean to include or exclude them.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ever since people realized that there’s a third alternative i.e. that God wills something because He is good i.e. God’s own nature determines what is the good.

You've just shifted the problem from God's will to his nature. Is it in God's nature because it is good or is it good because it is in God's nature?

Reference the works of professional scholars and philosophers on the various formulations of the moral argument from the existence of objective moral values and duties. In their work, hopefully you will find the answers you are looking for and if not, maybe you can write them and ask them about demons and such and whether or not they mean to include or exclude them.

I'm asking you, since you're the one presenting the argument here.

 

[anonymous person]

You've just shifted the problem from God's will to his nature. Is it in God's nature because it is good or is it good because it is in God's nature?

There is no distinction between good and nature as your question assumes. God is good. His commands flow from His essential goodness as expressions of said goodness.

I'm asking you, since you're the one presenting the argument here.

I am honored, but the arguments are not mine. I did not formulate them, nor do I defend them in peer-reviewed publications. I present them to lay people the best I can and when a situation arises like the one I find myself in with you, where I do not feel competent to answer your question, I think it best to refer you to the professionals.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There is no distinction between good and nature as your question assumes. God is good. His commands flow from His essential goodness as expressions of said goodness.

Then what does it mean to say "God is good"? Such an evaluation implies that you are judging his actions or character according to some other standard or criteria. Yet going by what you have said, whatever he is or does automatically becomes "good," in which case saying "God is good" is equivalent to saying that he is what he is and does what he does.

I am honored, but the arguments are not mine. I did not formulate them, nor do I defend them in peer-reviewed publications. I present them to lay people the best I can and when a situation arises like the one I find myself in with you, where I do not feel competent to answer your question, I think it best to refer you to the professionals.

Considering that you once presented yourself as a professional, wouldn't that be you? Since you are now admitting that you aren't a professional, that doesn't quite help either, given that you are posting here and they are not. In any case, it doesn't matter, because I'm not asking "the professionals," but you.

 

[anonymous person]

Then what does it mean to say "God is good"? Such an evaluation implies that you are judging his actions or character according to some other standard or criteria. Yet going by what you have said, whatever he is or does automatically becomes "good," in which case saying "God is good" is equivalent to saying that he is what he is and does what he does.

I will not be able to answer these questions to your satisfaction. I refer you to those who are professionals who may be able to. You can find their work which is available free of charge by using Google or some similar search engine.

Considering that you once presented yourself as a professional, wouldn't that be you? Since you are now admitting that you aren't a professional, that doesn't quite help either, given that you are posting here and they are not. In any case, it doesn't matter, because I'm not asking "the professionals," but you.

If you feel I have presented myself as a professional philosopher, then know for certain, and from my own mouth that I am not, nor was it my intention to do so.

I once again refer you to those who are whose words you may find more credible than my own.