Christians do not "own" morality

[alien444]

I'm an atheist, and I'd argue for a reason (rather than science) based universal morality. I think there are moral truths, and it isn't just opinion.

I understand, but I would argue that reason itself can only be explained by science. By science based, I certainly do not mean a cold calculated utilitarian morality, or a "might makes right" social Darwinism. I mean that science is our means for understanding human nature, and since morality is part of our human nature, to understand it we have to examine it scientifically. Reason certainly plays a huge role in developing moral principles or paradigms.


Respect the will of all people equally. (ie: Don't kill people, because they don't want to be killed).

i

 

[Paradoxum]

I understand, but I would argue that reason itself can only be explained by science. By science based, I certainly do not mean a cold calculated utilitarian morality, or a "might makes right" social Darwinism. I mean that science is our means for understanding human nature, and since morality is part of our human nature, to understand it we have to examine it scientifically. Reason certainly plays a huge role in developing moral principles or paradigms.

Reason (the faculty) is understood with science, but that doesn't mean reason is science. I don't think what you've said really disagrees with what I said.

 

[durangodawood]

...If a "real world" moral principle can be stated without exceptions under any "real world" circumstance then "objective" "absolute" morality exists.

ALL moral principles can be stated without exception, holding true in every circumstance.

 

[bhsmte]

The idea of an objective moral code existing as the result of the Abrahamic God is logically unsound. There is no moral or ethical action that is exclusive to Christians. How do I know what is moral without the direction of the objective moral arbiter? How do children who are not indoctrinated by religion capable of recognizing correct moral choices.

Some atheists argue for a scientifically based objective morality, and the argument is strong, but I still see morality as somewhat subjective (and unfortunately) relative. Absolute morality does not leave room for the complexity of the human experience. The fundamental moral principles of Christian morality should be absolute If they're are the product of an objective moral arbiter. For example, Should you truly "love your neighbor" under all possible circumstances? What If your neighbor rapes and murders your closest loved one, child, or spouse? Does anyone here seriously believe that they could love someone under this circumstance. Perhaps the most compassionate among us could forgive this person, but love is entirely different. I have to say if you could love someone who raped or murdered your child, then you might be a sociopath. I am sure some are thinking "that is not what Jesus meant" and can cite a bible verse to support it, but if there are exceptions or conditions, then it is not an absolute moral principle. The same applies to the question--Could you truly "do unto others as you wish them to do unto you" under all possible circumstances? What about high functioning psychopaths who enjoy pain and debasement. Both of these moral principles existed thousands of years before the establishment of Christianity and can be found in the writings of Buddha and Confucius. They are excellent moral principles and are universally found in civilization but are not absolute, and therefore, cannot be absolutely objective. Morality must contain an element of subjectivity to allow for the contradictions of reality. Human morality is a complicated amalgamation of evolutionary and social factors. Religion, as our first attempt at explaining the universe, naturally seeks to explain morality as well. However, as religion has failed to adequately explain the workings of the universe, it has naturally failed to explain the workings of biology and human nature.

Agree.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

The idea of an objective moral code existing as the result of the Abrahamic God is logically unsound...

Does that idea really exist?

There is no moral or ethical action that is exclusive to Christians...

We have gone from "objective" to "exclusive to Christians".

How do I know what is moral without the direction of the objective moral arbiter?...

Then I guess by "exclusive to Christians" you mean Divine Command Theory.

Objective morality or Divine Command Theory, which is it?

How do children who are not indoctrinated by religion capable of recognizing correct moral choices...

Sounds like more Divine Command Theory.

Some atheists argue for a scientifically based objective morality,...

Now we have some context to give "objective" meaning.

There is nothing that is purely objective or non-objective. Objectivity is a matter of degree. If everybody observes an insect with their eyes and reports that it is an inch long, that is objective. If everybody then measures that insect with a ruler and reports that it is just under an inch long, that is objective. The difference is degree. By using a ruler we eliminate distortions.

Objectivity does not guarantee accuracy.

Objectivity is about reliability.

but I still see morality as somewhat subjective (and unfortunately) relative. Absolute morality does not leave room for the complexity of the human experience...

First we were talking about objective. Now you bring up absolute.

Objective is a matter of degree. Absolute is not.

Are we talking about objective or absolute?

The fundamental moral principles of Christian morality should be absolute If they're are the product of an objective moral arbiter...

Again, are we talking about objective morality or Divine Command Theory?

And, again, are we talking about objective or absolute?

For example, Should you truly "love your neighbor" under all possible circumstances? What If your neighbor rapes and murders your closest loved one, child, or spouse? Does anyone here seriously believe that they could love someone under this circumstance. Perhaps the most compassionate among us could forgive this person, but love is entirely different...

Now we seem to be talking about Divine Command Theory, but this time with a twist: the commands from God are categorical imperatives.

Does anybody really subscribe to this Divine-Command-Theory-with-categorical-imperatives system?

I have to say if you could love someone who raped or murdered your child, then you might be a sociopath...

I think that you need to check the definition of sociopath.

I am sure some are thinking "that is not what Jesus meant" and can cite a bible verse to support it, but if there are exceptions or conditions, then it is not an absolute moral principle...

Again, does anybody really subscribe to this Divine-Command-Theory-with-categorical-imperatives system?

The same applies to the question--Could you truly "do unto others as you wish them to do unto you" under all possible circumstances? What about high functioning psychopaths who enjoy pain and debasement. Both of these moral principles existed thousands of years before the establishment of Christianity and can be found in the writings of Buddha and Confucius. They are excellent moral principles and are universally found in civilization but are not absolute, and therefore, cannot be absolutely objective...

There is no such thing as absolutely objective. Nothing is purely objective or non-objective. Objectivity is a matter of degree.

But I thought that we weren't talking about objectivity anyway. I thought that we were talking about Divine Command Theory with the commands from God being categorical imperatives.

The part about Buddha and Confucius seems to be you refuting Divine Command Theory. But then you talk about objectivity--specifically, "absolutely" objective (and there is no such thing).

Morality must contain an element of subjectivity to allow for the contradictions of reality...

So the problem you have with this Divine-Command-Theory-with-categorical-imperatives system is the categorical imperatives part?

If the commands coming from God were instead hypothetical imperatives then you would have no problem with the system?

Or is it really the commands from God part that you have a problem with?

And, again, does anybody really subscribe to this Divine-Command-Theory-with-categorical-imperatives system anyway?

Human morality is a complicated amalgamation of evolutionary and social factors. Religion, as our first attempt at explaining the universe, naturally seeks to explain morality as well. However, as religion has failed to adequately explain the workings of the universe, it has naturally failed to explain the workings of biology and human nature.

Morality is concerned with the way things ought to be, not with explaining the way things are.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Does that idea really exist?

It's actually pretty widespread. William Lane Craig seems to be a particular fan of it.
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-we-be-good-without-god

 

[alien444]

Does that idea really exist?


Objective morality or Divine Command Theory, which is it?

Not Divine Command Theory exactly, because DCT is morality based on reward and punishment where moral principles can change depending on God's will. If absolute morals do not change, then absolute morality cannot exist in DCT either. However, What I am arguing against is the existence of absolute morals presided over by an objective arbiter. Absolute morals are unchanging by definition, and the objective arbiter is the unchanging source (i.e. God-who is perfect and doesn't need to change). You might even say that these absolute morals exist independently of God after their creation, making him subject to his own "rule of law" if he is to be truly just, which would be very different than DCT (but this is a digression).


Sounds like more Divine Command Theory.

Not entirely unrelated, but DCT says anything is moral as long as God commands it, which I guess has to be true if you are a Christian, right? But in Christian apologetics where the idea is not to appeal to the source, but to logic, you can't just say moral choices are right or wrong because God says so. Therefore, this idea of the objective arbiter who presides over absolute morals has been used in conversations I have personally had with others. The point of those who argue this is that in order to have absolute morality, you must have the objective arbiter. It is not so much an argument about the nature of morality, as it is an argument for God's necessary existence. My point is that absolute morality doesn't exist with or without God (unless you revert to DCT).



Objectivity does not guarantee accuracy.

Objectivity is about reliability.
I understand and I would agree if we weren't talking about a God.



First we were talking about objective. Now you bring up absolute.

Objective is a matter of degree. Absolute is not.

Are we talking about objective or absolute?

In the argument that I am talking about (which I think was popularized by William Lane Craig) the terms are used almost interchangeably. Objective is meant to be absolute in this way because we are talking about something that can be known existing independent of thought or of an observer as part of reality. Subjectivity occurs in the human mind, in this case the objective exists whether humans exist or not, therefore it is absolute.



Again, are we talking about objective morality or Divine Command Theory?

And, again, are we talking about objective or absolute?


Now we seem to be talking about Divine Command Theory, but this time with a twist: the commands from God are categorical imperatives.

No reason at all to bring Kant into this. LOL.

Does anybody really subscribe to this Divine-Command-Theory-with-categorical-imperatives system?

Divine Command Theory? Yes, every Christian I have ever discussed morality with. Categorical Imperatives? Yes, every Christian I have ever discussed morality with. Haven't really thought about what combining them means exactly.


I think that you need to check the definition of sociopath.

The sociopath remark was hyperbole not meant as a clinical diagnosis of someone who is emotionally capable of loving a person who raped or murdered their child.


There is no such thing as absolutely objective. Nothing is purely objective or non-objective. Objectivity is a matter of degree.

Once again I disagree. Something cannot be subjective if it exists outside of the realm of human thought, therefore it is objective. Morality is indeed subjective, but the idea of absolute morality is an objective morality.

But I thought that we weren't talking about objectivity anyway. I thought that we were talking about Divine Command Theory with the commands from God being categorical imperatives.

The part about Buddha and Confucius seems to be you refuting Divine Command Theory. But then you talk about objectivity--specifically, "absolutely" objective (and there is no such thing).


So the problem you have with this Divine-Command-Theory with-categorical-imperatives system is the categorical imperatives part?

I am not talking about Divine Command... *sigh*...nevermind


If the commands coming from God were instead hypothetical imperatives then you would have no problem with the system?

Huh?

Or is it really the commands from God part that you have a problem with?

No, it is religious individuals who claim that 1)absolute morality exists and 2)it is proof of God (see William Lane Craig)

And, again, does anybody really subscribe to this Divine-Command-Theory-with-categorical-imperatives system anyway?



Morality is concerned with the way things ought to be, not with explaining the way things are.

Finally we agree. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

i

 

[bhsmte]

It's actually pretty widespread. William Lane Craig seems to be a particular fan of it.

Yep, Craig likes it.

Sam Harris destroyed him on this topic at a debate they did at the University of Notre Dame.

 

[alien444]

Yep, Craig likes it.

Sam Harris destroyed him on this topic at a debate they did at the University of Notre Dame.

I imagine he did. I think the Moral Landscape puts forth a brilliant, workable idea of objective morality (not absolute) that is an improvement over classical utilitarianism.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Yep, Craig likes it.

Sam Harris destroyed him on this topic at a debate they did at the University of Notre Dame.

He would have, because that meta-ethical position is pretty much nonsense until you can find a way to logically argue that, in the world of subjective perspectives, a perspective from a supremely powerful being somehow becomes objective just because that being created the other beings. Maybe you could make that argument, but I really can't figure out how.

 

[Ruthie24]

The idea of an objective moral code existing as the result of the Abrahamic God is logically unsound. There is no moral or ethical action that is exclusive to Christians. How do I know what is moral without the direction of the objective moral arbiter? How do children who are not indoctrinated by religion capable of recognizing correct moral choices.

Some atheists argue for a scientifically based objective morality, and the argument is strong, but I still see morality as somewhat subjective (and unfortunately) relative. Absolute morality does not leave room for the complexity of the human experience. The fundamental moral principles of Christian morality should be absolute If they're are the product of an objective moral arbiter. For example, Should you truly "love your neighbor" under all possible circumstances? What If your neighbor rapes and murders your closest loved one, child, or spouse? Does anyone here seriously believe that they could love someone under this circumstance. Perhaps the most compassionate among us could forgive this person, but love is entirely different. I have to say if you could love someone who raped or murdered your child, then you might be a sociopath. I am sure some are thinking "that is not what Jesus meant" and can cite a bible verse to support it, but if there are exceptions or conditions, then it is not an absolute moral principle. The same applies to the question--Could you truly "do unto others as you wish them to do unto you" under all possible circumstances? What about high functioning psychopaths who enjoy pain and debasement. Both of these moral principles existed thousands of years before the establishment of Christianity and can be found in the writings of Buddha and Confucius. They are excellent moral principles and are universally found in civilization but are not absolute, and therefore, cannot be absolutely objective. Morality must contain an element of subjectivity to allow for the contradictions of reality. Human morality is a complicated amalgamation of evolutionary and social factors. Religion, as our first attempt at explaining the universe, naturally seeks to explain morality as well. However, as religion has failed to adequately explain the workings of the universe, it has naturally failed to explain the workings of biology and human nature.

Christ is the ultimate morality. There is no such thing as moral relativism although people really try to whitewash it like that. One man's crimes is another mans moral relativity. One man's crimes is another mans cultural moors. Utter bull crap.

 

[Gadarene]

Christ is the ultimate morality. There is no such thing as moral relativism although people really try to whitewash it like that. One man's crimes is another mans moral relativity. One man's crimes is another mans cultural moors. Utter bull crap.

And genocide was fine when god ordained it and now it isn't?

Christians have their own moral relativism, so this is just hypocrisy.

 

[Ruthie24]

And genocide was fine when god ordained it and now it isn't?

Christians have their own moral relativism, so this is just hypocrisy.

You need to look at why those genocides occurred. It's not hypocrisy. It's understanding what happened and why it needed to happen. Just follow the history, ancient texts reveal their secrets if you drop your own understanding of them.

 

[Gadarene]

You need to look at why those genocides occurred. It's not hypocrisy. It's understanding what happened and why it needed to happen. Just follow the history, ancient texts reveal their secrets if you drop your own understanding of them.

Careful Ruthie, you're sounding kinda relativist there.

Crap is right

 

[Syd the Human]

You need to look at why those genocides occurred. It's not hypocrisy. It's understanding what happened and why it needed to happen. Just follow the history, ancient texts reveal their secrets if you drop your own understanding of them.

So, it's necessary to murder sometimes? But it's wrong to murder people...Except when it isn't, because God needed people to kill other people to further history?

 

[Ruthie24]

Careful Ruthie, you're sounding kinda relativist there.

Crap is right

Like I said there are reasons why God did what he did. Read the book of Enoch to start off. There's nothing relative about it.

 

[bhsmte]

Like I said there are reasons why God did what he did. Read the book of Enoch to start off. There's nothing relative about it.

In other words; whatever God commands is good, no matter what it is?

Would this be correct?

 

[Ruthie24]

So, it's necessary to murder sometimes? But it's wrong to murder people...Except when it isn't, because God needed people to kill other people to further history?

There's a big difference between murder and justified killing. Read the book of Enoch if you are curious as to why God felt it necessary to kill people.

 

[Syd the Human]

There's a big difference between murder and justified killing. Read the book of Enoch if you are curious as to why God felt it necessary to kill people.

Does someone die in the end? Stop with the semantics.

 

[steve_bakr]

The idea of an objective moral code existing as the result of the Abrahamic God is logically unsound. There is no moral or ethical action that is exclusive to Christians. How do I know what is moral without the direction of the objective moral arbiter? How do children who are not indoctrinated by religion capable of recognizing correct moral choices.

Some atheists argue for a scientifically based objective morality, and the argument is strong, but I still see morality as somewhat subjective (and unfortunately) relative. Absolute morality does not leave room for the complexity of the human experience. The fundamental moral principles of Christian morality should be absolute If they're are the product of an objective moral arbiter. For example, Should you truly "love your neighbor" under all possible circumstances? What If your neighbor rapes and murders your closest loved one, child, or spouse? Does anyone here seriously believe that they could love someone under this circumstance. Perhaps the most compassionate among us could forgive this person, but love is entirely different. I have to say if you could love someone who raped or murdered your child, then you might be a sociopath. I am sure some are thinking "that is not what Jesus meant" and can cite a bible verse to support it, but if there are exceptions or conditions, then it is not an absolute moral principle. The same applies to the question--Could you truly "do unto others as you wish them to do unto you" under all possible circumstances? What about high functioning psychopaths who enjoy pain and debasement. Both of these moral principles existed thousands of years before the establishment of Christianity and can be found in the writings of Buddha and Confucius. They are excellent moral principles and are universally found in civilization but are not absolute, and therefore, cannot be absolutely objective. Morality must contain an element of subjectivity to allow for the contradictions of reality. Human morality is a complicated amalgamation of evolutionary and social factors. Religion, as our first attempt at explaining the universe, naturally seeks to explain morality as well. However, as religion has failed to adequately explain the workings of the universe, it has naturally failed to explain the workings of biology and human nature.

Religion is about man's relationship with the Absolute, whether you call it God, Allah, Absolute Mind, Void, or whatever. From this springs our relationship with each other and everything around us.

There are Absolute Moral Principles that exist in all major religions. These are sometimes called the Perennial Philosophy, which has been written about extensively.

The extreme examples that you bring up are exceptions that prove the rule rather than a case for throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Can I personally love someone in every circumstance? No. But Jesus said, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do."