How is it consistent to criticize the left for hating America AND not having an objective morality ?

[gaara4158]

The claims of Christian Theism is that God is the source of all truth and why things are true at all, He is a being who's behaviour is subjective to Himself, He is sovereign, this is His Creation and therefore He sets the universal parameters of our behaviour. Elohim, The Source of all truth, allows inductive reasoning to have justification/reliability, moral claims to be facts, allows logic & reason to have a reason as to why they can be trusted or be reliable as apposed to "it's all we have" and allows for the real existence of laws of logic & mathematics and their correspondence to nature. It's not just God's standard for morality, it's God's standard for everything. He is the basis on which we are able to reason authoritatively at all.

The very nature of a correct or right moral stance means that the moral is true regardless of personal experience or interpretation, so any kind of relative or subjective morality is off the table if you want to say why your 'personal preferences' are authoritative in any way which is why it's self refuting if you want to say that certain moral actions are correct/right under subjective morality. Inherent value to human life doesn't exist independent of a transcendent source. Ergo The Being who created us determines what is right for His creation.

Anyone can make a claim and define that as the objective foundation to morality. I don’t see how that makes their moral framework any more compelling or binding than one based on societal health and well-being.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Anyone can make a claim and define that as the objective foundation to morality. I don’t see how that makes their moral framework any more compelling or binding than one based on societal health and well-being.

That's because in order to say societal health and well-being is in fact good you've assumed that there is an objective foundation to morality in order to call it good. Your determining what is good or bad is reasoning from a framework to weigh things as good or bad in. That reasoning of harm = bad (well-being = good) is presupposing the truth of things that are unable to be substantiated in order to establish it as true. To put it simply, you need a reason as to why societal health and well-being is good and under an evolutionary paradigm you will only assume the truth of things in order to establish moral conclusions and continuously do so in an infinite regression. It's unavoidable within paradigms that deny the transcendent.

The reason for:

The claims of Christian Theism is that God is the source of all truth and why things are true at all, He is a being who's behaviour is subjective to Himself, He is sovereign, this is His Creation and therefore He sets the universal parameters of our behaviour. Elohim, The Source of all truth, allows inductive reasoning to have justification/reliability, moral claims to be facts, allows logic & reason to have a reason as to why they can be trusted or be reliable as apposed to "it's all we have" and allows for the real existence of laws of logic & mathematics and their correspondence to nature. It's not just God's standard for morality, it's God's standard for everything. He is the basis on which we are able to reason authoritatively at all.

The very nature of a correct or right moral stance means that the moral is true regardless of personal experience or interpretation, so any kind of relative or subjective morality is off the table if you want to say why your 'personal preferences' are authoritative in any way which is why it's self refuting if you want to say that certain moral actions are correct/right under subjective morality. Inherent value to human life doesn't exist independent of a transcendent source. Ergo The Being who created us determines what is right for His creation.

Is to show the incoherence of a worldview that is unable to justify the incontrovertible truths required in order to reach any conclusion. When one worldview accounts for all of these things and Naturalism, Materialism and most forms of Empiricism all fall flat on the very reasoning required to establish them as true and NEED Christian presuppositions about reality in order to function, then why would you hold to it?

Let's use our friend Walking Contradiction as an example. Our friend Walking Contradiction called himself a "Epistemological Solipsist": "In epistemology, epistemological solipsism is the claim that one can only be sure of the existence of one's mind. The existence of other minds and the external world is not necessarily rejected but one can not be sure of its existence." (I hate quoting Wikipedia but it's a good jumping off point).

How can you be sure of the existence of your own mind? In order to say that your mind exists you need to presuppose the truth of logic and reason that allow you to come to the conclusion that your mind is the only one that you can be sure that exists. So now that has three things existing, the truth of logic reason, it's correspondence to reality around you which you can be sure of and your mind. But do you see the problem? There's no justification for the authoritative use of the reason he's used to come to this conclusion and it makes his premise self-refuting and unable to be proven.
When he reasons for his position he presuppose the existence and truth of logical laws and also he presupposes that it's true that laws of logic correspond to existence around him in order to say why his position is true. He is without any ability to provide a reason as to why they are true or why his use of reason & logic is authoritative to claim that it is in fact true he can only be sure of the existence of his own mind.

These very facts that are necessary/required in order to reach any conclusion and have no justification to be found within the paradigms of Naturalism & Materialism, the very paradigms that makes evidence, evidence in a secular worldview.

So the "objective foundation for morality" is not just an objective foundation for morality, but an objective foundation for existence. Therefore morals are just like anything else and the truth of them & their justification comes from the same source that you allows you to reason inductively.

[Edit: Phrasing]

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

That's not the worst argument I've heard for knowing what's right or wrong. But I can't actually remember a worse one...

Thank you Brad. I'm glad to be on the "not the worst argument" list though I'm not sure how far down on the ladder I am!

It's one of the reasons why I think Deism is a bigger threat to Christianity than any Atheistic philosophy. Deism allows you to justify your presuppositions while at the same time being effectively agnostic. Though within Deism you do justify your presuppositions rather incoherently in comparison to Christianity, it at least allows for a transcendental justification for moral claims, the authoritative use of logic & reason & etc. It allows you to philosophically claim monotheism but stop short of confessing Yahweh as God. Kind of similar to Epicureanism or Stoicism.

 

[Hammster]

I never said you did; I said you claim your God to be the moral authority.

He does. And rightly so.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's because in order to say societal health and well-being is in fact good you've assumed that there is an objective foundation to morality in order to call it good. Your determining what is good or bad is reasoning from a framework to weigh things as good or bad in. That reasoning of harm = bad (well-being = good) is presupposing the truth of things that are unable to be substantiated in order to establish it as true. To put it simply, you need a reason as to why societal health and well-being is good and under an evolutionary paradigm you will only assume the truth of things in order to establish moral conclusions and continuously do so in an infinite regression. It's unavoidable within paradigms that deny the transcendent.

The reason for:

Is to show the incoherence of a worldview that is unable to justify the incontrovertible truths required in order to reach any conclusion. When one worldview accounts for all of these things and Naturalism, Materialism and most forms of Empiricism all fall flat on the very reasoning required to establish them as true and NEED Christian presuppositions about reality in order to function, then why would you hold to it?

Let's use our friend Walking Contradiction as an example. Our friend Walking Contradiction called himself a "Epistemological Solipsist": "In epistemology, epistemological solipsism is the claim that one can only be sure of the existence of one's mind. The existence of other minds and the external world is not necessarily rejected but one can not be sure of its existence." (I hate quoting Wikipedia but it's a good jumping off point).

How can you be sure of the existence of your own mind? In order to say that your mind exists you need to presuppose the truth of logic and reason that allow you to come to the conclusion that your mind is the only the you can be sure that exists. So now that has three things existing, the truth of logic reason, it's correspondence to reality around you which you can be sure of and your mind. But do you see the problem? There's no justification for the authoritative use of the reason he's used to come to this conclusion and it makes his premise self-refuting and unable to be proven.
When he reasons for his position he presuppose the existence and truth of logical laws and also he presupposes that it's true that laws of logic correspond to existence around him in order to say why his position is true. He is without any ability to provide a reason as to why they are true or why his use of reason & logic is authoritative to claim that it is in fact true he can only be sure of the existence of his own mind.

These very facts that are necessary/required in order to reach any conclusion and have no justification to be found within the paradigms of Naturalism & Materialism, the very paradigms that makes evidence, evidence in a secular worldview.

So the "objective foundation for morality" is not just an objective foundation for morality, but an objective foundation for existence. Therefore morals are just like anything else and the truth of them & their justification comes from the same source that you allows you to reason inductively.

I'd be asking "Why do we even find Epistemological Solipsists" in existence today? Of course, in saying this, I'll end up indicting myself epistemologicially since I'm going to take the middle ground between atheism and the Christian faith with Pascal and Kierkegaard and various Christian Philosophical Hermeneuticists rather than move along too easily with more 'Reformed' modes of epistmic deliberation.

But that's ok. At least I understand what you're saying (and I generally agree with you) being that we have some things in common. Like Jesus.

 

[Hammster]

And what standard is that?

You might as well call it 'Bob's Standard' for all the good that does me.

Like I said, calling it 'God's Standard' is meaningless to me, and therefore useless. I want to know what the standard is, not what it's called.

Thankfully, He left us His written word, left us His Spirit, and gave us His church. The answers are there.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Thank you Brad. I'm glad to be on the "not the worst argument" list though I'm not sure how far down on the ladder I am!

It's one of the reasons why I think Deism is a bigger threat to Christianity than any Atheistic philosophy. Deism allows you to justify your presuppositions while at the same time being effectively agnostic. Though within Deism you do justify your presuppositions rather incoherently in comparison to Christianity, it at least allows for a transcendental justification for moral claims, the authoritative use of logic & reason & etc. It allows you to philosophically claim monotheism but stop short of confessing Yahweh as God. Kind of similar to Epicureanism or Stoicism.

Nah. Deism is just a cheap pauper, playing its hand while trying trying to have its cake and bible scissors too..............................

 

[Hammster]

Then I hope you will drop this silly line of argumentation as though you have the only valid foundation for morality when the exact same argument can be made for a jar of mustard.

Well, the argument can’t be made for a jar of mustard. The fact that you think it can means that you really don’t want a serious discussion. So I’ll leave you to it.

 

[gaara4158]

That's because in order to say societal health and well-being is in fact good you've assumed that there is an objective foundation to morality in order to call it good. Your determining what is good or bad is reasoning from a framework to weigh things as good or bad in. That reasoning of harm = bad (well-being = good) is presupposing the truth of things that are unable to be substantiated in order to establish it as true. To put it simply, you need a reason as to why societal health and well-being is good and under an evolutionary paradigm you will only assume the truth of things in order to establish moral conclusions and continuously do so in an infinite regression. It's unavoidable within paradigms that deny the transcendent.

The reason for:

Is to show the incoherence of a worldview that is unable to justify the incontrovertible truths required in order to reach any conclusion. When one worldview accounts for all of these things and Naturalism, Materialism and most forms of Empiricism all fall flat on the very reasoning required to establish them as true and NEED Christian presuppositions about reality in order to function, then why would you hold to it?

Let's use our friend Walking Contradiction as an example. Our friend Walking Contradiction called himself a "Epistemological Solipsist": "In epistemology, epistemological solipsism is the claim that one can only be sure of the existence of one's mind. The existence of other minds and the external world is not necessarily rejected but one can not be sure of its existence." (I hate quoting Wikipedia but it's a good jumping off point).

How can you be sure of the existence of your own mind? In order to say that your mind exists you need to presuppose the truth of logic and reason that allow you to come to the conclusion that your mind is the only the you can be sure that exists. So now that has three things existing, the truth of logic reason, it's correspondence to reality around you which you can be sure of and your mind. But do you see the problem? There's no justification for the authoritative use of the reason he's used to come to this conclusion and it makes his premise self-refuting and unable to be proven.
When he reasons for his position he presuppose the existence and truth of logical laws and also he presupposes that it's true that laws of logic correspond to existence around him in order to say why his position is true. He is without any ability to provide a reason as to why they are true or why his use of reason & logic is authoritative to claim that it is in fact true he can only be sure of the existence of his own mind.

These very facts that are necessary/required in order to reach any conclusion and have no justification to be found within the paradigms of Naturalism & Materialism, the very paradigms that makes evidence, evidence in a secular worldview.

So the "objective foundation for morality" is not just an objective foundation for morality, but an objective foundation for existence. Therefore morals are just like anything else and the truth of them & their justification comes from the same source that you allows you to reason inductively.

Well, no. I am *defining* societal health and well-being as the measure for what is good. I don’t have to justify or substantiate that any more than I’d need to substantiate that the common house pet with four legs of the species Canis lupus familiaris is a dog. I’m not saying anything about transcendent reality, I’m saying what words mean. The theist who insists his morality is somehow more binding or legitimate because he defines it as being anchored to some other measure - God’s nature, perhaps - that is equally subject to human interpretation and opinion is no different. He is adding a claim about transcendent reality that doesn’t actually lend him any legitimacy.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

I'd be asking "Why do we even find Epistemological Solipsists" in existence today? Of course, in saying this, I'll end up indicting myself epistemologicially since I'm going to take the middle ground between atheism and the Christian faith with Pascal and Kierkegaard and various Christian Philosophical Hermeneuticists rather than move along too easily with more 'Reformed' modes of epistmic deliberation.

But that's ok. At least I understand what you're saying (and I generally agree with you) being that we have some things in common. Like Jesus.

We're both taking different epistemological roads to the same destination.

Nah. Deism is just a cheap pauper, playing its hand while trying trying to have its cake and bible scissors too..............................

I didn't say it was a BIG threat . There's a reason it's been superseded, even if that reason is because of the simplicity of empiricism.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Well, no. I am *defining* societal health and well-being as the measure for what is good. I don’t have to justify or substantiate that any more than I’d need to substantiate that the common house pet with four legs of the species Canis lupus familiaris is a dog.

You have to justify all claims to truth. You do have to substantiate that the common house pet is a dog and not something else and you do so when you provide classifications, which also need justifications. My point wasn't about what you're defining as good, it's that you have no basis to call anything good authoritatively. The only correct consistent stance in a secular worldview is that morals are not authoritative and they're arbitrary, good and evil doesn't exist, only personal preference towards stimulus. All claims about reality require a reason as to why they should be believed (justification), otherwise they literally have no reason to be believed.

The theist who insists his morality is somehow more binding or legitimate because he defines it as being anchored to some other measure - God’s nature, perhaps - that is equally subject to human interpretation and opinion is no different. He is adding a claim about transcendent reality that doesn’t actually lend him any legitimacy.

Don't you determine the truth to be binding? If that's not the case then why are you here arguing with me?

It's not about legitimacy, it's about the justification for your beliefs and the utter inability to do so within the naturalistic paradigms that allowed you to claim a Canis lupus familiaris is a dog.

 

[Ken-1122]

I already answered the question, I would have to make a decision based upon the evidence as to which Deity exists.

Yeah; and after careful evaluation, you will conclude Yahweh is the true moral God, and he will conclude Ahura Mazda is the true moral God. IOW you will end up in the exact same position I will be in when I claim my moral views are correct, and the other guy says his is. As my grandma used to say; you just kickin’ the can down the road. IOW your method doesn’t get you anywhere.

Your problem is that you've got the cart before the horse in declaring moral truth as you're unable to do so if the genesis for morality is biology. And because you're pigeonholed into evolution, under an evolutionary framework you're unable to derive a should from an is.

What on Earth does evolution have to do with morality??? You seem to be making the same mistake lots of theists seem to make; you assume evolution is for me what your religion is for you; an answer to everything. No; for me, evolution addresses 1 thing; how things evolve. It does not address morality, beauty, happiness, or the other countless things we deal with in everyday life.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, no. I am *defining* societal health and well-being as the measure for what is good. I don’t have to justify or substantiate that any more than I’d need to substantiate that the common house pet with four legs of the species Canis lupus familiaris is a dog.

YES, YOU DO HAVE TO JUSTIFY IT !!!!!!!!!!! You, like everyone else, don't get a free pass in this regard. You don't have some 'magic' moral position that alleviates you from having to explain and offer firm justification for your perspective.

This is one reason I don't go in for whole-hog atheism; it's not so much the self-effacing arguments as it is the blithe and assuming and arbitrary assertions you guys all too easily make.

I’m not saying anything about transcendent reality, I’m saying what words mean.

Cladistics anyone? (I referring to little 'doggy' comment and how you're relating it by analogy....)

The theist who insists his morality is somehow more binding or legitimate because he defines it as being anchored to some other measure - God’s nature, perhaps - that is equally subject to human interpretation and opinion is no different. He is adding a claim about transcendent reality that doesn’t actually lend him any legitimacy.

No legitimacy whatsoever? Well...............now we know we're all just making up our own forms of legitimacy. Now what?

 

[Ken-1122]

He does. And rightly so.

Just because you say it; does not make it so.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

What on Earth does evolution have to do with morality??? You seem to be making the same mistake lots of theists seem to make; you assume evolution is for me what your religion is for you; an answer to everything. No; for me, evolution addresses 1 thing; how things evolve. It does not address morality, beauty, happiness, or the other countless things we deal with in everyday life.

Evolution is the hermeneutic you use to justify behaviour. I'm not making a mistake, I've thought about your position and I've multiple thousand word documents disputing it. It's literally the genesis of all of the traits and things you just described.

Yeah; and after careful evaluation, you will conclude Yahweh is the true moral God, and he will conclude Ahura Mazda is the true moral God. IOW you will end up in the exact same position I will be in when I claim my moral views are correct, and the other guy says his is. As my grandma used to say; you just kickin’ the can down the road. IOW your method doesn’t get you anywhere.

all of those are testable historically and theologically.

 

[gaara4158]

You have to justify all claims to truth. You do have to substantiate that the common house pet is a dog and not something else and you do so when you provide classifications, which also need justifications. My point wasn't about what you're defining as good, it's that you have no basis to call anything good authoritatively. The only correct consistent stance in a secular worldview is that morals are not authoritative and they're arbitrary, good and evil doesn't exist, only personal preference towards stimulus. All claims about reality require a reason as to why they should be believed (justification), otherwise they literally have no reason to be believed.

Don't you determine the truth to be binding? If that's not the case then why are you here arguing with me?

It's not about legitimacy, it's about the justification for your beliefs and the utter inability to do so within the naturalistic paradigms that allowed you to claim a Canis lupus familiaris is a dog.

Theistic paradigms do not have anything that can lend further authority to their truth claims than is already available to secular paradigms because any claims of truth being grounded in theism are first filtered through empirical experience and analytical thought, which is already the grounding for secular frameworks. You can’t make your theistic argument without first borrowing from my worldview, which you’re trying to undermine. You’re chopping down the tree and sawing off the branch you’re sitting on at the same time.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Theistic paradigms do not have anything that can lend further authority to their truth claims than is already available to secular paradigms because any claims of truth being grounded in theism are first filtered through empirical experience, which is already the grounding for secular frameworks. You can’t make your theistic argument without first borrowing from my worldview, which you’re trying to undermine. You’re chopping down the tree and sawing off the branch you’re sitting on at the same time.

I'm not borrowing empiricism, empiricism is included in Christian Theism lol [Edit: in fact it's the only way you can justify the use empiricism as your senses are fallible]. All worldviews are circular and I'm perfectly comfortable with that, I rely on reason to comprehend God. I just have a reason as to why reason & logic are authoritative:

The claims of Christian Theism is that God is the source of all truth and why things are true at all, He is a being who's behaviour is subjective to Himself, He is sovereign, this is His Creation and therefore He sets the universal parameters of our behaviour. Elohim, The Source of all truth, allows inductive reasoning to have justification/reliability, moral claims to be facts, allows logic & reason to have a reason as to why they can be trusted or be reliable as apposed to "it's all we have" and allows for the real existence of laws of logic & mathematics and their correspondence to nature. He is the basis on which we are able to reason authoritatively at all.

What's your reason that reason and logic are correct or authoritative? and can you establish it without the authoritative use of reason (i.e use authoritative reasoning to determine your reasoning is authoritative) independent of a transcendent Creator? If so, how?

 

[Ken-1122]

Evolution is the hermeneutic you use to justify behaviour.

No it's not!

I'm not making a mistake, I've thought about your position and I've multiple thousand word documents disputing it.

Your previous statement proves you have no clue concerning my position.

all of those are testable historically and theologically.

But it’s not factual.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

No it's not!

As an Atheist how do you determine what is moral and what is immoral then? On what basis do you say x behaviour is wrong and y behaviour is right?

 

[Ken-1122]

As an Atheist how do you determine what is moral and what is immoral then? On what basis do you say x behaviour is wrong and y behaviour is right?

As a moral agent, I am qualified to do this. I am qualified to say X behavior is wrong, and Y behavior is right.