Is morality objective, even without God?

[Jerry N.]

But doesn't that mean that what we have is simply an ancient artifact of a 'God of the Gaps' argument?

God of the gaps argument doesn’t work if you exclude God from what we know and only include Him in what we don’t know. We try to learn about God in His creation, as a reflection of who He is.

 

[Bradskii]

And I have such an omniscient authority that informs me, atheists do not.

Then now we all know who to ask for the answer to any and all moral problems. That is so handy.

 

[QvQ]

And from that struggle was God created?

Carl Jung stated that "man is a religious animal."
Religion is a universal, in all time and place.

 

[Bradskii]

You think that decision/judgment makes something non-objective. So if you were consistent you would say math is non-objective, because math involves decision/judgment. You're full of ad hoc reasoning.

I had to explain to you that adding two oranges that you've just bought to the two you've already got to see how many you now have is not a moral problem. I'll have to do it again it seems. Maths is not a matter of morality.

Simply making decisions does not therefore constitute moral reasoning. I just had tea instead of coffee. That wasn't a moral problem. Choosing whether I book a rather expensive lunch my wife is expecting today or give the money to a worthy cause is a moral problem. It seems that some people claim that they know, somehow, what the objective answer to that will be. Do you? I don't. But I will choose what I think the right answer will be.

 

[partinobodycular]

How do you define a "God of the gaps" argument? Is it merely an argument for God? The "wonder and power of creation" is not a gap in any colloquial sense.

God is simply the ultimate reason for why "this is right and that is wrong". He's amazingly good at being an absolute, in places where there are no absolutes. And fortunately for theists, there'll always be places where there are no absolutes.

God of the gaps argument doesn’t work if you exclude God from what we know and only include Him in what we don’t know.

But why presume a supernatural explanation for things that show no signs of requiring a supernatural explanation?

Just so we're clear, our ignorance of a mundane explanation doesn't constitute a requirement for a supernatural explanation, and attempting to insert one there is what's meant by a 'God of the Gaps'.

 

[partinobodycular]

Carl Jung stated that "man is a religious animal."
Religion is a universal, in all time and place.

Then it would seem that the prevailing factor in the existence of religion isn't God... it's man.

Keeping in mind of course that religion isn't synonymous with God. Although some people seem to believe that it should be treated as such.

 

[QvQ]

Then it would seem that the prevailing factor in the existence of religion isn't God... it's man.

The prevailing factor in the existence of Religion is God.
We can't know what the religious sensibility of other species might be.
We do know that All Men know God.

Jung noted that any where, any point in history, any culture, if the person described God, the person they were addressing had a similiar description and word for God. It is universal.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Who are we to judge? We are members of a society in which, if we are lucky, we have a voice. If morality is a corporate agreement, the idea that anything goes is false.

Yes. In a world without moral absolutes is a world of moral relativism. There is no alternative. Some cultures allow for rape and murder. I would also argue that without moral absolutes, human rights are relative as well. So you consider some cultures superior than others?

 

[.Mikha'el.]

Is that just a reprimand, or is there some relevance to what I said?

It is, to me not a statement concerning faith, but a point in fact that should be agreed by the secular, too. What in the world it is that makes us think that WE are the purveyors of truth? We might be smart, but we are just passengers on this bus too.

Is something fact only because WE notice it? Do you suppose that if 'nobody' (whoever THAT is!) is there when the proverbial tree falls in the forest, that it doesn't make a sound? Do you fall for the notion that Schrodinger's cat IS INDEED both alive and dead? I saw the enormous headline a few years back, "Because of Recent Scientific Discoveries, Lightning Can Now Have Up To a Million Volts!"

For your argument to be valid, you'd have to demonstrate unequivocally that God exists. If something is a matter of faith, by definition, it can never be either proven true or falsified.

 

[partinobodycular]

Jung noted that any where, any point in history, any culture, if the person described God, the person they were addressing had a similiar description and word for God. It is universal.

But couldn't this simply be due to the fact that the human experience itself is universal? The ultimate questions that you're struggling with are the same ones that I'm struggling with, so is it really that surprising that there are similarities between the answers that you arrive at, and the answers that I arrive at?

 

[partinobodycular]

The prevailing factor in the existence of Religion is God.

It carries the name 'Religion', but isn't it just bureaucracy in disguise?

 

[zippy2006]

@Bradskii, this is your argument <here>:

1. If we have to decide, then it is not objective
2. We have to decide in morality
3. Therefore morality is not objective

Here is how your argument applies to math:

1. If we have to decide, then it is not objective
2. We have to decide in mathematics
3. Therefore mathematics is not objective

So you can either make a new attempt at an argument for why morality is not objective, or you can admit that on your account mathematics is also not objective.

 

[Ben Leevey]

In the video below Peter Singer equates morality/ethics with mathematics, which is a concept that I'd never considered before. Most people probably agree that mathematics is objective. It's true independent of our opinions about it. And I can see how it could be argued that morality is exactly the same. In math the understanding that 1+1=2 doesn't instantaneously lead to an understanding of Pi, because although the latter is equally true, coming to understand that it's true is a complicated process. Perhaps the same is true with morality. As with mathematics, morality may be objectively true, but understanding why it's true may be just as complicated as understanding why Pi is true. You don't instantly go from understanding that math exists, to understanding trigonometry, and you don't instantly go from understanding that morality exists, to understanding that slavery is immoral.

Thus there may be an objective morality, but as with math we're still in the process of understanding it, and the fact that we may disagree about what's moral doesn't by necessity mean that morality is subjective. It just means that we don't have a sufficient understanding of morality so as to understand why things are moral, and so instead, morality without God looks subjective, when it really isn't.

And in my opinion, having some God attempting to dictate to me what is and isn't moral will never be as gratifying as actually understanding why things are immoral without a need for that God.

This whole idea is a nonety. Nothing exists apart form God. Everything is based on God. Without God there would be no evil.

God also has defined math. If he did not, math would be outside Him and his control.

Everything is subject to God, there is nothing objective, in that it is outside Him. He is the objective truth that defines all other objective truths.

But since your a professed atheist, (no man really is) none of this will be acceded by you.

 

[Bradskii]

@Bradskii, this is your argument <here>:

1. If we have to decide, then it is not objective
2. We have to decide in morality
3. Therefore morality is not objective

Here is how your argument applies to math:

1. If we have to decide, then it is not objective
2. We have to decide in mathematics
3. Therefore mathematics is not objective

So you can either make a new attempt at an argument for why morality is not objective, or you can admit that on your account mathematics is also not objective.

Sorry, I'm not playing this any more.

 

[BCP1928]

@Bradskii, this is your argument <here>:

1. If we have to decide, then it is not objective
2. We have to decide in morality
3. Therefore morality is not objective

Here is how your argument applies to math:

1. If we have to decide, then it is not objective
2. We have to decide in mathematics
3. Therefore mathematics is not objective

So you can either make a new attempt at an argument for why morality is not objective, or you can admit that on your account mathematics is also not objective.

Many people wiser than us believe that it is not.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Many people wiser than us believe that it is not.

It might be helpful to cite specific names so we know whom you're referring to and whom to apply some critical sauce. Otherwise, you're just whistlin' dixie.

 

[zippy2006]

Many people wiser than us believe that it is not.

Many people wiser than you believe that it is.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yes. In a world without moral absolutes is a world of moral relativism. There is no alternative. Some cultures allow for rape and murder. I would also argue that without moral absolutes, human rights are relative as well. So you consider some cultures superior than others?

No. I consider some cultures more aligned with my morality than others. Identifying differences is not identifying superiority.

 

[partinobodycular]

But since your a professed atheist, (no man really is) none of this will be acceded by you.

Just for clarity, my profile says 'Agnostic'. In actuality, I'm an epistemological solipsist. Which means that I will accede to anything that makes logical sense, and hold in question anything that doesn't.

So if you can get your concept of God to make logical sense, then I'll wholeheartedly accept it, if you can't, then I'm perplexed as to why you think that I should.

 

[QvQ]

But couldn't this simply be due to the fact that the human experience itself is universal? The ultimate questions that you're struggling with are the same ones that I'm struggling with, so is it really that surprising that there are similarities between the answers that you arrive at, and the answers that I arrive at?

If I describe "cat" you know cat. You describe it and name it
Jung noted that if I describe God, you know God. You describe it and name it.
It exists independent on any cultural or educational teaching.