Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So, I will ask here. Do you have any other evidence for objective morality? The line you were pursuing in the other thread struck me very much as an appeal to consequence.
Perhaps you could spell out this evidence?
Of course.
It shall be dialectical in nature.
Is abusing and torturing a little child (for example....a 15 month old) wrong regardless of what anyone believes and regardless of what any group of people believes and regardless of what any society or general consensus of people believes?
Yes or no?
If you say no, then what you are saying is that there are some instances in which it would be justifiable or "right" to torture and abuse a 15 month old child.
I wholeheartedly agree. As a theory, the T.E.N.S. (Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection) should be descriptive. However, naturalistic scientists go one step further and make it prescriptive by attributing to it causal powers of determining beneficial and nonbeneficial genes. This is unwarranted.
The italics underlined portions of your statement contradict each other.
Your statement about the origin of morality as not mattering so much as what it is is clearly incorrect. In fact, a great portion of the work and research conducted by secular ethicists, humanists, biologists, as well as sociologists are all conerned with moral ontology.
Prof. Shelly Kagan in his book The Limits of Morality (Oxford: Clarendon, 1989) has a good deal to say about the need for sound explanations in moral theory. He rightly maintains that "one of the things we want our moral theory to help us understand is how there can even be a moral realm, and what sort of objective status it has" (p. 13). He insists, "This need for explanation in moral theory cannot be overemphasized. . . . Ultimately, unless we have a coherent explanation of our moral principles, we don't have a satisfactory ground for believing them to be true" (Ibid.)
Read more: Contemporary Moral Arguments | Reasonable Faith
If you were to say person (A) was wrong for what he did to (B), from what basis, or on what grounds would you be saying that? What are you appealing to. In other words, what would you give as your reason for maintaining that he was wrong?
When I speak of naturalism, I am speaking of metaphysical or ontological naturalism. Proponents of it maintain that all that constitutes reality can be explained via naturalistic explanations. This is not my definition that I made up. This is not my view of it either. Just do some research on it.
Then you have an ontological view other than metaphysical naturalism. What is your view?
You're exactly right. They both exist, but differ in nature. A rock is a concrete object, a conscious subjective experience is what is commonly referred to as an abstract reality. Some, however, would deny that abstract realities really exist, but that is not germane to our discussion.
When you say: "It is the subjective that produces the foundation for morality", are you saying the subjective opinions of people produce the foundation for morality? What is this foundation you speak of and how is it produced?
There are manifold problems here. How does objectivity "transform" something? Are you saying that objectivity has causal powers? You are speaking about objectivity as if it were some type of intelligent force with volitional capacites, as if it determines and chooses and transforms the subjective opinion's of people into morality. What does this "objectivity" as you refer to it determine what is moral and what is not? How does it do this, and why would it do this?
People kill other people everyday for their food. It happens quite frequently in war torn nations, and poverty stricken nations. You may not see it often because of your geographic location, but the example is not unique, it is more common in the world than you would like to think or admit, and therefore quite relevant and clear, as well as convincing.
No Paradoxum, not at all. Everything I have asserted about the T.E.N.S. is based upon what naturalists themselves say about it.
Of course people have subjective experiences. I have never said they do not. Nor does a person have to believe in God to have subjective experiences. I have never said that either.
Then you hold to some other worldview. What worldview do you espouse?
Ok I get your point. You are saying that mathematics is true for at least one other reason than for its ability to aid in survival. Even if I agree with that, it does nothing to either undercut, or rebut what naturalistic scientists say regarding the outworkings, manifestations, and by-products of E.N.S. For the T.E.N.S. is concerned about survival and reproduction of species. A person can sit around and crunch numbers all day, but under the T.E.N.S., if it does not ultimately help the person survive in this harsh, dog eat dog world, if it does not help a species reproduce and survive, the T.E.N.S. eliminates it as superfluous. This is naturalistic science Paradoxum, not just my opinion. Once again, check it, research it.
Under metaphysical naturalism even our very own thoughts about metaphysical naturalism are simply the results of E.N.S. This was one of Darwin's main misgivings about his own theory, for he states to a friend:
"the horrid doubt always arises whether the conviction's of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy." [Charles Darwin to W. Graham, July 3, 1881, in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, ed. Francis Darwin (1897; repr., Boston: Elibron, 2005), 1:285.]
So when you speak about the fact that just because something is a product of evolution does not tell us whether it is real, I would go one step further and say, can we be sure that our thoughts about the theory of evolution itself are "real" as in "corresponding to reality"?
That is the question naturalists need to ask themselves.
If you believe in the T.E.N.S. then you should accept him as an authority because he in a nutshell has defined what one must believe and hold to be true if one espouses metaphysical naturalism and the T.E.N.S. This is non-negotiable. What he says is no different than what any other naturalistic scientist would say regarding homosapiens if they remain true to naturalism and the T.E.N.S. as it is, and that is why I supplied his quote.
The second issue I have with your above statement is that Nietzsche never once said that "God isn't real". He never said that Paradoxum. Not one time in any of his written work did he ever say that. Nor was Nietzsche a theologian but a German philosopher, poet, composer, cultural critic, and classical philologist. He wrote critical texts on religion, morality, contemporary culture, philosophy, and science, displaying a fondness for metaphor, irony, and aphorism.*Wiki*- Therefore your analogy of Nietzsche and Ruse fails to persuade because Ruse is an expert in the field in which he is making his assertions, Nietzsche however, was more concerned with writing about God in an aphoristic, ironical, and metaphorical way. To compare the two is to compare apples to oranges.
What he did say was:
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. Yet his shadow still looms. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?
Nietzsche, The Joy of Science, Section 125, tr
This again is fraught through with inconsistencies and baseless assertions. What are the justifiable reasons that humanists have for making moral judgments? How can you explain what is good and bad? What is good? What is bad? How do you distinguish between the two? Why do you distinguish between the two? When? Who determines what is good and bad? What is this foundation you speak of? What standard are you appealing to when you say (A) is wrong or (B) should not have done (C)?
I could go on and on....
I did not say everything "created" by evolution is an illusion. So your usage of mathematics to prove your point is basically aimed at a strawman.
My my my! This is indeed miraculous! Pardon the pun, but I agree. But you have still failed thus far to present a coherent ontological explanation for morality.
Well, maybe we could all stand to learn more?
Naturalistic scientists who propagate the T.E.N.S. in their attempt to use it as a worldview, in the end, must attribute to it, properties that as a theory, it simply does not possess or warrant. This is promissory naturalism, or the idea that one day science will explain everything, this amounts to no more than scientism, which is an excercise of faith in science, an exercise that the same scientists ridicule the religious for engaging in. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.
Is abusing and torturing little children wrong regardless of what anyone believes and regardless of what any group of people believes or any society believes?
It seems the Lord would say no if the Old Testament accurately reflects his views. If he tells you to do it then it's perfectly moral.
""Then I heard the LORD say to the other men,Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all - old and young, girls and women and little children."
-Ezekiel 9:5
Of course.
It shall be dialectical in nature.
Is abusing and torturing a little child (for example....a 15 month old) wrong regardless of what anyone believes and regardless of what any group of people believes and regardless of what any society or general consensus of people believes?
Yes or no?
If you say no, then what you are saying is that there is at least one instance in which it would be justifiable or "right" to torture and abuse a 15 month old child.
It seems the Lord would say no if the Old Testament accurately reflects his views. If he tells you to do it then it's perfectly moral.
""Then I heard the LORD say to the other men,Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all old and young, girls and women and little children."
-Ezekiel 9:5
Of course.
It shall be dialectical in nature.
Is abusing and torturing a little child (for example....a 15 month old) wrong regardless of what anyone believes and regardless of what any group of people believes and regardless of what any society or general consensus of people believes?
Yes or no?
If you say no, then what you are saying is that there is at least one instance in which it would be justifiable or "right" to torture and abuse a 15 month old child.
Now if you want to start a new thread about the Bible,
No. The Bible says it's right and justifiable.
A Bible believing atheist who thinks its permissible to torture 15 month old children!
You are indeed a rare gem!
May I quote you?
I wholeheartedly agree. As a theory, the T.E.N.S. (Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection) should be descriptive. However, naturalistic scientists go one step further and make it prescriptive by attributing to it causal powers of determining beneficial and nonbeneficial genes. This is unwarranted.
E.N.S. is my acronym for Evolution by Natural Selection.
Your statement about the origin of morality as not mattering so much as what it is is clearly incorrect. In fact, a great portion of the work and research conducted by secular ethicists, humanists, biologists, as well as sociologists are all conerned with moral ontology.
Prof. Shelly Kagan in his book The Limits of Morality (Oxford: Clarendon, 1989) has a good deal to say about the need for sound explanations in moral theory. He rightly maintains that "one of the things we want our moral theory to help us understand is how there can even be a moral realm, and what sort of objective status it has" (p. 13). He insists, "This need for explanation in moral theory cannot be overemphasized. . . . Ultimately, unless we have a coherent explanation of our moral principles, we don't have a satisfactory ground for believing them to be true" (Ibid.)
Read more: Contemporary Moral Arguments | Reasonable Faith
If you were to say person (A) was wrong for what he did to (B), from what basis, or on what grounds would you be saying that? What are you appealing to. In other words, what would you give as your reason for maintaining that he was wrong?
Of course people have subjective experiences. I have never said they do not. Nor does a person have to believe in God to have subjective experiences. I have never said that either.
Ok I get your point. You are saying that mathematics is true for at least one other reason than for its ability to aid in survival. Even if I agree with that, it does nothing to either undercut, or rebut what naturalistic scientists say regarding the outworkings, manifestations, and by-products of E.N.S. For the T.E.N.S. is concerned about survival and reproduction of species. A person can sit around and crunch numbers all day, but under the T.E.N.S., if it does not ultimately help the person survive in this harsh, dog eat dog world, if it does not help a species reproduce and survive, the T.E.N.S. eliminates it as superfluous. This is naturalistic science Paradoxum, not just my opinion. Once again, check it, research it.
Under metaphysical naturalism even our very own thoughts about metaphysical naturalism are simply the results of E.N.S.
This was one of Darwin's main misgivings about his own theory, for he states to a friend:
"the horrid doubt always arises whether the conviction's of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy." [Charles Darwin to W. Graham, July 3, 1881, in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, ed. Francis Darwin (1897; repr., Boston: Elibron, 2005), 1:285.]
So when you speak about the fact that just because something is a product of evolution does not tell us whether it is real, I would go one step further and say, can we be sure that our thoughts about the theory of evolution itself are "real" as in "corresponding to reality"?
This again is fraught through with inconsistencies and baseless assertions. What are the justifiable reasons that humanists have for making moral judgments? How can you explain what is good and bad? What is good? What is bad? How do you distinguish between the two? Why do you distinguish between the two? When? Who determines what is good and bad? What is this foundation you speak of? What standard are you appealing to when you say (A) is wrong or (B) should not have done (C)?
I could go on and on....
With regards you your question, Dawkins sums it up neatly when he asserts that: "everything is well on the way to being explained by science..."
In other words, if anything requires an explanation, it either has been, or will be explained by science and the explanation will be a natural one.
If they are faithful to metaphysical naturalism, they must maintain that nature encompasses all that exists throughout space and time. Of course you have some slippery naturalists who, when pressed to validate their view, will try to slither and slide out of it by attempting to redefine the term.
But just read the current work of scientists who are naturalists. They will tell you. I have supplied some of their quotes already for review.
Yes it shows itself in the real world. Any student of history can tell you that the most destructive ideologies were based on godless worldviews.
Not his fault the Bible teaches that. The Bible is the correct place to find objective moral teachings right?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?