Objective morality revisited

[jayem]

Apologies in advance for the umpteenth post on the same topic.

A Baptist co-worker and I were having the old morality discussion. She stated again the argument that theism is a superior basis for an ethical code because it is "objective." God's word give us a clear standard to determine right and wrong. Non-theism necessitates human-derived standards based essentially on our own moral intuition.

So I countered with the question of how do we know God is really good? Except that scripture says so, there is no independent and objective way to determine that God isn't really evil, and has thrown a little good here and there to deceive us. You may believe deeply that God is perfect and righteous, but then you are basing this on your own intuition. You are begging the question by claiming morality based on God is objective, because you can't objectively show that God is good in the first place.

The reason I'm posting this, is for the first time, I think someone actually "got" the argument. Not that she was convinced. I would really never expect to change someone's long standing and sincerely held beliefs, but it's just gratifying to know you were able to explain a point of view someone hadn't considered, and that she began to think in a different paradigm.

Made my week.

 

[Vylo]

All standards are human derived. Even if god tells you what values to have, how you interpret what he said could easily skew them to something other then his original design. Add in 2 thousands years, editing, wars and a lot of revisionist history, and it isn't any wonder there are so many denominations of Christianity.

 

[steelmagnolia]

God is good because the universe is in perfect order. The sun is where it is, the moon, the earth gives us many good things. I can give many reason why I believe God is good including His Son (I know that's not what you want to hear. You're looking for something tangable. I know. I can't offer that to you)

I have believed for some time that a Christian can not debate with an Atheist because the Atheist doesn't have the open heart or the faith that is required to believe. Even if the heart of the Atheist is pierced, he will not give in to the Spirit. Not unless he WANTS to.

I would be happy to answer questions for an Atheist but only if they ask me. I don't believe in witnessing to an Atheist because they've already made up their mind. If that mind changes, it's going to be because they choose to allow a change.

Is it not true that an Atheist calls him/herself that because they've heard the Gospel but has rejected it?

I'm sorry if I'm not making sense. It's hard for me to put down my exact thoughts in words.

 

[Vylo]

God is good because the universe is in perfect order. The sun is where it is, the moon, the earth gives us many good things. I can give many reason why I believe God is good including His Son (I know that's not what you want to hear. You're looking for something tangable. I know. I can't offer that to you)

I have believed for some time that a Christian can not debate with an Atheist because the Atheist doesn't have the open heart or the faith that is required to believe. Even if the heart of the Atheist is pierced, he will not give in to the Spirit. Not unless he WANTS to.

I would be happy to answer questions for an Atheist but only if they ask me. I don't believe in witnessing to an Atheist because they've already made up their mind. If that mind changes, it's going to be because they choose to allow a change.

Is it not true that an Atheist calls him/herself that because they've heard the Gospel but has rejected it?

I'm sorry if I'm not making sense. It's hard for me to put down my exact thoughts in words.

Actually I have found most of the Gospel to be pretty decent, if taken as parables to live by.

 

[levi501]

umm, of course God is good... he made trees!

 

[levi501]

Is it not true that an Atheist calls him/herself that because they've heard the Gospel but has rejected it?

All atheists share one thing and one thing only... a lack of belief in god(s).

That's it. Nothing else. They don't assert God's nonexistence. Or swear to Satan. Or eat babies.
Well at least not all of them.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

I think I understand what you're saying. It seems to me there are only two options about this: either God obeys an objective standard of morality Himself, or He is the basis for morality. As far as I can tell, the only viable option for theists is the second one, because God is ultimate and supreme, so cannot be bound by anything above Him (because there is nothing above Him). If, then, the theist says God is unchanging and absolute, doesn't morality based on Him alone--however arbitrary that may seem from a non-theistic viewpoint--become the only truly objective morality?

In other words, if God is the ultimate and absolute standard, then anything based on Him is objective. From a theistic perspective God cannot be evil. Whatever He is, and whatever He likes, is moral.

Anyway, "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." I think further proof of God's goodness is not really necessary. The 'argument from beer' is much more definitive than any theistic tautology.

peace

 

[TuxThePenguin]

(Un-evidenced assertions clipped for brevity)

I have believed for some time that a Christian can not debate with an Atheist because the Atheist doesn't have the open heart or the faith that is required to believe. Even if the heart of the Atheist is pierced, he will not give in to the Spirit. Not unless he WANTS to.

I would be happy to answer questions for an Atheist but only if they ask me. I don't believe in witnessing to an Atheist because they've already made up their mind. If that mind changes, it's going to be because they choose to allow a change.

Is it not true that an Atheist calls him/herself that because they've heard the Gospel but has rejected it?

I'm sorry if I'm not making sense. It's hard for me to put down my exact thoughts in words.

I wish people would educate themselves about the difference between Strong and weak atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_atheism.

I am a weak atheist and as such many of the sweeping generalisations you have made are not true of me. I have not made up my mind about the existence or non-existence of a god or gods. However your argument is not very compelling.

 

[Skaloop]

I am a weak atheist and as such many of the sweeping generalisations you have made are not true of me. I have not made up my mind about the existence or non-existence of a god or gods. However your argument is not very compelling.

If I were to ask you right now whether you think there is a god, what would you answer? Yes or no answer only. Pick a side.

If you answer yes, you are not an atheist. If you answer no, you are an atheist. Enough of this strong/weak atheism distinction. Even so-called "strong" atheists (such as myself) are likely to admit that they cannot be 100% certain.

 

[TuxThePenguin]

Which makes us both in reality Agnostics. Whatever we call ourselves.

I have picked a side its called the "I Don't know"

If you asked me if I believed is a specific God as laid out by one of the current leading religions I would answer 'no'

 

[The Nihilist]

God is good because the universe is in perfect order.

Let me sing you a song!

God made AIDS.
AIDS kills everyone.
Especially in Africa
Hyperconservatives used to think that it was how God punished gay people,
But everyone can get it.
Straight men and straight women and gay men and gay women.
And even babies.
Falalalalalalalala
It's like you forgot about Katrina and that great big tsunami that killed infinity billion people
like the day after Christmas.

there's also a piano accompanyment that you're not getting here, but you get the idea.

 

[The Nihilist]

I'm sure there're plenty of reasons to say that God is good, but personally, I would stay away from that one, at least for a while.

 

[mpshiel]

I think the discussion was on objective morality, not God.

As for me, I have no expectation nor desire to go to heaven, nor do I care about hell - I act as I act not because I trust that God is good, but because the idea of sacrifice is good and because it is impossible. I do not believe there is a quantifiable objective and universal morality that can be written out or even has been - indeed if you look at the bible, the new testament seems to be saying; the first part, where we tried to have an objective morality is a mistake.

I do however, believe in an absolute morality, which most Christians do not - in that, once one knows what is good and true, to do otherwise, regardless of cost, even until the death of all you love, is wrong.

 

[The Nihilist]

Why do you believe sacrifice is good? Do you believe all sacrifice is good, even if the ultimate end is bad, or do you believe that sacrifice is the best good?

 

[mpshiel]

Personally, I believe that all good acts require sacrifice - I am not sure if all bad acts do - as I haven't really explored that avenue yet - it seems that most bad acts occur do not, rape, murder, theft, arson - not a lot of personal sacrifice, kind of the reverse, the sacrifice of what is not ones own.

Even writing a card to someone is to lose a portion of time, effort and product - simply for the possibility of a positive result.

If one acts because of wanting God to like them, rather than because the act itself is "good" - then a person has already achieved thier reward (or not) - I cannot say what is right for another to do or not do because I cannot know thier complete life history or thoughts, nor can I know what influence my own history or thoughts will have - but, if realizing for myself, that something is right to do - then to act otherwise it is to betray the idea of morality itself. This is why, for example, I do not say one way or another on abortion, only point out that it is an issue which has complexities far beyond a simple pamphlet - because I have not yet been faced with that choice, and until I do, I cannot know for myself, what would be right.

I suppose I would identify with someone like Esther from the bible, who choose only to gamble with her own life when seeking the safety of her people; she could have lived while they died, but instead, she choose to risk death because the possibility of doing good could not be passed by.

Sorry, I realized I did not answer your question fully - I believe that one is only responsible for the actions one takes, and person I must be true to the understanding I have. I suppose a scenerio could exist where by whistle blowing in a company many hundreds of people would be unemployed, families might go hungry, etc. Or, as seems to happen in movies all the time, if I did not comply to X demand, then the person will do Y. What the person will do is not mine to control, nor what a company has done - I can only act on what is good; facing what comes afterward may be the sacrifice.

 

[steelmagnolia]

Let me sing you a song!

God made AIDS.
AIDS kills everyone.
Especially in Africa
Hyperconservatives used to think that it was how God punished gay people,
But everyone can get it.
Straight men and straight women and gay men and gay women.
And even babies.
Falalalalalalalala
It's like you forgot about Katrina and that great big tsunami that killed infinity billion people
like the day after Christmas.

there's also a piano accompanyment that you're not getting here, but you get the idea.

AIDS and every bad, hurtful thing in the world is due to original sin by Adam and Eve. Once they disobeyed God (ate from the tree of knowledge), Sin came into the world ("or else you will surely die.") - JUST like he told them it would. Sin = death. The first death occured when God killed the first animal to use the skin to clothe Adam and Eve. That was the first blood shed.

Death, pain, and disease is not what God intended for this world, but because of free will and disobedience, sin walked right through that door.

I don't expect you to understand, but I had to argue the weak points you made in song. Cute, but weak.

 

[The Nihilist]

Personally, I believe that all good acts require sacrifice - I am not sure if all bad acts do - as I haven't really explored that avenue yet - it seems that most bad acts occur do not, rape, murder, theft, arson - not a lot of personal sacrifice, kind of the reverse, the sacrifice of what is not ones own.

Even writing a card to someone is to lose a portion of time, effort and product - simply for the possibility of a positive result.

If one acts because of wanting God to like them, rather than because the act itself is "good" - then a person has already achieved thier reward (or not) - I cannot say what is right for another to do or not do because I cannot know thier complete life history or thoughts, nor can I know what influence my own history or thoughts will have - but, if realizing for myself, that something is right to do - then to act otherwise it is to betray the idea of morality itself. This is why, for example, I do not say one way or another on abortion, only point out that it is an issue which has complexities far beyond a simple pamphlet - because I have not yet been faced with that choice, and until I do, I cannot know for myself, what would be right.

I suppose I would identify with someone like Esther from the bible, who choose only to gamble with her own life when seeking the safety of her people; she could have lived while they died, but instead, she choose to risk death because the possibility of doing good could not be passed by.

Sorry, I realized I did not answer your question fully - I believe that one is only responsible for the actions one takes, and person I must be true to the understanding I have. I suppose a scenerio could exist where by whistle blowing in a company many hundreds of people would be unemployed, families might go hungry, etc. Or, as seems to happen in movies all the time, if I did not comply to X demand, then the person will do Y. What the person will do is not mine to control, nor what a company has done - I can only act on what is good; facing what comes afterward may be the sacrifice.

Thoughtful response. One thing, though. If you grant that sending a card is a sacrifice because it requires time, then you must grant that the execution of even the most heinous crimes are also sacrifices, because they require considerably planning and effort, as well as the possibility of a punishment later.

 

[The Nihilist]

AIDS and every bad, hurtful thing in the world is due to original sin by Adam and Eve. Once they disobeyed God (ate from the tree of knowledge), Sin came into the world ("or else you will surely die.") - JUST like he told them it would. Sin = death. The first death occured when God killed the first animal to use the skin to clothe Adam and Eve. That was the first blood shed.

Death, pain, and disease is not what God intended for this world, but because of free will and disobedience, sin walked right through that door.

I don't expect you to understand, but I had to argue the weak points you made in song. Cute, but weak.

Oh, I get it. If anything good happens in the world, it's God's doing, and if anything bad happens, like disease or plate tectonics, then it's our doing, even if we can't conceivably control it, right? That sure is some interesting theology you have there.

 

[steelmagnolia]

Oh, I get it. If anything good happens in the world, it's God's doing, and if anything bad happens, like disease or plate tectonics, then it's our doing, even if we can't conceivably control it, right? That sure is some interesting theology you have there.

Since you don't believe in God, then according to you, it is our doing.

This is why it's hard to debate with an atheist because your statements about God are of no consequence to me, because you don't believe He exist anyway. It would be like me bad mouthing Santa or the Tooth Ferry because I don't believe they exist.

 

[Skaloop]

Since you don't believe in God, then according to you, it is our doing.

It's not our doing. It's nobody's doing. It just is. AIDS/earthquakes/death - none of it is because of us or because of God.