Objective morality

[TomUK]

A friend and i recently attended a seminar on how we can know that God exists. One of the arguments was that without God there would be no objective morality. Because we as humans have a concept of morality the speaker argued this is a clear sign to some sort of eternal judge who is above us, and even above the concept of morality. I agreed with the speaker, but my friend (who is still struggling to come to Christianity) did not. He agreed with Oxfordian scientist RIchard Dawkins, who when questioned about whether he could that the holocaust was wrong or not, he concluded that he couldn't say it was wrong- he could only say it was something he didn't agree with. I then asked my friend about things such as love- surely he loved his girlfriend, and i equated this with love/hate, right/wrong etc. He accepted that though he had a strong affection for her, he could by no means conclude that this was some mysterious concept called love, as it could be something that genetics had inbuilt into him with, in the same we as we instinctivley hunt for shelter (i'm not phrasing this very well at all, so i hope your following!)
I'm going to believe that people on this board do believe in objective morality, so i'm just here really to ask for some advice on how i could approach the issue.
Many thanks

 

[Dad Ernie]

I'm going to believe that people on this board do believe in objective morality, so i'm just here really to ask for some advice on how i could approach the issue.

Greetngs Tomuea,

I believe that most of those on this board believe in "objective morality", so you may get some help here, Lord willing.

You are on the right track, your friend is not. But you have to understand that the "spiritual interprets the spiritual". Those who are unspiritual cannot grasp or understand that which is spiritual - which is what you say your friend is. It is only up to you to plant seeds. You are called to "water" by the life you lead and the example you set. Just draw close to God and He shall draw nigh to you.

You may search the web for wisdom, but be careful and go where the Lord directs you. there are a lot of wolves out there in sheep's clothing.

Blessings,

Dad Ernie

 

[reformedfan]

I think what you're supposed to do is punch him as hard as you can in the face, rape his daughter while he watches then set his house on fire.
Then you ask him if what you did was wrong, or just disagreeable.
\
(I am totally kidding!)
The Holy Spirit alone can convince a sinner God's standards are best. Gen 1:1 gives God the authority to rule. Keep witnessing to him & praying for him. (both of which will be easier if you skip the steps outlined in the beginning of this posting.)

 

[SolomonVII]

A friend and i recently attended a seminar on how we can know that God exists. One of the arguments was that without God there would be no objective morality. Because we as humans have a concept of morality the speaker argued this is a clear sign to some sort of eternal judge who is above us, and even above the concept of morality. I agreed with the speaker, but my friend (who is still struggling to come to Christianity) did not. He agreed with Oxfordian scientist RIchard Dawkins, who when questioned about whether he could that the holocaust was wrong or not, he concluded that he couldn't say it was wrong- he could only say it was something he didn't agree with. I then asked my friend about things such as love- surely he loved his girlfriend, and i equated this with love/hate, right/wrong etc. He accepted that though he had a strong affection for her, he could by no means conclude that this was some mysterious concept called love, as it could be something that genetics had inbuilt into him with, in the same we as we instinctivley hunt for shelter (i'm not phrasing this very well at all, so i hope your following!)
I'm going to believe that people on this board do believe in objective morality, so i'm just here really to ask for some advice on how i could approach the issue.
Many thanks

Your friend is stretching the concept of rationality to reach a logically sound conclusion that is nevertheless absurd. Materialism stretched to the limit could not even truly say " I cannot agree with the holocaust", but should more correctly state 'It (within my body) cannot agree", for even the concept of "I" goes beyond a strictly materialist worldview.
Of course, no one could truly hold to this philosophical viewpoint. If you jab him with a pin, he cannot help but hold you morally responsible, just like anyone else would.
it is indeed ironic that the more determined people are to define their life according to the dictates of logic and reason alone, the more irrational they appear to be.

 

[TomUK]

I agree with what you guys are saying, but they are not really arguments i can use in conversation/debate. I need to appeal to factors which have some relevance to him. Solomon, in your post you said something along the lines of even the concept of 'i' is pointless to a pure materialist. Could you please expand on that a little bit?

 

[SolomonVII]

I agree with what you guys are saying, but they are not really arguments i can use in conversation/debate. I need to appeal to factors which have some relevance to him. Solomon, in your post you said something along the lines of even the concept of 'i' is pointless to a pure materialist. Could you please expand on that a little bit?

The concept of self can never be proven through the empirical senses. In their attempt to make language as exact as possible, logical empiricists before the second world war attempted to define language in terms of scientific emprical experience. Metaphysics was to be avoided due to its meaningless according to strict empiricism. Likewise, terms like "I" or "self" in that they do not correspond to anything physical, should be considered meaningless. Instead of "I", the reality of our experience is physiological and biological processes of the body and brain. The concept of a gestalt self exhibiting will and free choice falls outside of the empirical evidence of sensory impressions and physiological responses available to the scientist for study. Since morality too only becomes meaningful if there exists a subject freely choosing his responses, an organic response of human physiology, which is all that can be objectively observed by a scientists, morality likewise becomes a metaphysical concept, and therefore meaningless to the logical positivists.
Only the physical world exists for the materialist. Since our phenomena of "self" can be derived through subjective revelation alone, it cannot be truly proved to objectively exist.

 

[Heartman]

Christians should have the highest standards of object morality, that is if you are talking about an observable difference between our conduct and that of the world. If not, one has to wonder about whether most "Christians are not just giving lip service, but their hearts (which ussually directs actions) are far from him.

 

[billwald]

Alper, "The God Part of the Brain," argues that the universal belief in God is due to natural selection.

 

[jbarcher]

Hm...

I think what tomuea would like (among other things) is basically some guidelines on how to explain objective morality & argue for its existence. solomon is giving some of that but I would say that there needs to be the understanding of what happens when materialist philosophy is taken to its logical conclusions. Or any philosophy, really.

What Dawkins does is remove morality, period. So, there's nothing wrong, nothing right, but only things that we prefer. In a sense [according to that worldview], we should be calling things orange, blue, and red, instead of -right- and -wrong-.

I know this is one messed up philosophy. But sadly people hold to it. I will try to identify a few points of tension--points where their philosophy and their lifestyle clash, and more often than not, their philosophy is set aside because it just doesn't work.

The first is that upon removing morality, anything becomes 'right'. This is determinist philosophy, which says that anything that is, is right. I don't think your friend can live with this himself. Two ideas come to mind--

1. The first is what his reaction would be if he was wronged in some way. Perhaps kicked between the legs (I'm being serious here) for no reason, or someone set his house on fire; stole his car; raped his girlfriend or mother. Horrid, indeed. Yet what right, if there are no wrong actions, does he have to even think about protesting? Just because something is 'unpleasant' to him, is that really grounds to protest? Well, that's the only ground (unpleasant), then it isn't. For instance, I've got to write up some 12 page script; it is unpleasant, but it must be done. I would assume he would agree that even some things you don't like doing must be done. How else do people get anywhere in life?

2. The second idea is that horrid things that happen to people (i.e. torturing innocents) are just alright; though they are unpleasant. Again, something merely being unpleasant is not a ground to protest anything. Interestingly enough, words like innocent, guilty, and justice have no meaning at all when morality is removed.

What you want to demonstrate is that, according to a worldview without objective morality, one is living in conflict with himself, and thus is living in contradiction. The saddest thing about doing this is that some people, after having it shown beautifully to them, shrug it off, though they do so with much pain. As always--pray constantly.

Note that in our age words like love, dignity, and honor have lost...well...meaning. Love means sex, and dignity and honor are whipping bags and mocked ideas. So you'll have to show your friend what the word love means coming from a Christian.

Just incase I've totally missed the target, there's just one more thing to follow.

Being somewhat familiar with determinist philosophy, and having had people argue that genetics, social influences, experiences, and whatnot dictate our beliefs & actions...a few comments follow:

1. Good data, bad story. Yes, the human psyche can be studied. Yes, experiences affect us because we grow from them. Yes, genetics play a part. So? I would contest that experiences make up our character.

2. Man as a machine. I don't think people can really live with this. Man loves, because he is made in the image of God. We may be able to define love and certainly muddle what it is, but man still loves [and hates]. A book comes to mind...it's "Intellectuals" by Paul Johnson. Check it out.