terminology: "objective"

[Gadarene]

Well, if you approach life from an empiricist or skeptic mindset, then yes I suppose anything that wasn't mathematically verifiable would be considered a "downside" to what was argued. That is kind of vague but I follow what you are saying. I guess disciplines like philosophy and epistemology are equally insufficient in determining the validity of truth claims as well? Is this waht you believe?

Well, science is a philosophy so I'm fine with some of them. They're useful at speculating to a degree and they're useful for processing claims etc. But purely hypothetical arguments about the nature of the universe etc take second place to empirical evidence if such exists.

 

[Davian]

No. The term Judeo-Christian refers to the body of belief as recorded in the Old Testament scriptures and the New Testament scriptures which comprise what we call the Bible.

I am being pedantic, but this *is* the philosophy forum; when you say "we", for whom do you speak?

It refers to the view that God has revealed Himself to the world, namely through His covenant people Israel, and that from this nation, specifically the tribe of Judah from which we get the words "Judaism" and "Jewish", Jesus Christ was born, who is heir of the throne of Kind David. Christ is the promised Messiah who had been prophesied about hundreds of years before and is God manifested in the flesh.

Why are there still Jews?

It is not emprirically verifiable that we have a conscience. So no in this manner it is not demonstrable. It is the same for our mind, and any other metaphysical reality which is not subject to empirical verification.

You are asserting here that the mind is metaphysical. Even if we did not have our current understanding of how the brain works, your assertion would not establish this.

At times God did give instructions to kill certain people yes. And this is to be interpreted not out of context but within its context, just as you would any other written prescription.

At times? Does the bible say not to do this anymore?

 

[quatona]

Assertion.

Allow me to clarify the intent behind this thread: For purposes of this thread I obviously accepted the premise that a God (whatever that might mean in the idea of the persons responding) exists, and of course every theist is invited to present the assertions that come with their god concepts to their hearts´desire without any need for proving them.

All I would like to find out:
1. In which meaning do they use "objective" when they assert that God´s moral opinions/prescriptions are objective?
2. Is this definition anywhere close to any commonly used meaning of "objective" as well as to the meaning they use elsewhere in their arguments (or is the entire "without God no objective morals" but an equivocation fallacy)?
3. Are the assertions that lead to "without God no objective morality" consistent in view of the meaning of "objective" they use?
4. If we remove all semantics wizardry and circularity from those arguments - will there be anything left beyond the almost tautological "Without God there wouldn´t be God given morals"?

 

[quatona]

To toot my own horn, I wrote a blog post on this a few months ago. I'd be interested in feedback. Tinker's Damn: Objective Morality? Maybe.

Thanks for the link. I have read your blog post - very interesting.
I do not think all points in it are really pertinent to the thread, but the Euthypho Dilemma certainly is.
I´d love to discuss your article with you, but at this point I don´t have the time for an in depth discussion - sorry.

 

[quatona]

Christians affirm that since God is the source of all that exists and that His very nature demands that He is the paradigm of all virtue and morality, then it logically follows that God is the source of morality.

Then again, it also follows logically that God is the source of immorality, as well.

God's prescription of morality is objective because He, according to the Judeo-Christian worldview, prescribes it to all of those created in His image i.e. humans.

I´m still not sure how the word "objective" (vs. "subjective") is the appropriate term here.

In other words, when He gives humans life, a part of this life is the possesion of what is called conscience. This is our inherent awareness of what God's moral prescriptions are. Therefore, when God says: "You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal" etc. this is because these things are contrary to His very nature and as such, should be reprehensible to us as well.

I do understand why you would postulate that God´s prescriptions are very important and significant, why God´s opinion should be taken into consideration more than the opinion of average Joe, why it would be advisable to obey God´s commands (particularly in view of God´s power and his ability to punish disobedience severely).
I do understand all these ideas - what I don´t understand (and what, as far as I can see, is still unexplained): how all this translates into "objectivity" (vs. subjectivity).

On as side note, your descriptions raises the question with me, how it´s possible that the creation of such a singular, perfect, all-good, etc.etc. entity results in something that is contrary to this being´s nature.

 

[KCfromNC]

God according to one concise definition is the greatest conceivable being (Anselm).

Wouldn't that being necessarily have the greatest ability to command the greatest evil?

 

[KCfromNC]

You seem to be speaking an awful lot about empirical verifiability as if it is the only acceptable means of understanding how things exist and work in this universe. This is not the case. Im sure you know this right?

What other means exist, and how does their track record look?

 

[sandwiches]

You seem to be speaking an awful lot about empirical verifiability as if it is the only acceptable means of understanding how things exist and work in this universe. This is not the case. Im sure you know this right?

I'm interested in this, as well. What other methods are there for understanding how the universe works?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Thanks for the link. I have read your blog post - very interesting.
I do not think all points in it are really pertinent to the thread, but the Euthypho Dilemma certainly is.
I´d love to discuss your article with you, but at this point I don´t have the time for an in depth discussion - sorry.

I appreciate the kind remarks.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I'm interested in this, as well. What other methods are there for understanding how the universe works?

Yeah, ^This. I've seen this assertion a number of times and yet had a decent explanation for any other mechanism.

 

[Gadarene]

Yeah, ^This. I've seen this assertion a number of times and yet had a decent explanation for any other mechanism.

Heck, I'm glad to know it's not just me.

 

[Skavau]

I'm tagging this thread for myself and will reply to some of Elioenai's points on objectivity.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Does anyone actually adhere to a "Judeo-Christian" worldview? Are they not two different things?

I'd love to see them try to rationalize how they believe in Jesus and don't believe in Jesus at the exact same time.

I'm sure some apologist would come up with something sooner or later!

 

[Going Merry]

In the last weeks we´ve seen a lot of "Without God there wouldn´t be objective morality" threads and posts.

I keep wondering: What renders God's opinion objective?

A lot of what God says is just simply "do no harm to your neighbor" so what he says for example about lying to your neighbor is a form of harm. As a theist i understand what he doesn't want me to do is for my own good. For example in scripture he says such things like don't marry so and so in this land... for they will turn your heart away from me. they then would be worshiping a creation instead of the creator. It's harmful to yourself in other words since he made you/gave you everything you have, etc.
(clearing this up a bit. God is very jealous )

objective means unbiased right?
i do understand that what he says is just for the general health of all humans and not just a few. a person can be selfish and so 'sin' and ruin others lives. if someone really lived in love then they would do no harm to their neighbor.. which is all jesus taught us to do. a lot of the problems he dealt with was people using his law as an excuse to not love someone

 

[Davian]

I look forward to it. You are welcome to do that here or there. I moderate comments on my blog. (As it turns out, it isn't a hot bed of dialog.) So now that I know that you may comment there, I'll check.

But things might be more lively here.

Well, I don't have much to critique about it, as I am with you on most of it. And as I have never been a theist, I will have to take the arguments from the other side as you present them. The key phrase for me is "We evolved as a social species". Just as the adults in a wolf pack have learned to get along, and not eat the young as food (generally), humans and our ancestors needed social skills to survive as a group(s). They evolved with us.

Where I got the most value from reading your blog post from the last line ("God's existence has nothing to do with morality"). While it is easy enough to say that one is ignostic on the subject of "God", when I read that line I found it to be bizarre that anyone would need to say such a thing. It is not often that one gets those little epiphanies in life. Thanks.

 

[Tinker Grey]

You're welcome. Thanks for taking the time.

 

[Elioenai26]

Well, I don't have much to critique about it, as I am with you on most of it. And as I have never been a theist, I will have to take the arguments from the other side as you present them. The key phrase for me is "We evolved as a social species". Just as the adults in a wolf pack have learned to get along, and not eat the young as food (generally), humans and our ancestors needed social skills to survive as a group(s). They evolved with us.

Where I got the most value from reading your blog post from the last line ("God's existence has nothing to do with morality"). While it is easy enough to say that one is ignostic on the subject of "God", when I read that line I found it to be bizarre that anyone would need to say such a thing. It is not often that one gets those little epiphanies in life. Thanks.

Actually, to the contrary, Christians maintain that God's existence has everything to do with morality!

Why? You may be asking. The fact of the matter is that a purely naturalistic explanation for the universe cannot account for the existence of what we know to be "morality". I challenge any one of you to come up with a plausible explanation as to how sheer matter can produce the "immaterial" concept of morality.

 

[Skavau]

Actually, to the contrary, Christians maintain that God's existence has everything to do with morality!

Why? You may be asking. The fact of the matter is that a purely naturalistic explanation for the universe cannot account for the existence of what we know to be "morality". I challenge any one of you to come up with a plausible explanation as to how sheer matter can produce the "immaterial" concept of morality.

The question is absurd.

Morality is not a physical object.

 

[quatona]

Actually, to the contrary, Christians maintain that God's existence has everything to do with morality!

Why? You may be asking. The fact of the matter is that a purely naturalistic explanation for the universe cannot account for the existence of what we know to be "morality". I challenge any one of you to come up with a plausible explanation as to how sheer matter can produce the "immaterial" concept of morality.

You want to be explanained how brains produce thoughts, feelings, sentiments etc.?

But while we are at it: I, on the other hand, would so like to see an explanation how sheer "spirituality" can produce matter.

 

[Davian]

Actually, to the contrary, Christians maintain that God's existence has everything to do with morality!

Do you speak for all Christians?

Why? You may be asking. The fact of the matter is that a purely naturalistic explanation for the universe cannot account for the existence of what we know to be "morality".

Do you claim omniscience on this subject? How did you establish this "fact" of yours?

I challenge any one of you to come up with a plausible explanation as to how sheer matter can produce the "immaterial" concept of morality.

And you have elected yourself judge as to how plausible this explanation is? May we ask for your credentials in this field of science?

Even in the absence of such an explanation, it does nothing to support your claims for the existence of deities.