The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

[Strathos]

That's because you have more of an emotional connection to your dog than you have with most people; agree?

Also because dogs are nicer in general.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Most Germans were heretical liberal "Christians" who believe in subjective morality, THAT is the primary cause of the rise of Nazism and the Holocaust.

ken: History disagrees with you.

Evidence?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I didn't say ALL atheists, I said most. Most of the ones I have debated DO.

ken: You said:

“my point was not that atheism directly led to it, but rather the main slippery slope that led to it was the belief in subjective morality which atheists, pantheists, and liberal "Christians" all believe in”

Those were your exact words. Sounds to me like you were saying all in those groups.

All those groups do, but not all members of those groups do.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, this article is still subjective. It is based on reducing suffering and pain for humans. How do they know that suffering and pain is bad for humans?

ken: It doesn’t matter how they know, the point is, that is their moral base. Just as your God is your moral base, that is theirs.

Suffering and pain is subjective so it proves my point, that their morality is subjective not objective at its base.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Why try to reduce suffering and pain? According to evolution, suffering and pain is good, it advances evolution. Also why spend so much more time on reducing suffering and pain for humans but causing it in other species by eating them? There is nothing special about humans according to evolution, humans are cows are dogs are rats are cockroaches.

ken: If you really believe that, you are very ignorant about evolution.

The operation of natural selection results in the pain and death for millions of animals. You deny this?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Almost all of it. They left out the fact that all humans deserve to die at birth, so if we get to live past that God is showing us great mercy and kindness.

ken: If your religion taught you that all babies deserve to die, that killing babies is justice; I feel sorry for you.

Not killing by humans, only God has the authority to execute babies for their sin, none of us do. Even though many liberals kill babies thru abortion, which is murder not justice.

 

[Ken-1122]

Evidence?

Most historians agree The treaty of Versailles, which was used to punish Germany for WW-1 and required them to pay unrealistic reparations to the victors of the war; along with the economic collapse Germany suffered, and other issues, was responsible. But nowhere do historians claim atheism or liberal christianity is responsible.
Aftermath of World War I and the Rise of Nazism, 1918–1933 — United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Nazi Party - World War II - HISTORY.com
Study: austerity helped the Nazis come to power

Suffering and pain is subjective so it proves my point, that their morality is subjective not objective at its base.

Perhaps in your eyes, but in the opinion of some, it is objective. Just like in my eyes, the laws if God is subjective, but in your eyes they are not.

The operation of natural selection results in the pain and death for millions of animals. You deny this?

That’s part of nature; not evolution. Evolution explains nature; it doesn’t pass judgment on it. The fact that this escapes you is telling.

only God has the authority to execute babies for their sin, none of us do.

Only a monster would kill a baby due to sin!

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Why is it sick? Why is it wrong to eat humans but not cows?

ken: Remember an earlier conversation when I spoke of having an emotional connection to a fellow human that I don’t have with a dog, thus I consider human life more valuable than a dog’s life? Well that same line of logic applies to humans vs cows as well.

Ok, thanks for confirming my point that your morality is subjective, ie based on feelings not objective rationality.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The singularity IS the beginning. Almost all cosmologists agree that the universe had a beginning. And if something has a beginning then it is an effect and needs a Cause.

ken: But they don’t claim anything prior to the singularity.

Actually some do and some don't. And the ones that do are not all Christians.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, evolution is just a theory and has never been empirically observed. It is just a historical extrapolation of microevolution which is a fact but macroevolution has never been observed or proven.

ken: Evolution is more than extrapolation; it is a result of the study of nature.

Yes, it is an extrapolation of their study of nature, as I stated above it is an extrapolation of microevolution, which has been empirically observed, into macroevolution which has never been observed.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, it can. In the biblical description the writer uses the Hebrew word for an ongoing and constant stretching unlike an ordinary tent. This matches what the universe is doing exactly.

ken: There is a big difference between stretching and expanding; stretching is to expand despite restrictive forces; the expansion of the Universe is because there are no restrictive forces working against

No, the Hebrew means stretching AND expanding. Just like the universe.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Because they were inspired by God to do so, for future readers to understand the Divine origin of the scriptures and come to the realization that the Christian God actually does exist and created this universe.

ken: And how does being inspired by God allows them to write about something they don’t understand or know about?

Because God knows about it and revealed it to us by their writings, even when the writers did not fully understand it. This shows the power of God.

 

[Ken-1122]

Ok, thanks for confirming my point that your morality is subjective, ie based on feelings not objective rationality.

Yeah; so is yours, you just don't know it yet.

Actually some do and some don't. And the ones that do are not all Christians.

You don't have to be Christian to be wrong ya know; the ones that do are just speculating. Their belief is not based on scientific theory

Yes, it is an extrapolation of their study of nature, as I stated above it is an extrapolation of microevolution, which has been empirically observed, into macroevolution which has never been observed.

Yes; just as forensics doesn't have to be present when the crime took place, they can look at the evidence left behind and extrapolate how the crime happened. Everything in science doesn't require direct observation.

Because God knows about it and revealed it to us by their writings, even when the writers did not fully understand it. This shows the power of God.

Of course! I'm sure that's what they tell you. Even a broken clock can be right twice a day!

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Evidence?

ken: Most historians agree The treaty of Versailles, which was used to punish Germany for WW-1 and required them to pay unrealistic reparations to the victors of the war; along with the economic collapse Germany suffered, and other issues, was responsible. But nowhere do historians claim atheism or liberal christianity is responsible.
Aftermath of World War I and the Rise of Nazism, 1918–1933 — United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Nazi Party - World War II - HISTORY.com
Study: austerity helped the Nazis come to power

No, those are what caused WWII, what I was referring to was why the people allowed the Nazis to take over. If the people had still been influenced more by orthodox Christianity and believed in objective moral absolutes then I dont think that the Nazis would have been able to take over the government. They would have been mostly rejected and would have been more like the USA version of the Neo-Nazis, just a small extremist group. Germany probably still would have invaded other European countries to get their resources and improve their economy and take out their anger about Versailles. IOW some smaller scale version of WWII might would have still happened, but the Holocaust probably would not have happened because it would have been unthinkable because the society would have been more similar the US. Modern historians would never acknowledge this because they dont want to give biblical Christianity any credit for anything good.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Suffering and pain is subjective so it proves my point, that their morality is subjective not objective at its base.

ken: Perhaps in your eyes, but in the opinion of some, it is objective. Just like in my eyes, the laws if God is subjective, but in your eyes they are not.

Opinion is the key word, but factually speaking (it is not an opinion) everybody knows that it is a scientific fact that suffering and pain is subjective. There is no objective test to determine levels of pain and suffering and whether it is always bad. And if God exists then His character is the objective moral standard for humans by definition, ie objectively. IOW it is not an opinion. But any moral system based on pain and suffering is subjective BY DEFINTION.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The operation of natural selection results in the pain and death for millions of animals. You deny this?

ken: That’s part of nature; not evolution. Evolution explains nature; it doesn’t pass judgment on it. The fact that this escapes you is telling.

I am not saying that evolution passes judgement on it, according to science Nature and evolution which is part of nature, just ARE, there are no OUGHTS. But every biologist knows that pain and death is part of how evolution works. That is why you cannot say that pain and death are bad. They could just as easily be good or most likely there is neither good nor bad morally if Nature is all there is. And therefore there is nothing wrong with killing and eating humans. Or doing what Hitler did.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
only God has the authority to execute babies for their sin, none of us do.

ken: Only a monster would kill a baby due to sin!

How do you know this? What is a monster? Natural selection kills babies all the time for NO REASON WHATSOEVER if there is no God.

 

[Rivga]

How do you know this? What is a monster? Natural selection kills babies all the time for NO REASON WHATSOEVER if there is no God.

What a strange counter - you do realise that Natural selection does not have a conscious, and so cannot be assigned a morality.

No, those are what caused WWII, what I was referring to was why the people allowed the Nazis to take over. If the people had still been influenced more by orthodox Christianity and believed in objective moral absolutes then I dont think that the Nazis would have been able to take over the government. They would have been mostly rejected and would have been more like the USA version of the Neo-Nazis, just a small extremist group. Germany probably still would have invaded other European countries to get their resources and improve their economy and take out their anger about Versailles. IOW some smaller scale version of WWII might would have still happened, but the Holocaust probably would not have happened because it would have been unthinkable because the society would have been more similar the US. Modern historians would never acknowledge this because they dont want to give biblical Christianity any credit for anything good.

German was a very religious country back in the Nazi days, the population of Germany was approximately 67% Protestant and 33% Catholic (atheism being so small it was lost in the rounding's).

The UK (to our shame) utilised concentration camps long before the Nazis, in the Second Anglo-Boer War 1899 - 2001. Again guess what the population of the UK was made up of in that time.

The issue for both the Nazi and the UK of that time was that they believed with unwavering certainty of a objective morality. In both cases a sense of certainty and righteousness, many believed they were doing Gods work - because they are the chosen race - why would God allow them to dominate others so easily if they were not the chosen ones?

Modern historians don't acknowledge your point because the evidence does not support it in any way shape or form. USA separation of church and state maybe the thing that if Germany had could of slowed Hitler down a little, he would not have found it so easy to discriminate in those early years.

You also cannot talk about the US being the shining light due to objective morality, given slavery and the constant fight for equality that has happened afterwards. Where was this fabled objective morality when Martin Luther King was alive?
"We are all Gods Children" and thus equal "...but you still don't get a seat on the bus"

 

[Ken-1122]

No, those are what caused WWII, what I was referring to was why the people allowed the Nazis to take over. If the people had still been influenced more by orthodox Christianity and believed in objective moral absolutes then I dont think that the Nazis would have been able to take over the government. They would have been mostly rejected and would have been more like the USA version of the Neo-Nazis, just a small extremist group. Germany probably still would have invaded other European countries to get their resources and improve their economy and take out their anger about Versailles. IOW some smaller scale version of WWII might would have still happened, but the Holocaust probably would not have happened because it would have been unthinkable because the society would have been more similar the US. Modern historians would never acknowledge this because they dont want to give biblical Christianity any credit for anything good.

You are assuming they would behave according to what they believe. People act against their beliefs all the time. Often due to moral short comings, prejudices, and character flaws, people will often know right, yet still choose to do wrong.

Opinion is the key word, but factually speaking (it is not an opinion) everybody knows that it is a scientific fact that suffering and pain is subjective. There is no objective test to determine levels of pain and suffering and whether it is always bad.

Physical pain can be determined, and empirically verified.

And if God exists then His character is the objective moral standard for humans by definition, ie objectively. IOW it is not an opinion. But any moral system based on pain and suffering is subjective BY DEFINTION.

IF God exist, (and that’s a big IF) the only way his character could be considered the objective moral standard for ALL of mankind is if ALL of mankind defines morality according to God’s moral character. A quick look into the real world, and you will see most people don’t even recognize the existence of this God let alone his moral character. So IF (again IF) most were wrong and this God did exist, by definition his character cannot be what human morality is based on

I am not saying that evolution passes judgement on it, according to science Nature and evolution which is part of nature, just ARE, there are no OUGHTS. But every biologist knows that pain and death is part of how evolution works.

No its not. Evolution is about biological changes in species from one generation to the next. These changes don’t involve pain or death.

That is why you cannot say that pain and death are bad. They could just as easily be good or most likely there is neither good nor bad morally if Nature is all there is. And therefore there is nothing wrong with killing and eating humans. Or doing what Hitler did.

To recognize evolution does not prevent anyone from judging good vs bad; one has nothing to do with the other.

How do you know this?

That is my personal judgment

What is a monster?

One who kills innocent babies and claim they deserved it!

Natural selection kills babies all the time for NO REASON WHATSOEVER if there is no God.

Organisms that act according to natural selection don’t have the mental capacity to be judged good or bad

 

[Strathos]

This thread is just endlessly amusing.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Ok, thanks for confirming my point that your morality is subjective, ie based on feelings not objective rationality.

ken: Yeah; so is yours, you just don't know it yet.

I am eagerly waiting for your evidence.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Actually some do and some don't. And the ones that do are not all Christians.

ken: You don't have to be Christian to be wrong ya know; the ones that do are just speculating. Their belief is not based on scientific theory

It may not be based on some scientific theory but it is based on scientific and logical reasoning which is the most important thing. As a scientist you dont want some theory to cause you to reach a predetermined conclusion.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, it is an extrapolation of their study of nature, as I stated above it is an extrapolation of microevolution, which has been empirically observed, into macroevolution which has never been observed.

ken: Yes; just as forensics doesn't have to be present when the crime took place, they can look at the evidence left behind and extrapolate how the crime happened. Everything in science doesn't require direct observation.

True, but their extrapolations have serious flaws such as systematic gaps in the fossil record. They should not be there if Macroevolution was true.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Because God knows about it and revealed it to us by their writings, even when the writers did not fully understand it. This shows the power of God.

ken: Of course! I'm sure that's what they tell you. Even a broken clock can be right twice a day!

No, the details match too well to be a coincidence.

 

[Ken-1122]

I am eagerly waiting for your evidence.

Objective means based on fact, it is unbiased, and is uncolored by extenuating circumstances and personal preferences.

Subjective is the opposite; meaning extenuating circumstances, point of view, and personal biases are taken into consideration.

Difference Between Objective and Subjective | Difference Between

So lets apply these terms to morality; Is lying wrong? Well if it’s objectively wrong, that would mean you must tell the truth no matter what; even if it is 1932 in Germany and the Gestapo came knocking on your door asking if you had any Jews in the House, If you were hiding some the morally right thing to do would be to tell them the truth. I think it would be morally wrong to tell them the truth, and I suspect you would also.

If morality were subjective, it would mean you should take extenuating circumstances, point of view, and personal biases, into consideration before proclaim lying is wrong.

In other words, if “X” is objectively wrong, there will be no circumstances when “X” could be right. If you can come up with a scenario where “X” could be considered right, then morality is subjective; not objective.

It may not be based on some scientific theory but it is based on scientific and logical reasoning which is the most important thing. As a scientist you dont want some theory to cause you to reach a predetermined conclusion.

My point is, the scientific community does not claim something existed prior to the Singularity that lead to the Big Bang; they do not know.

True, but their extrapolations have serious flaws such as systematic gaps in the fossil record. They should not be there if Macroevolution was true.

Truth be told; I don’t know enough about Macroevolution to defend it or dispel it. But I realize there are scientists who know a heck of a lot more about the subject than you or I and I am willing to take their word for it over yours.

With that said; whether macroevolution is true or not, it has zero effect on my life. But whether your idea of God is real or not, it has a huge effect on my life so I hope you understand why I am a lot more critical on whether or not your God claims are true compared to if macroevolution is true.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
How do you know this? What is a monster? Natural selection kills babies all the time for NO REASON WHATSOEVER if there is no God.

riv: What a strange counter - you do realise that Natural selection does not have a conscious, and so cannot be assigned a morality.

Please read previous posts before commenting. Ken had posted an article by an atheist that claimed that his morality was objectively based on evolution and nature. I was showing that if natural selection kills babies then there is nothing wrong with killing babies if nature and evolution does it for people that believe the way the atheist did in the article.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, those are what caused WWII, what I was referring to was why the people allowed the Nazis to take over. If the people had still been influenced more by orthodox Christianity and believed in objective moral absolutes then I dont think that the Nazis would have been able to take over the government. They would have been mostly rejected and would have been more like the USA version of the Neo-Nazis, just a small extremist group. Germany probably still would have invaded other European countries to get their resources and improve their economy and take out their anger about Versailles. IOW some smaller scale version of WWII might would have still happened, but the Holocaust probably would not have happened because it would have been unthinkable because the society would have been more similar the US. Modern historians would never acknowledge this because they dont want to give biblical Christianity any credit for anything good.

riv: German was a very religious country back in the Nazi days, the population of Germany was approximately 67% Protestant and 33% Catholic (atheism being so small it was lost in the rounding's).

Again, you are commenting out of context without reading my previous posts. Earlier I had demonstrated with historical facts such that come from books like the Twisted Cross by Doris Bergen how most German churches especially Protestants had pretty much embraced theological liberalism years before the Nazis came to power, and liberalism denies many of the objective moral absolutes that the bible teaches because it is full of errors according to liberal theologians. Therefore morality for liberal "Christians" is basically subjective and relative. This caused most of the "Christians" in Germany to eventually accept Nazi atrocities plus their growing anti-Semitism at the time helped. But the primary slippery slope was subjective morality of the liberal theologies. There was also a growing scientific pantheism at the time, which supposedly derived morals from evolution and nature's laws. Which is what Hitler believed.

riv: The UK (to our shame) utilised concentration camps long before the Nazis, in the Second Anglo-Boer War 1899 - 2001. Again guess what the population of the UK was made up of in that time.

They may have used concentration camps but they never slaughtered like the Nazis did, and also the government and establishment of the UK was pretty much dominated by secular humanists and liberal Christians by WWI. So again like the Germans many did not believe in the moral absolutes of the bible.

riv: The issue for both the Nazi and the UK of that time was that they believed with unwavering certainty of a objective morality. In both cases a sense of certainty and righteousness, many believed they were doing Gods work - because they are the chosen race - why would God allow them to dominate others so easily if they were not the chosen ones?

Yes, some did believe in an objective morality but it was morality derived from "reason" and nature, such as social Darwinism, not biblical morality. Even the liberal "Christians" believed this and of course the secular humanists believed this. Most believed in morality based on feelings similar to today's liberals with a pick and choose morality from the bible for the religious people. The Bible plainly teaches that no race is superior to another and that we should not dominate others but rather serve others and that there is no chosen RACE, there are chosen people, which is all those that accept Christ as Lord and Savior regardless of race.

 

[Rivga]

Please read previous posts before commenting. Ken had posted an article by an atheist that claimed that his morality was objectively based on evolution and nature. I was showing that if natural selection kills babies then there is nothing wrong with killing babies if nature and evolution does it for people that believe the way the atheist did in the article.

You interpretation is still massively misunderstanding of what has been said. So evolution via natural selection has lead to certain behaviours and actions in a population a advantage. This in turn has lead those behaviours to be ingrained in the population of that species.

For instance humans being naturally caring about children, has given us a huge evolutionary advantage as a species - not necessarily as an individual. So are natural evolutionary behaviour now forms the foundations of "our" morality. Our logic has then taken this and extends it - "Why do children need protecting" - "Because they are weaker than an adult" - extend further - "Well if an adult is weaker than other adults should we not protect them?" - leading to protections for the disabled.

So with a very limited view of objective morality you could say that due to these evolutionary made morality then morality is objective - we are hardwired to follow certain rules.

I personally would not call it objective, but I see why you could.

I will reply to the Nazi comment in a different post.

 

[Rivga]

Again, you are commenting out of context without reading my previous posts. Earlier I had demonstrated with historical facts such that come from books like the Twisted Cross by Doris Bergen how most German churches especially Protestants had pretty much embraced theological liberalism years before the Nazis came to power, and liberalism denies many of the objective moral absolutes that the bible teaches because it is full of errors according to liberal theologians. Therefore morality for liberal "Christians" is basically subjective and relative. This caused most of the "Christians" in Germany to eventually accept Nazi atrocities plus their growing anti-Semitism at the time helped. But the primary slippery slope was subjective morality of the liberal theologies. There was also a growing scientific pantheism at the time, which supposedly derived morals from evolution and nature's laws. Which is what Hitler believed.

It is a great conclusion that liberal Christians resulted in the Nazis coming to power, EXCEPT one small fact German pre-Nazi rule was anything but liberal.

Again I am not sure your definition of Liberal is the same as everyone else,

Liberal - "willing to respect or accept behaviour or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas"

Twisted Cross by Doris Bergen - explains how a section of German Christians throw out some old ideas from the old testament (which most Christians do anyhow), so under this narrow definition of "open to new ideas" then yes - but they are hardly accepting of different views and start a campaign of expelling now Aryan-ness from the both the bible (by re-interpretation) and kicking out non-Aryan members of the church.

The Germany that lead to the Nazi rule was exceptionally right wing and nationalistic and not liberal. I will give you that they were open to new ideas ... Well one and only one new idea!

I mean look at the Nazis now - have you ever heard of a self identifying Nazi who is also a social justice warrior?

The one thing I must give you respect for Ed1wolf is the fact you are one of the rare Christians who is not sticking his head in the ground and lying to him/herself about Nazi Germany was Atheist.
At least you are trying to understand how a very Christian German could have let this happen.

 

[Strathos]

I mean look at the Nazis now - have you ever heard of a self identifying Nazi who is also a social justice warrior?

Many of the alt-right Neo-Nazis in America today are atheists.

 

[Rivga]

Many of the alt-right Neo-Nazis in America today are atheists.

I have not seen any statistics on this but I have seen 3 different interviews, in 2 of them they use the phase "White Christian America", the Neo-Nazi movement in the US seems to have great support in the more religious States.

I'd like to see some statistic's or evidence to back that up, it flies in the face of what we see in Europe. There has been a small statistics showing a movement towards atheism - but it is still very low when compared with the % of atheism in the local population (the religious in Europe play it up for obvious reasons).

There is some instances of atheists being alt-right - to say it never happens would be wrong, but as a % of the population it is amazingly low. So low that when it is reported on it is done so with surprise.
Give the US white neo-Nazi are heavily linked to the KKK a deeply religious organisation and given the alt-rights views on atheists, for you to be correct there must have been some sea change in the demographics of the alt-right.

 

[Strathos]

I have not seen any statistics on this but I have seen 3 different interviews, in 2 of them they use the phase "White Christian America", the Neo-Nazi movement in the US seems to have great support in the more religious States.

I'd like to see some statistic's or evidence to back that up, it flies in the face of what we see in Europe. There has been a small statistics showing a movement towards atheism - but it is still very low when compared with the % of atheism in the local population (the religious in Europe play it up for obvious reasons).

There is some instances of atheists being alt-right - to say it never happens would be wrong, but as a % of the population it is amazingly low. So low that when it is reported on it is done so with surprise.
Give the US white neo-Nazi are heavily linked to the KKK a deeply religious organisation and given the alt-rights views on atheists, for you to be correct there must have been some sea change in the demographics of the alt-right.

Too Many Atheists Are Veering Dangerously Toward the Alt-Right

 

[Rivga]

Too Many Atheists Are Veering Dangerously Toward the Alt-Right

It is an opinion article, devoid of any statistical date that could give any indication to the scale of the issue.

It is a long way from:

Many of the alt-right Neo-Nazis in America today are atheists.

As I said is it a shock, give the population of atheists in the US that some of them would be in the alt-right? The article even states:

"Spencer’s views are not shared by the majority of atheists in America, but if we want to keep it that way, atheists cannot stay silent."

You have read far too much into this article - it is a warning to atheist that we should not assume that we and are fellow atheists are immune to the alt-right (or any extremism). The article is even called ...Veering dangerously towards. It is not what you stated that "many neo-Nazis ARE atheists".

Interestingly he points out an area where the Alt-right and the new atheist movement agrees on, Freedom of speak. In his article Chris Stedman seems to suggest he is not a fan of this, for instance as much as it pains me I don't think a Neo-Nazi should be banned from talking at a University, note this does not mean people should be forced to listen to his crap that is entirely their choice but Freedom of speak trumps all (and only incitement to violence should be muted) - on this I agree with the New atheists and the alt-right (this does not make me a member of the alt-right).

Regardless of us differing on the article, thank you for linking this, it was an interesting read and something to look out for - if Chris views start showing up in some statistics in the near future.

 

[Strathos]

Did I ever say it was a majority? No, just many of them.

 

[Rivga]

Did I ever say it was a majority? No, just many of them.

Even the article does not say that many have joined the Neo-Nazi, it stated that many may join the neo-Nazis. This is also the writers view and not based on any facts or even patterns - he has found a guy called Spenser.

If this is your only source then your original statement does not stand up to scrutiny.