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.
This is “faith-dependent”, if a man allows himself meat that is sacrificed to idols, he does himself no harm.But surely that is not a license to sin with impunity, is it. If a christian hangs onto the doctrine of OSAS, it could be very discouraging for them in a hard time when they find themselves regressing, in another word, backsliding.
Yeah, that's the new nature, which is encrypted in the name of Israel - "struggling with God." This is known as the sanctification process, a journey of a lifetime. A christian is JUSTIFIED at once by the blood of Christ, but he continues to SANCTIFY himself for the kingdom to come. OSAS is a bit of oversimplification.Being saved doesn't mean we magically have no sin. It means that we continually seek to become more like Christ. The difference is once we did not bother, sin reined over us. Now we bother and seek perfection in Christ. Being renewed in Christ doesn't mean in an instant. It means we are continually renewing ourselves in spirit and mind. God is molding us as the Potter and we are the clay. Learning to trust Gods Will more and more with our life rather than our will.
Its a continual fight and that is why Paul speaks about putting on the armour of God to fight off temptations and the deception of satan.
Technically we can become like Christ in the end if we continue to trust in Him and His Word. But its a continuing fight against our sinful nature.
Yeah, that's the new nature, which is encrypted in the name of Israel - "struggling with God." This is known as the sanctification process, a journey of a lifetime. A christian is JUSTIFIED at once by the blood of Christ, but he continues to SANCTIFY himself for the kingdom to come. OSAS is a bit of oversimplification.
Paul covers this in Romans 6.But surely that is not a license to sin with impunity, is it. If a christian hangs onto the doctrine of OSAS, it could be very discouraging for them in a hard time when they find themselves regressing, in another word, backsliding.
Look I think its best if you refer to the articles rather than take my words for it. I may be wrong.
You made the comment about how we can tell if babies have this moral sense. I then referred to infants who could engage more to express this moral sense in practical ways in the experiments because they were older and we could see this in their behaviour and choices.
But I said the same moral sense was also said to be in babies through experiments on eye movement (fixated on the good guy).
This was to show that this moral sense is there from birth or at least very early. This was supported by different researchers with independent tests to support this. As far as I understand this is pretty good science as its repeated time and time again.
A growing body of evidence, though, suggests that humans do have a rudimentary moral sense from the very start of life. With the help of well-designed experiments, you can see glimmers of moral thought, moral judgment and moral feeling even in the first year of life. Some sense of good and evil seems to be bred in the bone.
The Moral Life of Babies (Published 2010)
Result shows that humans may have a natural tendency to punish bad behavior, and it may actually be a trait that we are born with and while it may be fine-tuned as a infant grows into a child, the framework is already there.
Third-party punishment by preverbal infants - Nature Human Behaviour
'We think children are born with a skeleton of general expectations about fairness and these principles and concepts get shaped in different ways depending on the culture and the environment they’re brought up in.
Research shows toddlers understand right from wrong at just 19 months
Therefore, this systematic review collated the various conclusions to reach a reasonable consensus, that the moral sense is a natural ability that every human is born with, and this natural ability can be nurtured through social interactions and by environmental factors.
Origin and Development of Moral Sense: A Systematic Review
I also said this moral sense is not exactly morality itself. Its a sensitivity to be moral, a sensitivity for the suffering of others (empathy) which seems to be expressed with justice, kindness, fairness and alturism. But it hasn't been developed.
Its like a ready made framework to be moral.
If we did not have this we would not bother with the concept of morality.
This may explain how this moral sense is later refined into the different cultural influences. The articles I linked showing that certain moral principles like fairness, kindness, justice, courage were universal in cultures regadless of their different refinements of this moral sense.
Each culture may be just applying these moral principles differently.
I attempted to further support this from other areas of science such as biology,
anthropology
and sociology
to show that different research seems to converge on these findings. Though perhaps not a very good job. But all of this is to show that the old view that we come to the world with nothing and need to be taught morality from scratch is wrong.
I think the moral subjectivist/relativist would like to think we are a blank slate morally because it feeds into morality being a complete social construction and that there are not moral objectives.
You see, like many other doctrines, OSAS seems to be a biblically sound doctrine, it doesn’t contradict any passages, but the problem of OSAS lies within its implications - you’re either free to sin without any repercussions, or you’re not really saved from the beginning.Paul cover this in Romans 6.
What (whatever) God(s) do with my being after I die is none of my concern, really.You see, like many other doctrines, OSAS seems to be a biblically sound doctrine, it doesn’t contradict any passages, but the problem of OSAS lies within its implications - you’re either free to sin without any repercussions, or you’re not really saved from the beginning.
Why not?What (whatever) God(s) do with my being after I die is none of my concern, really.
I get it, man. Many people don't realize that the afterlife is the continuation of the current life, your trajectory of life determines your direction in the afterlife.What (whatever) God(s) do with my being after I die is none of my concern, really.
On what do you base this?I get it, man. Many people don't realize that the afterlife is the continuation of the current life, your trajectory of life determines your direction in the afterlife.
"He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still.” - Rev. 22:11On what do you base this?
Btw, if bible verse quote is too abhorrent to you, just think about it as a kind of inertia.On what do you base this?
The next verse says: 'and I will give to each person according to what they have done.'"He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still; he who is righteous, let him be righteous still; he who is holy, let him be holy still.” - Rev. 22:11
Don't you see that this is set in the context of afterlife, continuing from the resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous in Rev. 20? What they have done is in the current life, what will be given is in the afterlife.The next verse says: 'and I will give to each person according to what they have done.'
It says nothing at all about the afterlife being a continuation of the current life.
Yeah, conscious experience, experience of colors, music, transcendent abstracts like beauty. Money is another where the paper or metal its made of is one aspect of something real materially but there is also the concept applied which is real and has an effect on the world. Morality or values is another as they actually have a tangent effect on the world. I think even the laws of nature and physics are non material like math they point to a mind behind what is happening that transcends naturalistic determinations. .Could you give an example of non-naturalistic evidence that we could consider?
yes but they are not tentative and open to all possibilities. They are tentative until another naturalistic idea can update or replace it. In that sense its a belief because the metaphysical position is assumed and taken before any investigation is done.Scientists do admit their findings are tentative.
Only because the determination is limited to naturalistic and material ideas. If there are other influences happening beyond what science can measure that effect reality, our reality then methodelogical naturalism is only getting part of the picture and may even be interpreting non-physical aspects as physical. ie Dark matter, consciousness ect.More importantly, it's rather difficult to measure the non-physical establish its existence or otherwise demonstrate its casual nature.
Well I think our moral sense is one. If morality and belief in something transcendent beyond the material world is innate then we come to this knowing without having to learn or experience it. Similar to math I woul think.Example?
We know its true because people live that reality regardless of what they say or claim to believe. In other words they are their own witness of its truth. For example going back to honesty in our debate. Whether you believe honesty is a real thing that holds status beyond individual beliefs or preferences you subscribe to its truth or fact status by engaging with me in a debate where honesty is necessary to a coherent debate.Well that begs the question then....you and someone else disagree on what is good or what is bad. How do you determine which of you is true?
Really, when it comes to how we treat each other I think this comes down to morality. If we treated it any other way like an ordinary everday situation like at work say there are situations where morality doesn't come into it. But they can become ethical and that is why we have codes of ethics (prescriptions) and not instruction manuals (descriptions) for our behaviour towards others.I don't think one needs moral judgements to describe what is happening.
But the fallacy or misrepresentation can be used to be dishonest in avoiding or denying the truth or facts.Fallacies aren't about honesty. They're about logical reasoning.
Or the facts and truth of the matter. If someone does not want to face the truth that they got something wrong and make misrepresentations or twist the truth then this is a moral issue.All that honesty refers to is an attempt to represent your view without deception.
Its an abstraction that is made real though when someone descieves or misrepresents. It can change the course of history lol, fake news, false accusations, denying justice, biased reporting, ommissions which effect peoples lives and the outcomes of events which may have knock on effects, proving a theory, winning a debate.Lol honesty is just an abstraction. You haven't phrased it as a moral principle.
Math is an abstract but it becomes real when we apply it to situations. Just like morals such as honesty. Honesty covers a number of qualities like trustworthyness, sincerity, integrity, fairness and will depend on the situation. But for the example I am giving with honesty in a debate or discussion to find the truth or fact of the matter then its about telling the truth and facts and not misrepresenting, lying or being decietful.Again, you're trying to assert a principle from an abstract concept.
I have sort of explained this above in how we assume honesty as a way of coming to know the truth or facts (epistemically) and therefore sometimes this epistemic fact is entangled with and leads to morality such as not lying to avoid the truth.Premise 1 fails to show why epistemic facts are contingent upon moral facts.
Something being universally true or factual doesn't mean everyone has to agree. Its a universal truth that the earth revolves around the sun no matter which location or culture you belong to. Its a fact. But some people disagree with this but that doesn't change the fact or truth of the matter.They aren't universal if some disagree.
Actually for number 1 I was pointing out a fallacy from non-objectivists that moral disagreement means theres no objective morals. For number 2 people can be both disagreeing out of personal defect and believe they are correct.You've made 2 logical fallacies here...
1. If we were in agreement on a moral judgement, it would become a fact.
2. Those who disagree do so out of a personal defect...not because they believe themselves correct.
1 is arguement by popularity. 2 is ad hominem...a personal attack.
That doesn't seem right because along with justice there were other values like reciprocity, respect and fairness and as the article says these moral values are based on cooperation and not conflict. Thats is why they are universal because they work to help people living together in relative peace an harmony.The article you linked was from anthropologists....not scientists. When they claim that all 60 of these cultures value justice...they include those that ascribe to mob justice, which you don't consider justice at all.
Thats silly. You would not condemn a culture that say abuses kids, trafficks them as sex slaves. Even if you don't the majority do including our representatives internationally by ratifying Human Rights. I mean we even condemn and prosecute our own citizens when they engage in such activities.We don't...at least, I don't.
That implies if they are shocked that they realise they underestimated the Palestinians morality and that they are doing something morally wrong. That there is a right and wrong behaviour rather than tolerating all behaviour as acceptable just because cultures have differing beliefs.Those tribes see it as morally good. This isn't something new. I've seen "free Palestine" protesters shocked to learn Palestinian people believe gay people should be stoned to death.
Prove a moral fact in what way. Perhaps your assuming that moral facts must be proven in a certain way.No...the problem isn't that we disagree, it's that nobody can prove a moral fact.
Actually its not just assuming objective reality exists but assuming its the only way to show what exists. Which is an unsupportede assumption and a metaphysical belief. There is no way to verify that there exists an objective reality beyond our heads.You have to start with the assumption that objective reality exists or nothing is "true".
Yeah, conscious experience,
experience of colors,
music,
transcendent abstracts like beauty.
I don't know what you're getting at here. Money represents something.Money is another where the paper or metal its made of is one aspect of something real materially but there is also the concept applied which is real and has an effect on the world.
Morality or values is another as they actually have a tangent effect on the world.
I think even the laws of nature and physics are non material like math they point to a mind behind what is happening that transcends naturalistic determinations.
Only because the determination is limited to naturalistic and material ideas.
If there are other influences happening beyond what science can measure that effect reality, our reality then methodelogical naturalism is only getting part of the picture
Well I think our moral sense is one. If morality and belief in something transcendent beyond the material world is innate then we come to this knowing without having to learn or experience it.
We know its true because people live that reality regardless of what they say or claim to believe.
When you make a statement about reality or your opinions....you are either trying to deceive me or not. We call the times you are trying to deceive me lying and when you aren't you're being honest.In other words they are their own witness of its truth. For example going back to honesty in our debate.
Whether you believe honesty is a real thing
Really, when it comes to how we treat each other I think this comes down to morality. If we treated it any other way like an ordinary everday situation like at work say there are situations where morality doesn't come into it. But they can become ethical and that is why we have codes of ethics (prescriptions) and not instruction manuals (descriptions) for our behaviour towards others.
But the fallacy or misrepresentation can be used to be dishonest in avoiding or denying the truth or facts.
Or the facts and truth of the matter.
Its an abstraction that is made real though when someone descieves or misrepresents.
The principle of honesty implies a general prohibition against falsifying, fabricating, or misrepresenting data, results, or other types of information pertaining to scientific publication.
It can also be about honesty to self and others
Honesty, speaking and acting truthfully, is more than not lying, deceiving, stealing, or cheating. It entails showing respect towards others and having integrity and self-awareness.
Merriam-Webster defines honesty as "fairness and straightforwardness of conduct" or "adherence to the facts".
I have sort of explained this above in how we assume honesty as a way of coming to know the truth or facts (epistemically) and therefore sometimes this epistemic fact is entangled with and leads to morality such as not lying to avoid the truth.
Something being universally true or factual doesn't mean everyone has to agree.
Its a universal truth that the earth revolves around the sun no matter which location or culture you belong to. Its a fact.
But some people disagree with this but that doesn't change the fact or truth of the matter.
The same with morals. Its a universal moral truth that murder is wrong.
Just because some disagree and think murder morally good doesn't change the universal status.
Some cultures disagree with Universal Human Rights but we will still hold them accountable like they are just plain wrong like someone would be about the earth not rotating the sun.
Actually for number 1 I was pointing out a fallacy from non-objectivists that moral disagreement means theres no objective morals.
For number 2 people can be both disagreeing out of personal defect and believe they are correct.
Moral realism is more about a categorical issue about morality. That these situations demand a right or wrong determination. That when dealing with moral situations people are expressing something into the world that something is either right or wrong,
that these expressions are sometimes true and not some delusion.
That doesn't seem right because along with justice there were other values like reciprocity,
respect and fairness
and as the article says these moral values are based on cooperation and not conflict.
Thats silly. You would not condemn a culture that say abuses kids, trafficks them as sex slaves.
That implies if they are shocked that they realise they underestimated the Palestinians morality and that they are doing something morally wrong. That there is a right and wrong behaviour rather than tolerating all behaviour as acceptable just because cultures have differing beliefs.
Just because a tribe sees what most decent people would see as morally bad as morally good doesn't mean there is no way to say that they are acting immoral.
Thats there is no determination beyond the cultures about what is right and wrong.
Prove a moral fact in what way.
Actually its not just assuming objective reality exists but assuming its the only way to show what exists. Which is an unsupportede assumption and a metaphysical belief. There is no way to verify that there exists an objective reality beyond our heads.
I have read the research and as far as I can see it stands up. Its repreated science many times over and from independent areas of science and related fields. I mean when one article makes claims you can be skeptical. But when many converge on the same findings its strengthens the case. Thats exactly how other areas like evolution gain their status. Once again I think you may need to look at the research once again linked below.Unfortunately, the people writing the articles frequently get it wrong and are never held accountable.
Consider the double slit experiment. There's probably a few dozen articles, right now, that claim the experiment shows that we can control reality with our minds. We can't. It's just because of the authors not understanding what the term "observer" refers to in this experiment.
There's also the Implicit Association Test...which is a test so unreliable its basically worthless to anyone doing real science. This was already known when it was touted as a viable explanation for all sorts of things in many articles.
So I strongly suggest, always look at the research.
Like I said toddelers are being encultured b ased on the same moral sense that babies have which they are born with. Each culture is just defining that moral sense with their version of the same sense. You can't enculture a toddler that doesn't have some pre recodnition of morals mattering. You can't teach that into people.That seems to be the claim you're making....and it doesn't hold up. Toddlers and verbal children are already being acculturated into their social groups moral norms...
The study you refer to was rejected by the Journal Nature. The researchers of the original study said the NZ study changed its modelling and therefore this influenced the results. Studies have reversed the experiemnts show both the bouncer in both situations was judged as the bad guy if they denied others.They won't prove anything about the babies.
As for the babies...the only group I saw attempting to replicate the findings was in NZ. They immediately noticed a problem with the methodology and tested it out. They celebratory "bounce" by the helper or "good guy" and the loud banging motion/sound of the "bad guy" character was what the babies were responding to. They changed the bad guy animation so he did a celebratory bounce after hindering the main character....and suddenly the babies chose the bad guy overwhelmingly. When the good guy banged into the main character to help him up the hill....babies didn't like the good guy.
In short...babies don't have a rudimentary sense of justice. Instead, they responded emotionally to certain stimuli and that was misinterpreted by the researchers.
The replication and peer review that you think is happening in this field literally isn't happening. It's sad, but that's why I pointed it out. One of the biggest names in behavioural psychology had 50+ research papers redacted because they falsified data. If the peer review process wasn't broken, if replication was happening, these people wouldn't have highly respected careers that span decades. It's a broken process.
If the babies change their reactions when you change which character does a celebratory bounce...then it seems unlikely that babies are passing moral judgements about bad guys and good guys. I'm not going to bother quoting the problems about fairness that the researchers admit exists.
I'd call it an emotional reaction to stimuli.
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?