Now you're moving the goal posts. You argue morality comes from God, I argue morality comes from human kind. You claim the cause of morality is irrelevant. This debate is about whether God dictates morality, or if man dictates morality. I've remained perfectly relevant.
No, no.. not the cause of morality. How we came to know morality(Moral Epistemology) is irrelevant to the topic of the reality of morality(Moral Ontology). Example: How I come to know the laws of physics has no bearing on the reality of the laws of physics. Totally separate topics. Yes, the debate is about that. However if man dictates morality, it’s an illusion meaning there is no moral reality. (No objective good and evil)
Morality is a concept. It's an abstract idea. It can't be objective.
This is demonstrably false. Abstract and objective are not dichotomous, like you are assuming. Hmm… here’s an illustration. Mathematics is abstract and objective. It exists even if humans do not. The laws of physics exist, whether I am here to acknowledge they exist or not. They do not depend on my human “mind” for existence. I am claiming morality is objective in this same way. It doesn’t depend on man’s mind. It exists outside of us. It is a true reality. And I’m attempting to show the consequences of morality being subjective which means it’s an illusion.
Another example, Pi! The number 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679821480865… should I keep going? Cause this will take a long while.. Maybe when I’m done, this thread will be done…tempting…. It’s abstract right? We can’t hug pi, we can’t squeeze it, see it, smell it, taste it…throw it over a rainbow…decorate it with cupcakes… I mean we can taste pie… just not pi…(I’m really tired….)But it’s objective. It exists whether I do or not. All the lovely little numbers exist. No one runs around yelling pi doesn’t exist. No one says.. ” Guys! I just had this revelation…. Pi is actually the number 2.” –gasp- Or 2+2=4 doesn’t really exist, it’s just a matter of personal preference.
I have a headache now…for realz. =( All this thinking.. But anyways I think my example with physics was a bit easier to grasp.
The problem with this sentence is the choice of words.
If morality is subjective, then it sounds as if morality is merely "an opinion", in which a subjective view that it's wrong to kill people is "just opinion". But subjective isn't necessarily "just opinion". In the way we have been discussing the word subjective, we've been referring to it as something that exists outside of human dictation.
I haven’t been using subjective that way.
I’ve been using subjective the way the dictionary defines it as philosophical terms.
Subjective: relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind
Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind
Let's do away with subjective and objective and look at the reality - not the words.
We really are just arguing semantics here. The words are used for clarification (like most words are). If you want me to say “transcends human opinion” instead of objective and “existing only in a person’s mind” instead of subjective, then I will. But that seems to make things more complicated than they need to be.
In a reality where mankind dictates right and wrong, murder is considered wrong. Murder is a punishable offense.
In a reality where God dictates right and wrong, murder is considered wrong. Murder is a punishable offense.
Yes, man has created a justice system and punishments. But this is totally overlooking the deeper question. What makes something wrong, wrong? Why is something considered evil? Because it harms another human? Why is it wrong to harm other humans? Because “most” humans say so? What about humans that disagree. What about Hitler? He believed he was doing right. Would it have been “right” if he had won and brain washed us all into thinking what he did was right? Would it then be considered “good?”
There is no absolute rule in which we have to be good when morality comes from man. Yet, that's where we navigate towards. With subjective morality, we're good because we choose to be good.
Well with subjective morality… it’s a matter of personal taste. You may say you’re good but someone else may say you’re evil. Since there’s no objective morality, then I guess it doesn’t really matter because evil and good are just made up concepts. The world is ultimately morally neutral.
If you believe morality stems from an absolute rule created by God, then you have objective morality. With objective morality, we're good because we are supposed to be good.
We are good because we are supposed to be good? Huh? I think you’re misunderstanding the argument. Objective morality would exist even if everyone was evil and thought they were good… They would be evil regardless of what they believed. I don’t think humans are good anyways. We do a lot of evil, selfish things. This seems off topic.
When you look up to the skies and you see beauty in the stars, the moment you come to believe there is no God is the moment you say, "oh, no God? This isn't impressive at all then!"
The fact you believe we need God to appreciate anything is bewildering.
Off topic... but didn’t say that. You can be appreciative. Just appreciative to what? I think Atheists are appreciative… but I don’t think they do much thinking about what they are appreciative to. Appreciative to the gases that make up the atmosphere? Appreciative to the neurochemical reactions occurring in their brains allowing them to think? That’s the problem.. they don’t do a whole lot of deep reflection on these things. They can “feel” appreciation… everyone feels it… they just can’t explain any reason for it. I guess that just doesn't matter to most of them. They just know they like feelings and that's good enough.
But you just agreed that everything in this universe would be bland if it weren't created...
Yes it would suck. I mean sure, we could pretend everything was flowers and roses and things had meaning and value.. but the reality would be it sucks. Just like Betrand Russell puts it.. "...unyielding despair..."
Philosophy doesn't attain knowledge, it attains reason to hold or discard abstract ideas. This doesn't mean philosophy is useless. It's not. It's very important in dictating the way in which we value the world and people around us. It's very important for helping us dictate what is right and wrong. But philosophy does not provide us with non-abstract answers.
Philosophy: the academic discipline concerned with making explicit the nature and significance of ordinary and scientific beliefs and investigating the intelligibility of concepts by means of rational argument concerning their presuppositions, implications, and interrelationships; in particular, the rational investigation of the nature and structure of reality (metaphysics), the resources and limits of knowledge (epistemology), the principles and import of moral judgment (ethics), and the relationship between language and reality (semantics)
It depends on what you mean when you say, "figure out morality". There's no reason science can't be used to prove the process in which we obtain morality, or the psychology behind our morals. However, it is true that science can not be used to dictate morality. But this doesn't mean philosophy can prove where morality comes from. You can't use philosophy to prove whether morality comes from God or man. That takes science.
Are you gonna set up a science experiment to study the reality of morality?
..I'd be interested in seeing that. Morality belongs to philosophy.
However, you can study moral epistemology(how a person came to know their morals) with science. Just not moral ontology(reality of morality).
Pie, you are an incredibly intelligent and well read person. I would love to hear how you went from being a nonbeliever to a believer. I would love for you to specify which proofs for God's existence changed your mind, which sources you looked through, etc. It would be incredibly fascinating.
Probably not that fascinating.
. It was a long journey. Not something I did overnight. But I can provide you with sources on what I found convincing... Some of it has already been stated in here in this thread. Obviously, that's just part of it.
And this is where you are sorely wrong.
When you had questioned, you turned to answers that made sense to you.
Ironically, I turned to the atheists first. Hence, why I walked away from my faith. I wasn't on a journey to fool myself into believing something that I wanted to be true.
The answers that made the most sense were those that came from Christian apologists. Atheists, on the other hand, do not find these answers compelling by any means. It's not that atheists never question their own lack of belief - it's that they are looking for compelling evidence to believe.
Indeed. They did make more sense. Well, I guess the amount of evidence needed to compel an atheist is different for everyone. Because there’s definitely an enormous amount of evidence out there for those who take the time to search for it.
Christian apologetic rely heavily on philosophy.
As does all reasoning. =)
As I mentioned earlier, philosophy can't help one obtain empirical or objective answers. Christian apologetic that rely on evidence are either constantly debunked, or the evidence isn't compelling.
Constantly debunked huh? I'm listening.
You are putting great limitations on philosophy and I have no idea why or where you are getting your idea of philosophy from. You know there’s a philosophy of science right?
“Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science. The central questions concern what counts as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth.”
If you wouldn't mind, could you PM me how you went from being atheist to Christian?
I more or less considered myself agnostic- Hard agnostic, that is. But I can. My brain hurts right now though. I mean look at how long this post is?! I pretty much wrote a book!
