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.
You're basing your arguments on the premise that morality is something that exists outside of humanity. We disagree with your premise, which is why it's being discuss - which is why it's perfectly relevant. If we both agreed that morality exists outside of human nature, then you would be correct to call my arguments irrelevant.
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.
Bold words for something that's still being heavily debated by mathematicians.
Is Mathematics Invented or Discovered? | Derek Abbott
The laws of physics exist, whether I am here to acknowledge they exist or not.
The laws of physics refer to what has been tested and verified by science. It isn't math, it's explained by math. Therefore, it can not be used interchangeably with your argument regarding whether or not math is abstract or objective outside of human creation.
t 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.
This would be the equivalent of someone running around exclaiming, "Chess is a lie! The King can actually move 4 spaces in any direction!"
Regardless, there's a fundamental difference between mathematics and morality. The solutions one obtains through mathematics can be proven. However, the solutions obtained through morality can not (unless we accept subjective answers).
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.
When do rules stop becoming opinions? Did God create the rules of chess? Would it be of your opinion that a Pawn can move like a Knight? The semantics here are incredibly important, because referring to morality as mere opinion often confuses people to think that as an opinion, morality loses all meaning.
Morality, as an opinion, is one in which we can measure the outcome of certain moral aspects. We base morality on outcome and emotion. This opinion is far from unimportant, it's incredibly important.
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?”
From the perspective of those who have been brainwashed, discriminating against other races would be "good". And as horrible as that sounds, keep in mind that atheists (such as myself) find that the Bible falls into this realm. When you challenge my stance and ask me if morality becomes good just because society calls it good, I can ask you the same question about God.
If society has the ability to dictate morality, then that means society could dictate that it be appropriate to murder children! But the same is true for God as well. The only difference is that one's going to be called subjective, and the other is going to be called objective. But from my perspective, both would go against my own moral code - so the fact as to whether or not it's objective or subjective is rather moot.
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.
Morality isn't based solely off of personal tastes. It's based on emotion and outcome.
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..."
That's quite depressing actually. : |
We have the chemical processes in our brains to give us the feeling of happiness - why not be happy about that? Is it too hard to fathom that a person can be happy, even if the happiness isn't eternal or even if the happiness is just a chemical reaction in his brain?
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).
This, we can agree on.
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)
None of which are science. All of those, arguably, subjective.
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.
Can you PM it to me so I will for sure see it?
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.
I understand. I do not think you chose God because it's what you wanted.
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.
So far, it's all been philosophical.
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.”
Philosophy is very important, but we must understand both the limitations and uses for philosophy.
I'm late for work. PM me your sources and anything else you wish to discuss.
