What is the purpose of God?

[Immanuel Can]

Today, this was posted. It seems very "on point" for the topic we're discussing, and says a lot of what I would say -- and have already said -- but says it in a more entertaining way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMDKigUbcJo

[Hobbes' Choice]

Today, this was posted. It seems very "on point" for the topic we're discussing, and says a lot of what I would say -- and have already said -- but says it in a more entertaining way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMDKigUbcJo

You have to be seven shades of idiotic to get past the first 20 seconds of this stupidity.
Here's an alternative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Uz7aC5o_Wg

[Hobbes' Choice]

OR try this
Bad Faith, and the laziness of thinking about choices.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxrmOHJQRSs

[sthitapragya]

Today, this was posted. It seems very "on point" for the topic we're discussing, and says a lot of what I would say -- and have already said -- but says it in a more entertaining way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMDKigUbcJo

And that has been my contention all along. God is a psychological necessity. He gives hope. Someone who looks after you, someone who makes you feel special, someone who gives you hope that there is life after death, someone who gives you reason to believe that life has a meaning and a purpose. But what if we can move past all these fears? I don't need any of these hopes. I am fine with the fact that there is no one to look after me, or that there is no life after death and only oblivion. I don't need to feel special as I am fine being as insignificant as a rock. I am fine with life having no meaning or purpose. So I don't need to believe.

But I don't think this video is on point at all. It explains why we need God or need to believe in him. It does not say what God's purpose is. He created us. That is not his purpose. That is a choice he made. He did not really need to create us and even if he did that was his need, not his purpose. What purpose does he serve if we and all creation are taken out of the equation?

[Immanuel Can]

Sorry for the delay in replying...very busy right now. I'm still interested, just a bit pressed for time for such substantial discussions.

The idea that Christians "can't judge" is simply a secular myth...Luke 12:57, John 7:24...I could give you a bunch more, but these two will do.

Actually, they don't. Luke 12:57 is simply an instance of how one should judge oneself to avoid taking a matter to court and try and solve a matter by reconciliation. It cannot be interpreted as saying that Christians are allowed to judge.

Ah, look again: you forgot to read the context. "The 'court' there is a metaphor for Final Judgment, God's judgment. The teaching is, if you don't judge rightly now, the Ultimate Judge will judge rightly later...so settle your case before you get there. In other words, it's a clear commandment to judge -- an imperative, even.

John 7:24 is Jesus telling people not to judge his making a man well on a sabbath. Again, it does not sanction judging others.

However , Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:37-42, Romans 2:1-3 are explicit in their condemnation of Christians judging others. If you add John 8:1-8, Luke 6:31-36, James 4:11-12, the message is pretty clear.

Well, I can give you a string more. Or I could point out that there is a whole book in the Torah called "Judges," in which men do nothing BUT judge, under direct instruction from God. But rather than quoting things people may not look up, let me just give you one really, really clear one.

Jesus said,

“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits."

Here is an unequivocal instruction not only to judge, but even on what basis to judge. We are to judge the character of people by their actions ("fruit"); and just as a "good" apple tree is defined precisely by its ability to produce good apples, so too people's spiritual condition can -- and should -- be judged by their deeds.

We could go on to passages that even say that if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not afterward find ourselves under the Judgment of God (1 Cor. 11:31); so there we are even told it is in our own best interest to judge. But the upshot here is that there is certainly no catch-all declaration against judging found in Scripture; instead, we get a balance of things-to-be-judged and things-not-to-be-judged: and it's quite specific on both.

But if I understand you aright, you get this. And I think you're saying you want to be your own judge, rather than letting anyone else judge you. And that will be fine, just so long as your self-estimation is correct and there is no Ultimate Judge to come and pass judgment on your afterward.

But that's the question of the moment, isn't it?

No, not at all. If I'm wrong, then show me how Atheism rationalizes ANY moral precept, and I'll be happy to apologize. Just one. That's all I ask...one. Fair enough?

I did. You just chose to ignore it for some reason.

Then forgive my ignorance, and say it again. What is the one moral precept that Atheism rationalizes?

This is what I wrote before: You cannot understand how an atheist can be good and choose to believe it is arbitrary. But you cannot bring yourself to credit an atheist with reasoning what works for him and what doesn't.

Ah, I see...another confusion in basic terms. Okay.

"What works for him" is a practical precept, but it's not a moral one. The "practice" in question could easily be immoral or amoral. Nothing makes "this works for me" a moral claim.

A moral claim always specifies what is right to do whether or not it is practical to do otherwise. For example, "No adultery" is a necessary moral predicate precisely because people "want" to do adultery, and find adultery "practical" in the meeting of immediate urges.

So you haven't listed what philosophers call a "moral" or "ethical" or "normative" claim there. You've just said, "people do what they think will work." And that's no revelation, for sure -- and does not even employ a moral concept, just a reference to prudential or practical strategy.

It would be, if it turns out not be God's opinion as well. But He said that anyone who did that sort of thing would be better off having a millstone tied around his neck and being chucked into the sea. So I'm pretty sure I'm safe in condemning paedophelia.

So essentially you are doing it out of fear of God's wrath.

It may be that, for some people, especially for people who do not stand in any relationship to God, but who have some awareness of Him. They might simply fear Him as Judge. And if that's all they've got, they'd be wise to do that. Either way, that would be a protection for children and would lead to the right outcome.

But someone who knows and loves God can obey out of a motive of love. They can see that harming children is contrary to the character of God, and contrary to His commands, and they can obey because they appreciate God and want to do things consonant with His nature. Moreover, they can have empathy for children because they know themselves to be children too -- the "children of God," upon whom God has shown compassion and forbearance. Conscious of the debt they've been forgiven, they can extend that compassion to others. So there are much better reasons than fear -- for some people.

But everything depends on the relationship: is God one's "Savior" and beloved "Father," or only one's "Judge."

[Immanuel Can]

And that has been my contention all along. God is a psychological necessity. He gives hope. Someone who looks after you, someone who makes you feel special, someone who gives you hope that there is life after death, someone who gives you reason to believe that life has a meaning and a purpose. But what if we can move past all these fears? I don't need any of these hopes. I am fine with the fact that there is no one to look after me, or that there is no life after death and only oblivion. I don't need to feel special as I am fine being as insignificant as a rock. I am fine with life having no meaning or purpose. So I don't need to believe.

Ah, but to say that something is "a psychological necessity" leaves unaddressed whether or not it is a physical necessity...things can be BOTH. For example, oxygen is certainly a physical necessity for all of us; but let one's windpipe close for some reason -- choking on food, drowning, whatever -- and the very first thing you'll feel is psychological necessity. Both are present.

Now, on the mistaken idea that if people "need" something, they must be "making it up," Alistair McGrath has rightly pointed out that the same argument counts against Atheism. For Atheism is also a kind of wish-fulfillment. If we can say that some people only believe in God because they want there to be one, we can also say that people believe in Atheism because they DON'T want there to be one. But if God exists, He exists independently of our wishes and longings...and whether or not we want Him to be is simply irrelevant to the whole question of His existence. It has to be settled on realistic grounds, not merely the presence of an urge for or against.

But I don't think this video is on point at all. It explains why we need God or need to believe in him. It does not say what God's purpose is. He created us. That is not his purpose. That is a choice he made. He did not really need to create us and even if he did that was his need, not his purpose. What purpose does he serve if we and all creation are taken out of the equation?

We've come full circle. You're now talking again about a God that is, or is not useful for some kind of "purpose" we mere human beings might have. The flaw remains in the question, not in the answer. The flaw is to see God as needing to justify His existence by some "purpose" we humans want to use Him for. But this framing of the question gives humans precedence over God: and no rational Theist thinks the world works that way.

[sthitapragya]

Ah, look again: you forgot to read the context. "The 'court' there is a metaphor for Final Judgment, God's judgment. The teaching is, if you don't judge rightly now, the Ultimate Judge will judge rightly later...so settle your case before you get there. In other words, it's a clear commandment to judge -- an imperative, even.

John 7:24 is Jesus telling people not to judge his making a man well on a sabbath. Again, it does not sanction judging others.

However , Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:37-42, Romans 2:1-3 are explicit in their condemnation of Christians judging others. If you add John 8:1-8, Luke 6:31-36, James 4:11-12, the message is pretty clear.

Well, I can give you a string more. Or I could point out that there is a whole book in the Torah called "Judges," in which men do nothing BUT judge, under direct instruction from God. But rather than quoting things people may not look up, let me just give you one really, really clear one.

Jesus said,

“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits."

Here is an unequivocal instruction not only to judge, but even on what basis to judge. We are to judge the character of people by their actions ("fruit"); and just as a "good" apple tree is defined precisely by its ability to produce good apples, so too people's spiritual condition can -- and should -- be judged by their deeds.

We could go on to passages that even say that if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not afterward find ourselves under the Judgment of God (1 Cor. 11:31); so there we are even told it is in our own best interest to judge. But the upshot here is that there is certainly no catch-all declaration against judging found in Scripture; instead, we get a balance of things-to-be-judged and things-not-to-be-judged: and it's quite specific on both.

But if I understand you aright, you get this. And I think you're saying you want to be your own judge, rather than letting anyone else judge you. And that will be fine, just so long as your self-estimation is correct and there is no Ultimate Judge to come and pass judgment on your afterward.

But that's the question of the moment, isn't it?

So at least I know now that Your God is the Christian God.

Then forgive my ignorance, and say it again. What is the one moral precept that Atheism rationalizes?

This is what I wrote before: You cannot understand how an atheist can be good and choose to believe it is arbitrary. But you cannot bring yourself to credit an atheist with reasoning what works for him and what doesn't.

Ah, I see...another confusion in basic terms. Okay.

No, you don't. In the above and the next point you raised, you have only taken half of my reply and ignored the part I think is the more important.You have done it twice now. Once was probably a mistake. But twice cannot be. So I have no option but to believe that you wish to, for some reason, prove to yourself that atheists have no moral precept and you are willing to ignore or bypass things I have said to prove your point. You are welcome to that opinion. I am sorry but this discussion is over.

[Immanuel Can]

So at least I know now that Your God is the Christian God.

It was no secret. My name should have given you that.

Then forgive my ignorance, and say it again. What is the one moral precept that Atheism rationalizes?

...I am sorry but this discussion is over.

It wouldn't have cost you anything to repeat yourself. Cut and paste would have done. But there were actually no specifically moral predicates in that part of your response, so I understand why that would have been difficult.

That being said, conversation is not anybody's right to inflict on another, so I'll respect your wishes to discontinue.

Be well.

[sthitapragya]

So at least I know now that Your God is the Christian God.

It was no secret. My name should have given you that.

Then forgive my ignorance, and say it again. What is the one moral precept that Atheism rationalizes?

...I am sorry but this discussion is over.

It wouldn't have cost you anything to repeat yourself. Cut and paste would have done. But there were actually no specifically moral predicates in that part of your response, so I understand why that would have been difficult.

That being said, conversation is not anybody's right to inflict on another, so I'll respect your wishes to discontinue.

Be well.

FYI. I did cut and paste it. You still ignored this part: No one is good because they are good. They are good because they have figured out that it is beneficial to do so. There is nothing arbitrary about it. And you simply don't seem to understand that right and wrong are irrelevant. Good, bad and better are more appropriate to reality. Being decent, law abiding citizens, doing charity, being polite and pleasant, respectful of others, these are things that other people appreciate and respond to. They bring status in society. And that even an atheist understands and implements. He doesn't want to prove he is a good person. He just becomes a good person. No one asks you why you are a good person. The fact that you are one is enough for everyone. Whether he believes in the reality and objectivity of right an wrong is irrelevant. People respond to the goodness not the reason behind it. The reason behind it is irrelevant.

[Immanuel Can]

No one is good because they are good. They are good because they have figured out that it is beneficial to do so. There is nothing arbitrary about it. And you simply don't seem to understand that right and wrong are irrelevant. Good, bad and better are more appropriate to reality. Being decent, law abiding citizens, doing charity, being polite and pleasant, respectful of others, these are things that other people appreciate and respond to. They bring status in society. And that even an atheist understands and implements. He doesn't want to prove he is a good person. He just becomes a good person. No one asks you why you are a good person. The fact that you are one is enough for everyone. Whether he believes in the reality and objectivity of right an wrong is irrelevant. People respond to the goodness not the reason behind it. The reason behind it is irrelevant.

I didn't "ignore" it, sthitapragya, it wasn't relevant to ethics. So what was to be said?

Essentially, your view entails that there is no such thing as an ethic. As you put it "right and wrong are irrelevant." (See? I saw that.) But what you don't see is that you have cut from beneath yourself any reference to "goodness". Even so, you still use the word. Then you also use words like "decent" and "law abiding" as if they were uncontroversial to people, and as if we would all just know what you mean and believe the same as you do: but is this reasonable? Likewise, you seem to want to affirm "doing charity, being polite and pleasant, respectful of others," and to do so on no other basis than "people appreciate" them.

But you've begged many, many questions here: why ought we to be "decent," if "indecent" seems more fun? Why be "law abiding" if you won't get caught? Why "do charity" instead of stealing, if stealing is profitable and charity takes money away from us? Why be "pleasant and respectful" if insulting people and being belligerent makes one feel more proud? And who says we have any obligation to do what "people appreciate"? Which "people"? Why?

If there were no difference between "good" things and "things we like to do," there actually would be no such thing as Ethics. We wouldn't need it. And we actually wouldn't care one fig if anyone was "respectful" or "charitable," because every action would be exactly the same in terms of value.

You do employ a ton of value-laden language here, and expect not to be questioned as to what you mean, since you assert that no values are objectively true. Unfortunately, it's rationally impossible to have it both ways. Irrationally, it can be done; but not rationally, because rationality entails that what you assert is based on reasoning not mere taste. And reasons can be supplied to questioners -- if they exist.

[sthitapragya]

Essentially, your view entails that there is no such thing as an ethic. As you put it "right and wrong are irrelevant." (See? I saw that.) But what you don't see is that you have cut from beneath yourself any reference to "goodness". Even so, you still use the word. Then you also use words like "decent" and "law abiding" as if they were uncontroversial to people, and as if we would all just know what you mean and believe the same as you do: but is this reasonable? Likewise, you seem to want to affirm "doing charity, being polite and pleasant, respectful of others," and to do so on no other basis than "people appreciate" them.

No I have not. I have simply adopted from observation what is goodness and badness. Poison oak=bad. Apple=good. Helping people=good. robbing banks=bad. shooting cops=bad. Helping old women cross the road=good. charity=good. Then there are laws to help me make it easy. Do this we will put you in jail. So I won't do those things because I don't want to go to jail. I don't need a God to tell me what other people respond to. If that means there is no such thing as ethics, then there is no such thing as ethics. And I can survive without them. I also wonder why there are a lot of people who refuse to follow these basic rules. For some reason they do not seem to understand and that includes religious people too. So who has ethics really?

But you've begged many, many questions here: why ought we to be "decent," if "indecent" seems more fun? Why be "law abiding" if you won't get caught? Why "do charity" instead of stealing, if stealing is profitable and charity takes money away from us? Why be "pleasant and respectful" if insulting people and being belligerent makes one feel more proud? And who says we have any obligation to do what "people appreciate"? Which "people"? Why?

Because there is the chance that you will go to jail. Because you have enough money not to want to steal. There are so many reasons why people do things and don't do things. Your ethics and morals come from your fear of God. You have no rationale for your ethics and morals except that is what God tells you to do. You are afraid of what God will do to you. I am afraid of what the law will do to me. And I have observed what people respond to. There really is no difference between us.

You really think insulting people and being belligerent is going to get you anywhere in life? People react negatively to these things. And don't ask what people? All people. People you work with, your boss, your junior, your associate, family, friends, chidren. Everyone responds the same way. Of course you have no obligation to do what people appreciate. Just try doing what people dislike and see how that goes. Unlike God, you will face the consequences in this life. You won't have to wait for an afterlife. There are consequences for your actions in this world. And that is what makes you do what you do. Jump from the roof of a building and you will probably die. You don't need god to tell you that. Be friendly and pleasant and people will be more helpful. You dont need God to tell you that. Just observation of what people like and don't will teach you what works and doesn't to get ahead in this world. It is a more sophisticated version of the survival of the fittest where you don't get killed.

If there were no difference between "good" things and "things we like to do," there actually would be no such thing as Ethics. We wouldn't need it. And we actually wouldn't care one fig if anyone was "respectful" or "charitable," because every action would be exactly the same in terms of value.

Well, I don't understand the value of this argument at all. The fact is there is a difference between actions which people perceive to be good or bad. All actions have consequences. SOme good and some bad. One has to be able to figure out the likely consequences of an action before taking action. That is it.

You do employ a ton of value-laden language here, and expect not to be questioned as to what you mean, since you assert that no values are objectively true. Unfortunately, it's rationally impossible to have it both ways. Irrationally, it can be done; but not rationally, because rationality entails that what you assert is based on reasoning not mere taste. And reasons can be supplied to questioners -- if they exist.

I don't understand your obsession with value laden language. What language do you want me to use to get my point across? I have to use words in english which you and I understand. It is the limitation of the words that is the problem. But most people can get the gist of what someone is saying from extended explanations. I am asking you to use your high intellect to see the content of what I am writing. It is very clear. I cannot make it clearer.

Let me summarize. I don;t think there is any right and wrong. But I do understand what people perceive to be good and bad. I also classify some things as good and bad. Getting murdered=bad. Getting an award= appreciation=good. And I act according to what I believe will help me succeed in society. And a truck load of factors are involved there. There are also pro-active measures I take to enhance my stature. I ensure that people know I am a man of my word because that I find gives me an edge. So I make it a life rule. I ensure I always pay on time and I ensure that everyone who works for me is better paid than my competitors. To me it is the better way to keep my staff and ensure increased efficiency. To others, I am a really good and decent man. I don't do it because I want to be good. I do it so that they think I am good and it is socially and economically beneficial to me when people think so. Now do you get it?

[Immanuel Can]

I also wonder why there are a lot of people who refuse to follow these basic rules.

Maybe because they aren't "rules" to them at all. For example, as we were noting earlier, Conservative Muslim paedophiles are a case in point...they think they are "marrying" these girls. You and I think they are wrong to do what they do, but they do not.

We need to be able to tell them why they're wrong...that is, if you and I care about the hurting of little girls.

Because there is the chance that you will go to jail.

This begs the question: how do we know the law is right on that point?

Your ethics and morals come from your fear of God . You have no rationale for your ethics and morals except that is what God tells you to do. You are afraid of what God will do to you.

Now it's my turn to cut-and-paste.

"...someone who knows and loves God can obey out of a motive of love. They can see that harming children is contrary to the character of God, and contrary to His commands, and they can obey because they appreciate God and want to do things consonant with His nature. Moreover, they can have empathy for children because they know themselves to be children too -- the "children of God," upon whom God has shown compassion and forbearance. Conscious of the debt they've been forgiven, they can extend that compassion to others. So there are much better reasons than fear -- for some people."

You read that, right? Fear has nothing to do with it.

You really think insulting people and being belligerent is going to get you anywhere in life?

There's no belligerence in what I'm writing here. We're discussing ideas, not insulting persons. If you've felt any unkindness, I assure you it was none of my intent. After all, I know you only as a pseudonym at the top of a page...how can I possibly discuss anything more than your views?

And don't ask what people? All people. People you work with, your boss, your junior, your associate, family, friends, children. Everyone responds the same way.

Even the conservative Muslims we were talking about?

And they're far from the only case. How about neo-Nazis, or Communist ideologues, or Randians, Nietzscheans, or animists, or Mennonites, or Aztec warriors, or Donald Trump? Do you really suppose that all these people have identical moral values?

Most people in the field of Moral Philosophy now disagree with you. The dominant view is that, after having looked around the multi-cultural, multi-ideological world we live in, different moralities exist that are "incommensurable." Feel free to check me on that, if you wish. You'll find I'm telling you the truth about that.

Just try doing what people dislike and see how that goes. Unlike God, you will face the consequences in this life. You won't have to wait for an afterlife. There are consequences for your actions in this world. And that is what makes you do what you do. Jump from the roof of a building and you will probably die. You don't need god to tell you that. Be friendly and pleasant and people will be more helpful. You dont need God to tell you that. Just observation of what people like and don't will teach you what works and doesn't to get ahead in this world. It is a more sophisticated version of the survival of the fittest where you don't get killed.

If that were right, then there would never be an incentive for doing wrong. Stalin didn't have any problem "doing what people dislike": nor have most despots. And though some have died badly, a great many others have gone to their graves without justice having been served. So I think the world is not nearly so morally tidy as you seem to suggest.

If there were no difference between "good" things and "things we like to do," there actually would be no such thing as Ethics. We wouldn't need it. And we actually wouldn't care one fig if anyone was "respectful" or "charitable," because every action would be exactly the same in terms of value.

Well, I don't understand the value of this argument at all. The fact is there is a difference between actions which people perceive to be good or bad. All actions have consequences. SOme good and some bad. One has to be able to figure out the likely consequences of an action before taking action. That is it.

But some bad actions have good consequences for the perpetrator. Embezzlement is a good example. The guys who created the US mortgage crisis, did they all get caught? Did they pay for their misdeeds? Is there any prospect they ever will, in this life?

I don't understand your obsession with value laden language...

I'll clarify.

When a person says something is "good" or "bad," or "practical" or "valuable" or "better" or "moral" or whatever term they use, they are drawing on an assumption -- usually one they don't even think about the fact that they have. For "practical" means "practical for" (something), and "better" means "better in light of" (something)...and so on. That "something" may or may not be intrinsically good.

To put it this way: a nurse could say, "This medication is good," meaning, "...good for healing wounds." But Hitler could say, "These gas chambers are good," meaning "good for exterminating people quickly." Nothing guarantees in advance that the "something" is a good thing.

If one uses value-laden terms, one owes it rationally to be able to say why such terms point to a good "something." Otherwise, it's quite possible they don't. And even when they do, it should be rationally possible to say what that "something" is.

Let me summarize. I don;t think there is any right and wrong. But I do understand what people perceive to be good and bad. I also classify some things as good and bad. Getting murdered=bad. Getting an award= appreciation=good. And I act according to what I believe will help me succeed in society. And a truck load of factors are involved there. There are also pro-active measures I take to enhance my stature. I ensure that people know I am a man of my word because that I find gives me an edge. So I make it a life rule. I ensure I always pay on time and I ensure that everyone who works for me is better paid than my competitors. To me it is the better way to keep my staff and ensure increased efficiency. To others, I am a really good and decent man. I don't do it because I want to be good. I do it so that they think I am good and it is socially and economically beneficial to me when people think so.

I have no view of you. Thus I have no opinion about your behavior. If you thought I was taking a view of that, bear in mind as I said before that I cannot see you, have never met you, and know you only as a pseudonym.

But I have questions about your theory of morality. Your theory, I can see and evaluate. I pass no opinion here upon your person. I could not possibly do so.

[Arising_uk]

... They can see that harming children is contrary to the character of God, and contrary to His commands, and they can obey because they appreciate God and want to do things consonant with His nature. Moreover, they can have empathy for children because they know themselves to be children too -- the "children of God," upon whom God has shown compassion and forbearance. ...

Really? Wasn't all that compassionate to the Egyptian firstborn, nor presumably to all the children in Sodom and Gomorrah, nor Jericho, etc, etc. So not contrary to 'its' character nor 'its' commands at all in reality.

[sthitapragya]

Maybe because they aren't "rules" to them at all. For example, as we were noting earlier, Conservative Muslim paedophiles are a case in point...they think they are "marrying" these girls. You and I think they are wrong to do what they do, but they do not.

We need to be able to tell them why they're wrong...that is, if you and I care about the hurting of little girls.

Of course. And that is my point. Ethics and morals are subjective. For the conservative muslim, marrying little girls is not a problem. He believes in God. He has morals and ethics which are objective and God given. So he closes his mind to the possibilities of subjective morals and ethics. He will simply do what God permits. He won't use his own mind.

Because there is the chance that you will go to jail.

This begs the question: how do we know the law is right on that point?

We don't. But I am bound to follow the law as the consequences of not following them can be severe. I might disagree with the law but unless I can change it, common sense dictates that I follow it.

Your ethics and morals come from your fear of God . You have no rationale for your ethics and morals except that is what God tells you to do. You are afraid of what God will do to you.

Now it's my turn to cut-and-paste.

"...someone who knows and loves God can obey out of a motive of love. They can see that harming children is contrary to the character of God, and contrary to His commands, and they can obey because they appreciate God and want to do things consonant with His nature. Moreover, they can have empathy for children because they know themselves to be children too -- the "children of God," upon whom God has shown compassion and forbearance. Conscious of the debt they've been forgiven, they can extend that compassion to others. So there are much better reasons than fear -- for some people."

You read that, right? Fear has nothing to do with it.

Well, but then the conservative muslim probably thinks he is doing the same thing. He obeys out of a motive of love too. And he does not know that he is harming children because God has not told him that it harms them. In such a case, why is he wrong? He is simply following God. Maybe not yours, but he doesn't believe in your God. So since he is following the objective morals of his God, why is he wrong in YOUR eyes?

You really think insulting people and being belligerent is going to get you anywhere in life?

There's no belligerence in what I'm writing here. We're discussing ideas, not insulting persons. If you've felt any unkindness, I assure you it was none of my intent. After all, I know you only as a pseudonym at the top of a page...how can I possibly discuss anything more than your views?

You misunderstood. You asked " why can't we be belligerent if it works?" or words to that effect. I simply replied to that question. I never suggested you were belligerent. It was simply a reply to your question on belligerence. Now you aren't reading what YOU write.

And don't ask what people? All people. People you work with, your boss, your junior, your associate, family, friends, children. Everyone responds the same way.

Even the conservative Muslims we were talking about?

Well, I suppose he has his own set of rules of acceptable conduct. They seem to be different from ours. So yes, why not?

And they're far from the only case. How about neo-Nazis, or Communist ideologues, or Randians, Nietzscheans, or animists, or Mennonites, or Aztec warriors, or Donald Trump? Do you really suppose that all these people have identical moral values?

Now I am confused. Are we arguing while agreeing on the same thing. Let me clarify. I am of the opinion that morals and ethics are subjective. Every one has his own, some of which may be common with a lot of people. These morals and ethics are different depending upon the environment and culture you are raised in because different cultures have different standards of conduct. These morals and ethics are defined more by environment, culture and the prevailing law of the area. You would add morals dictated by God and I would disagree because a lot of people who believe in God do not follow the morals and ethics dictated by their God.

Most people in the field of Moral Philosophy now disagree with you. The dominant view is that, after having looked around the multi-cultural, multi-ideological world we live in, different moralities exist that are "incommensurable." Feel free to check me on that, if you wish. You'll find I'm telling you the truth about that.

Now I am really confused. That has been my contention all along. My only addition has been that belief in God has very little to do with the morals and ethics people follow.

If that were right, then there would never be an incentive for doing wrong. Stalin didn't have any problem "doing what people dislike": nor have most despots. And though some have died badly, a great many others have gone to their graves without justice having been served. So I think the world is not nearly so morally tidy as you seem to suggest.

These are people who used power to over ride their own need to follow rules of moral conduct. I have no idea how really powerful people think but the point is people will do whatever they can get away with or believe they can get away with within a closed culture.

But some bad actions have good consequences for the perpetrator. Embezzlement is a good example. The guys who created the US mortgage crisis, did they all get caught? Did they pay for their misdeeds? Is there any prospect they ever will, in this life?

Well, if one has the intelligence to get away with it, he might be able to beat the system. And no. if they get away clean, I don't believe there is any prospect that they ever will, in this life or the next.

When a person says something is "good" or "bad," or "practical" or "valuable" or "better" or "moral" or whatever term they use, they are drawing on an assumption -- usually one they don't even think about the fact that they have. For "practical" means "practical for" (something), and "better" means "better in light of" (something)...and so on. That "something" may or may not be intrinsically good.

To put it this way: a nurse could say, "This medication is good," meaning, "...good for healing wounds." But Hitler could say, "These gas chambers are good," meaning "good for exterminating people quickly." Nothing guarantees in advance that the "something" is a good thing.

If one uses value-laden terms, one owes it rationally to be able to say why such terms point to a good "something." Otherwise, it's quite possible they don't. And even when they do, it should be rationally possible to say what that "something" is.

Well, how do you explain Hitler calling the gas chamber good? He will definitely come up with some explanation which appears rational to him even though you disagree with it. It is subjective. But it might not necessarily be true. But since we communicate with language we are bound by its limitations. I already told you. I have my own set of good and bad, but I really don't know for sure if the same set might be true for you. They are true for me. That is all.

[Immanuel Can]

Ethics and morals are subjective. For the conservative muslim, marrying little girls is not a problem. He believes in God. He has morals and ethics which are objective and God given. So he closes his mind to the possibilities of subjective morals and ethics. He will simply do what God permits. He won't use his own mind.

I agree: it seems clear to me that most Muslims I meet do not know their own religion, let alone their own god. They don't read the Koran at all, and they are afraid they will be "unsubmissive" if they question it; instead, they seem to just believe their "authorities." And it's true that some people from all religions and ideologies do that. You can't imagine how many Atheists I've met who've read nothing at all, or just bits of Dawkins or Hitchens, and think they know something.

That's all silly, of course. But that's not the way it has to be. A person can be knowledgeable about his beliefs if he (or she) wants to be. It just takes effort.

All that being said, that doesn't suggest anything about morals or ethics. After all, a person can believe false things ignorantly, or true things ignorantly. The truth or falsehood of the ethic is one thing; the amount of knowledge or ignorance in the person who believes it is entirely another.

More importantly, it does not lend any credence to the claim "ethics and morals are subjective." Rather, it implies, people of varying degrees of knowledge and commitment have different views of ethics.

Hardly surprising, really.

I am bound to follow the law as the consequences of not following them can be severe. I might disagree with the law but unless I can change it, common sense dictates that I follow it.

But the embezzlers I spoke of last message, the ones involved in the US mortgage scandal knew they could get away with it. So fear of the law was nothing to them. The law is not morality; at most, it's an imperfect reflection of it, and one that often lets justice slide by. How do we know? Because there is a real, objective thing called "justice for the victims of the mortgage scandal," and that real value has not been honoured in that instance. That's how we know the law has failed there.

Whether that's a "right" or "good" situation is the concern of ethics, not law. Law is ex post facto to ethics: we make laws because we believe the values they stand to defend are already right...not because laws create "rightness."

Now I am confused. Are we arguing while agreeing on the same thing.

Partly. We're agreeing that people differ in regard to their ethics. But the conclusion we are drawing from that fact is different. My conclusion is, "therefore some people have wrong ethics," because I believe in moral objectives. Your conclusion is something like, "therefore ethics are not objective."

The difference is that IF my premises are true, then my conclusion would logically follow from them. But even IF we grant your premises, your conclusion is a non-sequitur: it does not follow by rules of logic. That is, your position seems to take for granted that if people disagree about something, that counts as evidence that there simply is no answer.

Now, in regard to other questions, you'd see the logical error you're making immediately -- for example, would it be reasonable to say that just because people have sometimes thought the earth was flat, and others thought it was the curved back of a giant turtle, and other people have thought it's a sphere suspended in space, that there is no answer?

Obviously not: and I suppose you can rightly point out that that's because the earth is objectively something. And you would say that the difference is that morals are not. However, that is not to be granted: for the question we're discussing is whether or not morals and ethics are an actual, objective something, or just human fictions. However, logically speaking, to acknowledge that "people have different ethics" adds nothing informative of that point.

And that is why...

Let me clarify. I am of the opinion that morals and ethics are subjective. Every one has his own, some of which may be common with a lot of people. These morals and ethics are different depending upon the environment and culture you are raised in because different cultures have different standards of conduct.

...adds no useful information either. It's just logically a non-sequitur with the conclusion you advance, which reads...

These morals and ethics are defined more by environment, culture and the prevailing law of the area. You would add morals dictated by God and I would disagree because a lot of people who believe in God do not follow the morals and ethics dictated by their God.

...for there is no logical connection from your earlier statements to those conclusions. That people disobey their God does not tell us whether or not that God, and His morality, exist or not. It's simply a different issue. Only if we thought that the God in question was somehow obliged to compel all people to obey him would it matter. But many religions, and certainly the majority of Christians, do not believe God does that, or that He is obliged to. They recognize that human will is not coextensive with Divine will: just because God says it's "right" does not mean that free agents, human beings, are forced to do the right thing.

Most people in the field of Moral Philosophy now disagree with you. The dominant view is that, after having looked around the multi-cultural, multi-ideological world we live in, different moralities exist that are "incommensurable." Feel free to check me on that, if you wish. You'll find I'm telling you the truth about that.

Now I am really confused. That has been my contention all along. My only addition has been that belief in God has very little to do with the morals and ethics people follow.

Actually, it does. But I should be clearer.

We are not asking, "Can people BE moral," as in "Can an Atheist BEHAVE well?" For the answer to that question is simple: yes. An Atheist, or anyone else, can choose to be good or evil, or a combination of each. That admission is trivial and uncontroversial for all sides. What we really need to ask is, "When an Atheist behaves well or badly, is there any justification in his Atheism for recognizing a moral difference?"

In other words, given that an Atheist cannot logically justify his belief in anything but subjective morals, is there anything more important than his private opinion in his contention that he is being "a good person"? Do we owe it to him to agree he's good? Or does he even really know he's "good," since feelings are notoriously deceptive, and he has no objective criteria by which he could decide whether or not he's deceiving himself?

Well, how do you explain Hitler calling the gas chamber good?

He will definitely come up with some explanation which appears rational to him even though you disagree with it. It is subjective. But it might not necessarily be true.

Everything is "true" if the "truth" about something is subjective. Which is to say, there is simply no such thing as a moral "truth" if morality is subjective. Ironically, that means exactly the same as "all morality is false"; for if there is nothing that is NOT moral, then the term moral itself has no particular referent at all. It's not a word like "globe" or "horse," which refer to specific objects; It's all an illusion -- goodness, badness, morality, immorality, rightness, wrongness, and so on. Moral language refers to nothing at all, in that case.

They are true for me. That is all.

That doesn't add up. For how does something that is only "true for one person" even rise to the level of "true"? Isn't, by definition, a "delusion" a thing which only one person believes? In fact, that's the best test for a delusion: if I see a pink elephant at the party, and yet nobody else sees it, then I have my best indicator I'm having a hallucination, not a "subjective truth."

So if I say, "I'm a good man," and there's no moral objectivity by which my claim can be judged, and other people think differently, how can I know I'm right? How can I know if THEY'RE actually right? I can't. I'll never know. The statement itself is then meaningless. I may as well have said, "I'm a xzygl man." it would have meant just as much, in real terms.

Fortunately, we needn't imagine that there are no moral objectivities, or we'd all be in that situation, and the whole field of Ethics would rationally have to be banished. But we do all want to say, "I'm a good man," at least in some sense. For that claim to have any content, objective standards have to be conceded to exist.