Is God necessary for morality?

[Sculptor]

No, I have not "got it in for Kant," anymore than his other critics do. We see many of the same flaws in Kant's ideas, and object to them on rational grounds, not out of a mere personal motive. If you've read any of his critics, you know that's true.

How do you explain your avatar? It looks to me as though you want to to ban Kant. This is hardly conducive to open discussion.

If you mean, "Objectively, the fact is that there are many theories," then you're right. If you mean, "The many theories are, themselves, all objectively true," that is logically impossible, since they flatly contradict on many points. And it's a basic axiom of logic that a claim and its opposite negation cannot be simultaneously true.

Not necessarily the case, Platonic ethics doesn't contradict Christian ethics and vice versa.

Surely you know that Christian ethics is just a copy of Greek ones?

And you can see that there are various ethical systems that depend on all three of these claims, which tells us more certainly than the sun coming up in the morning,
that two of the three types of systems are simply objectively untrue. Period.

You are just assuming there is only one true God. There are no rational grounds to justify this claim.

I agree. Singer is inconsistent, and Nietzsche was far more consistent. But if you think about it, what you say is not a compliment to the rational consistency of most "actual world Atheists."

I wouldn't hold up Nietzsche as any sort of example.

[Ginkgo]

No, I have not "got it in for Kant," anymore than his other critics do. We see many of the same flaws in Kant's ideas, and object to them on rational grounds, not out of a mere personal motive. If you've read any of his critics, you know that's true.

How do you explain your avatar? It looks to me as though you want to to ban Kant. This is hardly conducive to open discussion.

If you mean, "Objectively, the fact is that there are many theories," then you're right. If you mean, "The many theories are, themselves, all objectively true," that is logically impossible, since they flatly contradict on many points. And it's a basic axiom of logic that a claim and its opposite negation cannot be simultaneously true.

Not necessarily the case, Platonic ethics doesn't contradict Christian ethics and vice versa.

Surely you know that Christian ethics is just a copy of Greek ones?

And you can see that there are various ethical systems that depend on all three of these claims, which tells us more certainly than the sun coming up in the morning,
that two of the three types of systems are simply objectively untrue. Period.

You are just assuming there is only one true God. There are no rational grounds to justify this claim.

I agree. Singer is inconsistent, and Nietzsche was far more consistent. But if you think about it, what you say is not a compliment to the rational consistency of most "actual world Atheists."

I wouldn't hold up Nietzsche as any sort of example.

As a rule of thumb, this is true. Plato's reference to goodness itself was later taken up by Christian philosophers as meaning there is one good and loving God. This is one weakness with Christian ethics.

[Immanuel Can]

No, I have not "got it in for Kant," anymore than his other critics do. We see many of the same flaws in Kant's ideas, and object to them on rational grounds, not out of a mere personal motive. If you've read any of his critics, you know that's true.

How do you explain your avatar? It looks to me as though you want to to ban Kant.

Oh, I see...you missed the pun. My fault, maybe. But I'll clarify.

"Immanuel" means "God with us." It's a declaration of my Christian identity, not a slam on Kant per se. But I could see how that could mislead.

If you mean, "Objectively, the fact is that there are many theories," then you're right. If you mean, "The many theories are, themselves, all objectively true," that is logically impossible, since they flatly contradict on many points. And it's a basic axiom of logic that a claim and its opposite negation cannot be simultaneously true.

Not necessarily the case, Platonic ethics doesn't contradict Christian ethics and vice versa.

I think they do. Maybe you have an example in mind?

And you can see that there are various ethical systems that depend on all three of these claims, which tells us more certainly than the sun coming up in the morning, that two of the three types of systems are simply objectively untrue. Period.

You are just assuming there is only one true God.

No, you're missing my point here. I'm not telling you which of the three options is true; I'm simply pointing out that WHICHEVER option you happen to prefer, you know already for certain that the other two CANNOT be right, because the laws of logic rule that out absolutely.

After that, you are free to make your own choice about what you believe is true. You're just going to rule out the other two when you do.

I agree. Singer is inconsistent, and Nietzsche was far more consistent. But if you think about it, what you say is not a compliment to the rational consistency of most "actual world Atheists."

I wouldn't hold up Nietzsche as any sort of example.

Well, I've met many Atheists who really love Nietzsche, and are happy to identify with him. And while I deplore his arbitrary ruling out of God, I can at least give him the credit he deserves for being quite fearless with his bad hypothesis. I don't find his courage-of-convictions or rational consistency with his worldview a common feature among modern Atheists. Most of them, it seems, want to "have their cake and eat it too," by insisting against all logic that they can dismiss God and keep morality.

[Belinda]

I wonder how intelligent and free thinking Xians think their personal God would even want them to have Him making up their minds for them. Aren't all you Xians adult men and women?

[Immanuel Can]

I wonder how intelligent and free thinking Xians think their personal God would even want them to have Him making up their minds for them. Aren't all you Xians adult men and women?

We don't think that.

There is, at most, a small minority of putative Christians, such as the ultra-Calvinists, who think any such thing. Most hold no such view.

[Ginkgo]

Not necessarily the case, Platonic ethics doesn't contradict Christian ethics and vice versa.

I think they do. Maybe you have an example in mind?

The reason I say this is because some commentators say Plato is "the father of rational theology." Why do you think Platonic ethics contradicts Christian ethics.

Most of them, it seems, want to "have their cake and eat it too," by insisting against all logic that they can dismiss God and keep morality.

It is easy to dismiss God and keep morality simply because God doesn't exist. Your Christian ethics is based on a myth.

BTW Platonic ethics is both objective and rational without being religious.

[Belinda]

I wonder how intelligent and free thinking Xians think their personal God would even want them to have Him making up their minds for them. Aren't all you Xians adult men and women?

We don't think that.

There is, at most, a small minority of putative Christians, such as the ultra-Calvinists, who think any such thing. Most hold no such view.

I don't understand. Don't you think The Bible was authorised by God ?

[Immanuel Can]

Not necessarily the case, Platonic ethics doesn't contradict Christian ethics and vice versa.

I think they do. Maybe you have an example in mind?

The reason I say this is because some commentators say Plato is "the father of rational theology."

That's a curious claim. How does that follow?

Why do you think Platonic ethics contradicts Christian ethics.

Well, for a start, Plato was a polytheist. If he couldn't even get Christian ethical precept #1 right, how much further do we need to look than that? But Plato's political ethics and sexual ethics were also vastly different from Christian ethics, for example. In fact, his whole cosmology was different.

Most of them, it seems, want to "have their cake and eat it too," by insisting against all logic that they can dismiss God and keep morality.

It is easy to dismiss God and keep morality simply because God doesn't exist.

Non-sequitur. It might be easy to say, but it's far from easy to do. Once you dismiss God, as Nietzsche saw so clearly, you've banished objective morality with Him. So even if we granted the the claim that God was, as you say, a "myth," that would not help you one iota in showing that morality wasn't also a "myth."

BTW Platonic ethics is both objective and rational without being religious.

You said earlier that Kant's ethics were objective. Now you say that Plato's were. But Plato has no CI, and Kant had no belief in "the realm of ideal forms." So they contradict each other.

Is it your idea of the word "objective" that something can be both "objective" and untrue? Because it would have to be, to make sense of your contradicting claims.

So let me straighten out my own meaning first: when I say "objective," I mean "objectively true," or "objectively the right answer to what ethics really are."

What do you mean by "objective," since it's clearly not that?

[Immanuel Can]

I wonder how intelligent and free thinking Xians think their personal God would even want them to have Him making up their minds for them. Aren't all you Xians adult men and women?

We don't think that.

There is, at most, a small minority of putative Christians, such as the ultra-Calvinists, who think any such thing. Most hold no such view.

I don't understand. Don't you think The Bible was authorised by God ?

Not just "authorized." That's too weak a word. "Revealed," is a better word, perhaps. But since the Bible clearly affirms human freedom of the will, it's hard to see how that would help your case.

Maybe you'll explain...

[Belinda]

We don't think that.

There is, at most, a small minority of putative Christians, such as the ultra-Calvinists, who think any such thing. Most hold no such view.

I don't understand. Don't you think The Bible was authorised by God ?

Not just "authorized." That's too weak a word. "Revealed," is a better word, perhaps. But since the Bible clearly affirms human freedom of the will, it's hard to see how that would help your case.

Maybe you'll explain...

at a certain stage of Judaic culture Jeremiah said: "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts". (J 31:33) revealed moral laws are replaced by so called free will which means personal conscience aka "written on their hearts". The old revealed law is not abandoned but there is now the additional burden of responsibility on men to consult their consciences.

There is now need for a further stage, of Judeo Christian culture, in which God is accepted as a symbol of good within the individual's psyche instead of as previously an external Person who inserts the ideas. Good relates not only to, for instance "do not kill" but also to situations where we take responsibility for our decisions when to kill and when not to kill.

This is a very difficult moral shake up when people often feel bereft of any fixed moral compass bearing and take to crime and other immoral actions as a result. It's not hard to understand why Christian fundamentalists react by reverting to legalism and the old supernatural cosmology where the Earth is central or the Sun is central like when an external God was believed to be the central focus of morality.

Xianity has changed to suit Gentiles, and can change again to suit the age of relativity where there is no centre except for human creativity. The change had better hurry up because already 'most' young people find it completely irrelevant.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't understand. Don't you think The Bible was authorised by God ?

Not just "authorized." That's too weak a word. "Revealed," is a better word, perhaps. But since the Bible clearly affirms human freedom of the will, it's hard to see how that would help your case.

Maybe you'll explain...

at a certain stage of Judaic culture Jeremiah said: "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts". (J 31:33) revealed moral laws are replaced by so called free will which means personal conscience aka "written on their hearts". The old revealed law is not abandoned but there is now the additional burden of responsibility on men to consult their consciences.

Oh. You've completely misunderstood that passage, but okay. The real meaning of it is found in Hebrews 8:10-11, where it is quoted then exposited. The Jeremiah passage isn't the start of conscience or of free will...that vastly precedes Jeremiah, as is quite obvious from the earlier passages of the OT.

I can show that for you, if you want.

There is now need for a further stage, of Judeo Christian culture, in which God is accepted as a symbol of good within the individual's psyche instead of as previously an external Person who inserts the ideas. Good relates not only to, for instance "do not kill" but also to situations where we take responsibility for our decisions when to kill and when not to kill.

That implication was always present. You really should read the book, because it's all in there.

Jesus Christ Himself made that very clear in the famous Sermon on the Mount: the Law always contained not just literal commands, but indications of principles that went well beyond the specifics there articulated. For example, said Jesus, you shouldn't just not actively hate or hurt people, but actually not even wish them harm, but bless them instead.

Read the Sermon on the Mount, and you'll see that.

This is a very difficult moral shake up when people often feel bereft of any fixed moral compass bearing...

I wonder who you could be talking about. I don't think Christians are at all having that experience, and I'm certainly not feeling that.

Maybe you're speaking more about how you're feeling?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

This is a very difficult moral shake up when people often feel bereft of any fixed moral compass

bearing...
I wonder who you could be talking about. I don't think Christians are at all having that experience, and I'm certainly not feeling that.

Maybe you're speaking more about how you're feeling?

Existentialists feel angst. Also modern people who lack old time faith and have not received education in self direction resort to hedonism, consumerism, selfishness, and crime.

I did not misunderstand Jeremiah, and I did not say he was the only or even the earliest prophet of personal conscience.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can wrote:

This is a very difficult moral shake up when people often feel bereft of any fixed moral compass

bearing...
I wonder who you could be talking about. I don't think Christians are at all having that experience, and I'm certainly not feeling that.

Maybe you're speaking more about how you're feeling?

Existentialists feel angst.

Some do. I don't think you'll find much angst in Kierkegaard...at least, not in the man himself. He talked a little about it in regard to others, though.

Also modern people who lack old time faith and have not received education in self direction resort to hedonism, consumerism, selfishness, and crime.

I don't know what "old time" has to do with it. But if you read Kierkegaard, what you'll discover is that angst, or the vertigo induced by a feeling of absurdity, if you wish, is a product of having opted for the kinds of things you list...hedonism, consumerism, selfishness...but also from them having to think they can be "self-directed," instead of doing the one thing that Kierkegaard says constitutes the genuine self -- that is, of having faced up to the individual responsibility to stand responsibly before the face of God.

You can read all that in The Sickness Unto Death, surely one of his finest books, though he had many. Kierkegaard himself regarded it as one of his best, and I think it might be his absolute best.

I did not misunderstand Jeremiah, and I did not say he was the only or even the earliest prophet of personal conscience.

Well, what point were you then trying to make? Free conscience preceded Jeremiah by thousands of years, at the very least. It's as old as the Garden of Eden story, actually...the first time mankind did something that was not according to the will of God, and it continues throughout the entire Biblical narrative.

Free will is just a basic fact of human history.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can, you are simply mistaken about the evolution of cultures. Primitive cultures did not (do
not) differentiate between cultural practices and religious practices.Good behaviour was what tended towards preserving the social group, the ethnic group, and good behaviour was sometimes codified into laws.

[Ginkgo]

Not necessarily the case, Platonic ethics doesn't contradict Christian ethics and vice versa.

I think they do. Maybe you have an example in mind?

Plato's concept of the Form of Goodness itself and his Demiurge, or the creator of the universe.

Well, for a start, Plato was a polytheist. If he couldn't even get Christian ethical precept #1 right, how much further do we need to look than that? But Plato's political ethics and sexual ethics were also vastly different from Christian ethics, for example. In fact, his whole cosmology was different.

There is no evidence in Plato's philosophy that he was a theist or a polytheist, his philosophy is non-religious. Their cosmology is not that much different.

Most of them, it seems, want to "have their cake and eat it too," by insisting against all logic that they can dismiss God and keep morality.

Your just assuming that Plato and Kant are internally inconsistent. So far you haven't shown that to be the case.

It is easy to dismiss God and keep morality simply because God doesn't exist.

Non-sequitur. It might be easy to say, but it's far from easy to do. Once you dismiss God, as Nietzsche saw so clearly, you've banished objective morality with Him. So even if we granted the the claim that God was, as you say, a "myth," that would not help you one iota in showing that morality wasn't also a "myth."

Not a non sequitur. If God exists then you have an objective theory of morality, if he doesn't exist then you have an ethic based on a myth. That follows. It is that simple.

You said earlier that Kant's ethics were objective. Now you say that Plato's were. But Plato has no CI, and Kant had no belief in "the realm of ideal forms." So they contradict each other.

Well, they are similar in a least one way I know. Kant believed in a unseen moral law that governs us, what Kant called the apriori. Plato believed that the soul has a previous history of the Forms.

Is it your idea of the word "objective" that something can be both "objective" and untrue? Because it would have to be, to make sense of your contradicting claims.

My claims are not contradictory I have been consistent throughout. As, I have said before you are just assuming Plato and Kant are internally insistent.

What do you mean by "objective," since it's clearly not that?

My definition of objective would be similar to yours.