How believing in God can resolve moral conflict?

[Harbal]

Well, that's exactly what we have to debate. Is the existence of God a fact, or not? IF it is, there's no problem with moral facts; if it's not, then there are no such things as objective moral facts at all. Anybody can do anything they can get away with

And yet people who do not have any religious beliefs do somehow manage to appreciate the concept of morality and attempt to behave in accordance with moral precepts. Surprise, surprise, it turns out that you do not need God to practice morality. And it also has to be taken into account that a belief in God's moral law is very rarely an effective inducement to totally comply with it, even among God's most enthusiastic devotees. So, you can behave morally without God, and accepting God does not guarantee morality.

As for the existence of God, I genuinely think it IS a fact, and others suppose it's not. They're entitled to. They have a right, like anybody else, to be wrong.

That is very fair minded of you, and I only hope those people reciprocate by affording you an equal right to be wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

Just curious, what would you expect heaven to be like?

We can talk about that...but first, I need something I can believe on "love" or "empathy" or whatever it is that you think actually excuses adultery and theft.

FFS. I have never stated adultery and theft are a part of LOVE, quite the opposite. Adultery is awful, when someone betrays the love and trust of their partner.

Okay. Well, what was the point of saying that "love" as a motive excuses anything at all, then?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, that's exactly what we have to debate. Is the existence of God a fact, or not? IF it is, there's no problem with moral facts; if it's not, then there are no such things as objective moral facts at all. Anybody can do anything they can get away with

And yet people who do not have any religious beliefs do somehow manage to appreciate the concept of morality

Well, not for rational reasons, of course. They can arbitrarily follow codes the reality of which they have no reason to believe. Anybody can do that.

Nothing in their worldview warrants morality. And warrant is what we need.

Warrant. Legitimation. That's what they don't have.

[attofishpi]

We can talk about that...but first, I need something I can believe on "love" or "empathy" or whatever it is that you think actually excuses adultery and theft.

FFS. I have never stated adultery and theft are a part of LOVE, quite the opposite. Adultery is awful, when someone betrays the love and trust of their partner.

Okay. Well, what was the point of saying that "love" as a motive excuses anything at all, then?

Is adultery done as an act of love?
Is stealing someone elses property an act of love?

[Immanuel Can]

Moral facts are a set of facts that one can derive the rightness or wrongness of an act from them.

You've used "facts" to define "facts." That's called a circular definition. It tells us nothing, because it requires us to believe already in the term to understand the term it's supposed to explain.

No, a fact is defined as a thing that is known or proved to be true.

Is known? Is proved?

You do love passive voice constructions, don't you? And I can understand why. It lets you not have to say who the agent of any action is. Instead, you can talk as if it all just somehow magically "happens" without reference to any authority or grounding.

Here I am trying to define moral facts.

Y
You need an active-voice sentence, saying who or what makes a moral fact true.

A "moral fact" is derived from what source, in your thinking?

No source.

Not even reality itself?

Then it's gratuitious and nobody should believe it.

My question to you is whether God, being an Omniscient, has a single reason for prohibiting an act like adultery?

I gave the reason, and you didn't understand it. What do you want me to do for you now?

What you said as a fact was: "The fact is that it's wrong."

No, I did not. You should go back and reread what I did say.

If there is no moral fact then whatever that God prohibits is also arbitrary. That is my point.

There is a God. And He establishes moral facts. It is a fact that, in this universe God has established, infanticide is an immoral action. It will be immoral even if every human person decides it's just dandy to immolate their children to Molech. It will always be immoral. It will be immoral because that's the God and universe we really have.

You cannot establish a moral fact.

God certainly can. He also "establishes" what reality is, so that's no problem.

[Harbal]

Well, not for rational reasons, of course. They can arbitrarily follow codes the reality of which they have no reason to believe. Anybody can do that.

I wouldn't describe behaving in accordance with the wishes of a fictitious entity rational either. Isn't it to people's credit that they can behave morally of their own accord, rather than being cohersed into it by fear, or by a misplaced sense of obedience?

They can arbitrarily follow codes the reality of which they have no reason to believe. Anybody can do that.

People who believe in God very often arbitrarilly ignore his wishes, so I would argue that belief does not necessarily increase a tendency towards moral behaviour.

Nothing in their worldview warrants morality. And warrant is what we need.

My world view includes quite a strong sense of morality, as does that of many none relious people. What we need is moral behaviour, and I don't believe that religious people practice it more conscientiously than none religious people.

[bahman]

You've used "facts" to define "facts." That's called a circular definition. It tells us nothing, because it requires us to believe already in the term to understand the term it's supposed to explain.

No, a fact is defined as a thing that is known or proved to be true.

Is known? Is proved?

You do love passive voice constructions, don't you? And I can understand why. It lets you not have to say who the agent of any action is. Instead, you can talk as if it all just somehow magically "happens" without reference to any authority or grounding.

That is just the definition of fact.

Here I am trying to define moral facts.

Y
You need an active-voice sentence, saying who or what makes a moral fact true.
[/quote]
If a moral fact exists then one cannot make it true or false given the definition of fact.

A "moral fact" is derived from what source, in your thinking?

No source.

Not even reality itself?

Then it's gratuitious and nobody should believe it.

Do you understand what a fact is?

I gave the reason, and you didn't understand it. What do you want me to do for you now?

What you said as a fact was: "The fact is that it's wrong."

No, I did not. You should go back and reread what I did say.

No, you said so. You can find it here.

There is a God. And He establishes moral facts. It is a fact that, in this universe God has established, infanticide is an immoral action. It will be immoral even if every human person decides it's just dandy to immolate their children to Molech. It will always be immoral. It will be immoral because that's the God and universe we really have.

You cannot establish a moral fact.

God certainly can. He also "establishes" what reality is, so that's no problem.

Then you don't understand what a fact is.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, not for rational reasons, of course. They can arbitrarily follow codes the reality of which they have no reason to believe. Anybody can do that.

I wouldn't describe behaving in accordance with the wishes of a fictitious entity rational either.

The "fictitious" part is only assumptive, of course. I don't assume it at all. It seems eminently rational to me to believe in God...but you are entitled not to, if you don't think that. I'm not asking you to be irrational.

Isn't it to people's credit that they can behave morally of their own accord, rather than being cohersed into it by fear, or by a misplaced sense of obedience?

Interesting wording. From where would "credit" come seeing as there would be no basis for morality? It wouldn't be "better" or "worse" (morally speaking) to believe or disbelieve in morality.

In fact, if anything, it would be a discredit to a person to believe in something for which he or she had absolutely no warrant. But of course, in the world you're describing, nothing is to anyone's "credit" or "discredit." Morality's a fake.

They can arbitrarily follow codes the reality of which they have no reason to believe. Anybody can do that.

People who believe in God very often arbitrarilly ignore his wishes,

Yes, some do. And I wouldn't advise you to follow them in anything, of course. I'd say, pay more attention to the ones that do not ignore God's wishes, and see what that yields in their lives.

That would be a helpful test.

Nothing in their worldview warrants morality. And warrant is what we need.

My world view includes quite a strong sense of morality, as does that of many none relious people.

Again, "sense"? What is a "sense of morality" in a world in which we should believe morality's a fake?

What we need is moral behaviour, and I don't believe that religious people practice it more conscientiously than none religious people.

Oh, they do.

I would say that maybe you just need to find a more committed class of examples to look at. You might be looking at a more superficial or nominal type of person. And that would account for that impression.

[Immanuel Can]

No, a fact is defined as a thing that is known or proved to be true.

Is known? Is proved?

You do love passive voice constructions, don't you? And I can understand why. It lets you not have to say who the agent of any action is. Instead, you can talk as if it all just somehow magically "happens" without reference to any authority or grounding.

That is just the definition of fact.

The definition of "fact" is something that happens magically? You're going to have to explain that to me.

If a moral fact exists then one cannot make it true or false given the definition of fact.

Au contraire: a "fact" is distinct by way of being capable of being false or true, depending on its relation to reality.

What you said as a fact was: "The fact is that it's wrong."

No, I did not. You should go back and reread what I did say.

No, you said so.

You've missed my entire explanation, I can see.

To be brief, I said that morality is that which is harmonious with the intrinsic nature of God Himself. Go and look again, I guess.

[bahman]

Is known? Is proved?

You do love passive voice constructions, don't you? And I can understand why. It lets you not have to say who the agent of any action is. Instead, you can talk as if it all just somehow magically "happens" without reference to any authority or grounding.

That is just the definition of fact.

The definition of "fact" is something that happens magically? You're going to have to explain that to me.

No, does the existence of the truth is something that happens magically? No. The truth is true, one cannot make it true or false. The same is true for the fact since the fact by definition is a thing that is known or proved to be true.

If a moral fact exists then one cannot make it true or false given the definition of fact.

Au contraire: a "fact" is distinct by way of being capable of being false or true, depending on its relation to reality.

That is not the definition of fact. Can God make adultery right? If not, why not? Has He a reason for it or it is just arbitrary?

No, I did not. You should go back and reread what I did say.

No, you said so.

You've missed my entire explanation, I can see.

To be brief, I said that morality is that which is harmonious with the intrinsic nature of God Himself. Go and look again, I guess.

That is the definition of morality from the perspective of a believer. That is not the definition of moral fact.

[Harbal]

The "fictitious" part is only assumptive, of course.

Call it what you want, but my assertion that there is no God is just as valid as your assertion that there is.

Interesting wording. From where would "credit" come seeing as there would be no basis for morality?

I believe there is credit in morality, I would expect you of all people to understand the concept of acting out of belief.

In fact, if anything, it would be a discredit to a person to believe in something for which he or she had absolutely no warrant. But of course, in the world you're describing, nothing is to anyone's "credit" or "discredit." Morality's a fake.

I'm afraid the conclusions you have arrived at here are not supported by any rational explanation for their presence. Not to worry, I suppose there was always a chance that you would get away with it.

Again, "sense"? What is a "sense of morality" in a world in which we should believe morality's a fake?

I have no idea why you are saying that. Everybody understands what a sense of morality is, and I never said anything about morality being fake.

Really, IC, you can be very disingenuous for someone who is operating under a divine compulsion to behave morally.

[Immanuel Can]

the fact by definition is a thing that is known or proved to be true.

That's got to be wrong.

If a fact were only something that was "known true," then it would not be a "fact" that the Earth revolves around the Sun, or the world is round, or that water freezes at 0C/32F. Because at one time, those things were not "known" at all, or "proved" by anyone. Not a person on the planet "knew" them.

But they were still true.

Can God make adultery right? If not, why not?

Asked and answered.

Adultery is not consonant with character of God. It can never be "right."

No, you said so.

You've missed my entire explanation, I can see.

To be brief, I said that morality is that which is harmonious with the intrinsic nature of God Himself. Go and look again, I guess.

That is the definition of morality from the perspective of a believer. That is not the definition of moral fact.

If God is a fact (and, of course, I believe He is), then He is the basis of all moral facts.

But of course, if you don't believe in God, you will have no knowledge of moral facts, and no way of explaining why action X is moral or immoral, even if you believe and practice rigorously as if it is.

[Immanuel Can]

The "fictitious" part is only assumptive, of course.

Call it what you want, but my assertion that there is no God is just as valid as your assertion that there is.

Well, in philosophy "valid" refers to the form of a proposition, and "truth" to its content.

There's nothing wrong with the form of a claim, "There is no God." In that sense, we might say it's "valid."

But it's not true. And having a "valid" form doesn't make it true. It just makes it an acceptable formal utterance, but not necessarily a true one.

Interesting wording. From where would "credit" come seeing as there would be no basis for morality?

I believe there is credit in morality, [/quote]
Who is giving this "credit" of which you speak?

What is the "crediting" agent, or the rational basis for asserting that morality gets "credit"?

In fact, if anything, it would be a discredit to a person to believe in something for which he or she had absolutely no warrant. But of course, in the world you're describing, nothing is to anyone's "credit" or "discredit." Morality's a fake.

I'm afraid the conclusions you have arrived at here are not supported by any rational explanation for their presence.

I can help with that.

Moral claims must be legitimized, or they are empty. That means we have to be able to answer the question "why?" if somebody asks us. If we have no legitimation, we can only assert our claims by force or deception, since we can't explain the reasons for our moral precept.

So if you want to see this, just pick any moral claim you believe to be true. And answer the question, "Why?"

Again, "sense"? What is a "sense of morality" in a world in which we should believe morality's a fake?

I have no idea why you are saying that.

Because the "sense" then is a "false sense," in that it has nothing objective it is telling us.

Let us suppose, for example, that we all "have a sense" that, say, adultery is wrong. But if it's not true that adultery is actually wrong, that "sense" is simply misleading us, and making us unnecessarily squeamish about something that is actually a very real option for us, and against which there is no actual basis of the prohibition.

Everybody understands what a sense of morality is,

Yes, I think we all have a conscience.

But I think many of us are quite at a loss to explain why we think it refers to anything real at all, or why we are morally obligated to obey it...especially if our neighbours' wife is really hot and favourable to the project. For then, why should we let a little provincial squeamishness stop us, since we cannot explain why our feeling is pointing to any objective moral problem with it.

[attofishpi]

FFS. I have never stated adultery and theft are a part of LOVE, quite the opposite. Adultery is awful, when someone betrays the love and trust of their partner.

Okay. Well, what was the point of saying that "love" as a motive excuses anything at all, then?

Is adultery done as an act of love?
Is stealing someone elses property an act of love?

IC. Since you have failed to reply to the above. It's your turn, please tell me what you would consider HEAVEN to be?

[Harbal]

Who is giving this "credit" of which you speak?

What is the "crediting" agent, or the rational basis for asserting that morality gets "credit"?

A society who's members did not conduct themselves according to any moral guidlines would not function very well, if at all. As I am a member of society it is in my interest to behave within a moral framework with regard to the other members of it, because only then can I expect those other members to behave within a moral framework towards me. Human beings are social animals, and our capacity for moral sensibility is hard wired into us. It makes sense to behave morally, because otherwise the benefits we derive from living socially would not be possible, and this is the rational basis on which I assert morality gets credit.

I don't actually believe that, say, a Christian and an atheist are motivated by different things when thy both believe that stealing is wrong and so refrain from doing it. The wrongness of stealing is inculcated into them by the society they are born into and grow up in. Were they both to give in to temptation and pocket money that did not belong to them, they would both experience exactly the same pangs of conscience.

If there is a difference between religious and secular morality, It probably shows up more in the case of victimless breaches of supposed morality. I am calling it victimless even though those who practice it are quite often the victims. A Catholic, for example, is told by his church that contraception is wrong, so he does not practice contraception, even though he, himself, might not see any good reason for that particular edict. In instances such as this, religious morality not only lacks the superiority you claim for it, but can also be down right harmful.