Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

No, it comes off as evasive or confused. You can have your own personal moral or even merely emotional reaction to rape AND not decide that you consider yourself smarter than God.

Are you thinking my position on that is not clear?

What don't you understand? I'll clear it up.

You left out, in your quote here, what I wrote about the issue. Was there something you did not understand? Did you include that when thinking about what I said?

And atheists are not assuming they are smarter than God.

They are. They don't listen to Him. But they do know He exists. (Romans 1).

You're using the Bible to demonstrate that they know He exists, lol.

Yes, I am.

I don't know what the need for faith is if everyone knows.

Because all human knowing is probabilistic. We know things, and know them with high probability sometimes; but because we are embodied, fallible and limited creatures, we're never absolutely sure we haven't missed something. Hence, we need faith in what we believe to be most probably true; but we cannot move forward in anything -- even basic science -- without faith in our beliefs.

You would think, for example, that something like the Law of Gravity would be so well-established it requires no faith. But there was a time when nobody knew such a law; and even now that we do know it, we don't quite know what "gravity" is. Our best scientific descriptions don't really tell us exhaustively...there's still something for science to discover there. Until it does, we'll need faith in the Law of Gravity.

I see little evidence that most atheist spend a lot of energy on the issue. How did you determine they do this?

Because they call themselves "Atheists." They self-identify by their disbelief in God. So they must consider it very, very important, no? Why would they self-identify that way, if they did not?

Look at a guy like Dawkins or maybe Harris: their whole self-image is "Atheist." Their whole public cachet is about that. Are you going to suppose they don't think it important? But even your garden-variety Atheist is the same: talk to him about metaphysics at all, and he'll leap into the conversation with "I'm an Atheist" immediately.

What else can one make of that but that they think they know better that anything He says?

Or, they don't believe God exists.

That's just one of the areas in which they contradict Him. He says He does.

But don't worry: we'll find out if I'm right or not.

Well, if you're way off on things you'll never find out.

Can't simple empathy be enough.

Then why do we have wars, rapes, slavery, cannibalism, torture, gulags, genocides, racism, theft, lies, cruelty pedophilia...if man is driven by "empathy," how do we explain their existence at all?

I was talking about specific individuals who are fairly simple people with strong empathy.

So you're asking if individuals can be empathetic enough to be good, even though the great mass of human beings cannot? Possibly there are some such individuals: but then, as subjectivist is going to have to insist that their empathy isn't objectively good...it's just their subjective choice to be empathetic. It's not a moral necessity, then.

But there are further problems with empathy, such as its propensity to be misdirected. But I won't go into all that, if your interest doesn't run that way. If it does, I can.

I am talking about simple people who follow the commandments of the Bible and strive to do what Jesus said.

Genuinely? Then you mean Christians, don't you?

I am questioning whether all Christians must go through the analytical processes or can they not follow the Bible and Jesus without all that and come to Heaven.

That depends on what you regard as an "analytical process." If you mean, "Can a person come to God without being a formal philosopher of some kind," the answer is, "Absolutely, yes." But if you then wonder whether a philosopher can come too, the answer is the same.

Apparently, the fount of human "empathy" doesn't stop much evil from happening;

Nor has theism.

No. But Christianity really has.

Those with simple hearts who don't do a lot of analysis can be just peachy in Christianity.

I don't know what you mean by "don't do a lot." "A lot" of what?

[Immanuel Can]

It would be fair to say I know that my instincts are fallible, so I check my sense of moral right and wrong against the truth of God's word. And if they coincide, I'm at peace; if they do not, then beyond doubt, it's me that needs to rethink.

So, you trust the intuitive part of you that says that all parts of the Bible are correct...

If I was making that judgment primarily based on "intuition," you'd have a point. But I'm making it based on a combo of reason, experience, and the evidence. Intuition still has something to contribute to that, but it's not the decisive bit.

[Harbal]

Do I have an opinion about a moral issue? Sure. Lots. But is that opinion right or wrong? That depends on whether or not it agrees with what God says is true. He's always right. I can be wrong.

If you do have opinions about moral issues that are not always in keeping with what God says, you must have your own sense of right and wrong in order to form them, but you don't think they mean anything, or are worth anything.

They are worth something if they happen to coincide with the truth. But even you, you are not going to say that an opinion that is false it going to be a good one, are you?

No, I'm not going to say that, but I don't know how an opinion that is purely a matter of personal taste could be either right or wrong. If I disliked something to the point of disapproval, like you with gay people, I suppose I could come to realise, on deeper reflexion, that my attitude was ill founded and needed to be revised. So yes, a moral opinion could be said to be wrong in a sense, but not in the same sense as a false opinion about a matter of fact.

So is it fair to say that you have your own sense of moral right and wrong, but don't allow yourself to be guided by it?

It would be fair to say I know that my instincts are fallible, so I check my sense of moral right and wrong against the truth of God's word. And if they coincide, I'm at peace; if they do not, then beyond doubt, it's me that needs to rethink.

All human instincts are fallible, not just moral instincts. And you have to be especially careful when you are responsible for your own moral conduct, and you are the only one answerable for it. It's all very well allowing yourself to be subject to the will of a "higher" authority, but as we know, the plea of. "I was only following orders", doesn't wash.

[Immanuel Can]

If you do have opinions about moral issues that are not always in keeping with what God says, you must have your own sense of right and wrong in order to form them, but you don't think they mean anything, or are worth anything.

They are worth something if they happen to coincide with the truth. But even you, you are not going to say that an opinion that is false it going to be a good one, are you?

No, I'm not going to say that, but I don't know how an opinion that is purely a matter of personal taste could be either right or wrong.

You're assuming, then, that morality is just a "taste"?

"Tastes" cannot be right or wrong. If you like vanilla, and I like chocolate, that's not a matter that has any moral content at all...it's just a choice.

But that isn't what we mean by "morality," obviously. Nobody thinks genocide or rape are just "tastes." And no "taste-based" explanation will fit the phenomenon we're trying to describe, obviously.

So is it fair to say that you have your own sense of moral right and wrong, but don't allow yourself to be guided by it?

It would be fair to say I know that my instincts are fallible, so I check my sense of moral right and wrong against the truth of God's word. And if they coincide, I'm at peace; if they do not, then beyond doubt, it's me that needs to rethink.

All human instincts are fallible, not just moral instincts.[/quote]Quite so. So don't run on instincts. That's good advice, I would say.

It's all very well allowing yourself to be subject to the will of a "higher" authority, but as we know, the plea of. "I was only following orders", doesn't wash.

It depends on the court. If you were following the court's orders, it definitely counts -- assuming the court is perfect. If you were following the orders of somebody else who was as corrupt or fallible as you and me, then you've got a point.

[Iwannaplato]

So, you trust the intuitive part of you that says that all parts of the Bible are correct...

If I was making that judgment primarily based on "intuition," you'd have a point. But I'm making it based on a combo of reason, experience, and the evidence. Intuition still has something to contribute to that, but it's not the decisive bit.
[/quote]People use quotation and citation marks oddly here. So often people use them when the sentence, it seems to me, is clearer without them, as it is clearer in the third sentence without them. But it's an odd cultural tick here at PN, crossing worldview lines.

Anyway, it's an incredible trust you have in yourself while not trusting yourself.

[Iwannaplato]

Because all human knowing is probabilistic. We know things, and know them with high probability sometimes; but because we are embodied, fallible and limited creatures, we're never absolutely sure we haven't missed something. Hence, we need faith in what we believe to be most probably true; but we cannot move forward in anything -- even basic science -- without faith in our beliefs.

If we believe things we believe them. Now you seem to be saying you have faith in your beliefs. Like this extra layer and about things that are probably true. Even weirder in context. Atheists KNOW there is a god. But you, a theist, need to have faith in your belief there is a God.

You would think, for example, that something like the Law of Gravity would be so well-established it requires no faith. But there was a time when nobody knew such a law; and even now that we do know it, we don't quite know what "gravity" is. Our best scientific descriptions don't really tell us exhaustively...there's still something for science to discover there. Until it does, we'll need faith in the Law of Gravity.

I don't need faith in the law of gravity. I certainly don't need the math, and if I did I would just be used to using it pragmatically. Beyond that my body works very well with gravity and I certainly don't need to add in faith. Just as squirrels don't need faith in gravity when leaping between branches.

I see little evidence that most atheist spend a lot of energy on the issue. How did you determine they do this?

Because they call themselves "Atheists." They self-identify by their disbelief in God. So they must consider it very, very important, no? Why would they self-identify that way, if they did not?

1) you didn't really answer the question. The question was how did you determine they spend a lot of energy on the issue? In those rare situations where most atheists are asked for a self-label around religious belief, they probably, yes, know the category they are in. I don't spend energy on a lot of the categories I know I fit into.

Look at a guy like Dawkins or maybe Harris: their whole self-image is "Atheist."

Right, I specifically mentioned public atheists and people in forums like this one. They make up a tiny portion of atheists just like theists online make up a tiny portion of theists.

No. But Christianity really has.

As complete belief in the words of the Bible has gone down, Christianity is causing less violence than it used to.

Those with simple hearts who don't do a lot of analysis can be just peachy in Christianity.

I don't know what you mean by "don't do a lot." "A lot" of what?

Look at what you quoted. There's a word right there. See if you can find it.

I think you are evasive in your responses. But given examples like this, I assume it is not particularly conscious.

[Harbal]

They are worth something if they happen to coincide with the truth. But even you, you are not going to say that an opinion that is false it going to be a good one, are you?

No, I'm not going to say that, but I don't know how an opinion that is purely a matter of personal taste could be either right or wrong.

You're assuming, then, that morality is just a "taste"?

I'm not assuming it, I'm asserting it.

"Tastes" cannot be right or wrong.

Yes, that's what I've been saying all along.

If you like vanilla, and I like chocolate, that's not a matter that has any moral content at all...it's just a choice.

Exactly, it is not a moral issue. Only moral choices have moral content.

But that isn't what we mean by "morality," obviously. Nobody thinks genocide or rape are just "tastes."

I think our attitude towards them is a matter of taste. I find those things repulsive, but some people have a taste for them; they wouldn't occure otherwise.

And no "taste-based" explanation will fit the phenomenon we're trying to describe, obviously.

If we are trying to describe the phenomenon of morality, then yes, it is a matter of personal taste, to put it bluntly.

Quite so. So don't run on instincts. That's good advice, I would say.

Okay.

It depends on the court. If you were following the court's orders, it definitely counts -- assuming the court is perfect. If you were following the orders of somebody else who was as corrupt or fallible as you and me, then you've got a point.

I live in the world of human beings, not mythological deities, so I am accountable to myself and other human beings, nothing else.

[Immanuel Can]

So, you trust the intuitive part of you that says that all parts of the Bible are correct...

If I was making that judgment primarily based on "intuition," you'd have a point. But I'm making it based on a combo of reason, experience, and the evidence. Intuition still has something to contribute to that, but it's not the decisive bit.

People use quotation and citation marks oddly here. So often people use them when the sentence, it seems to me, is clearer without them, as it is clearer in the third sentence without them. But it's an odd cultural tick here at PN, crossing worldview lines.

A legit usage of quotation marks is when some concept is either being quoted or is suspect, and can't be taken quite literally.

In this case, I was specifically using the word you chose, rather than how I, myself would have put it, so if I was to participate in your question then quotation marks were required to indicate I did not feel committed to your word myself.

[Immanuel Can]

Because all human knowing is probabilistic. We know things, and know them with high probability sometimes; but because we are embodied, fallible and limited creatures, we're never absolutely sure we haven't missed something. Hence, we need faith in what we believe to be most probably true; but we cannot move forward in anything -- even basic science -- without faith in our beliefs.

If we believe things we believe them. Now you seem to be saying you have faith in your beliefs. Like this extra layer and about things that are probably true. Even weirder in context. Atheists KNOW there is a god. But you, a theist, need to have faith in your belief there is a God.

Let me clear that up.

All human knowing, outside of closed symbol systems (and there's an argument to be made that even within such) is probabilistic. The Theist claims to believe there is a God, based on the high probability of such he/she deduces from a variety of sources, including reason, empirical evidence, experience, revelation, conscience and intution. That's the Theistic episteme: to "know" something is to know it probabilistically, and to draw the final step of one's ultimate conviction by faith...because absolute knowledge is not possible to human beings.

That's actually exactly the same as the way science does business. It estimates the probability of a hypothesis being correct based on evidence and tests...but never having done the complete set of possible tests, and within a range of error, the scientist ventures a conclusion...ready for it to be tested in future, but firm enough in it by faith to offer it as the most likely explanation of the phenomenon in view.

The Atheist, however, claims absolute knowledge: he asserts there simply IS no God. He hasn't got evidence to warrant even a probabilistic argument of that kind, actually, but he claims certainty for himself, and expects agreement from his interlocutors that the same is absolutely certain. And if we take God's word for the case, then all the while, the Atheist senses in his heart that God not only may be real, but is. But even if we disregard Romans 1 on that, we still end up with this: that the Atheist claims certainty to which he has no rational entitlement.

Which one is behaving realistically, humbly and honestly? You can see.

You would think, for example, that something like the Law of Gravity would be so well-established it requires no faith. But there was a time when nobody knew such a law; and even now that we do know it, we don't quite know what "gravity" is. Our best scientific descriptions don't really tell us exhaustively...there's still something for science to discover there. Until it does, we'll need faith in the Law of Gravity.

I don't need faith in the law of gravity.

Actually, we do.

Try flying a plane. Part of the aerodynamics depends on the downward force of gravity, as well as the uplift of a rush of air beneath the wings and a faster one above. If gravity were suddenly not there, or if it were unpredictable, the plane would smash into the runway or soar into space, killing everybody either way.

Do you ride in planes? If you do, you have faith in gravity.

I see little evidence that most atheist spend a lot of energy on the issue. How did you determine they do this?

Because they call themselves "Atheists." They self-identify by their disbelief in God. So they must consider it very, very important, no? Why would they self-identify that way, if they did not?

1) you didn't really answer the question. [/quote]
I believe I did.

The question was how did you determine they spend a lot of energy on the issue?

My answer was, "Because they self-identify that way." In other words, I believe them.

I don't spend energy on a lot of the categories I know I fit into.

Maybe you're more open-minded than they are. Or maybe you just try not to think about it.

No. But Christianity really has.

As complete belief in the words of the Bible has gone down, Christianity is causing less violence than it used to.

Christianity has never caused ANY violence. You can see that because Jesus Christ never caused any, and never endorsed any, and never did any. You can see it in both His life and His consistent teaching. "Love your enemies," He said, "do good to them," and "pray for them."

So somebody became violent, you can be happily reassured they did so without reference to Christianity, no matter what motive they claimed.

[Atla]

I'd say they should maybe read their Bibles. That would be a good idea, if they want to call themselves "Christian," wouldn't it?

Fine, then even the worst mass murderer can go to Heaven when he believes, Christianity is evil

So you don't believe there is forgiveness for sin?

That would bode a very ominous future for us all.

Good thing it isn't the case.

That's a very difficult and complicated question. Where do I draw the line? Let's take two examples.
I think there should be forgiveness for smaller sins, like stealing a car, but there shouldn't be forgiveness for bigger sings like intentional mass murder. If the perpetrator truly repents, then there should be more forgiveness by some amount.

I think that forgiving all sins no matter how big, is a form of evil. I agree with the death penalty for some sins.

[iambiguous]

You can't just assume the conclusion you want...especially when it's the opposite of objectively right.

Again, that is precisely what many of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... 20distinct

...will be telling you regarding your own arrogant assumption that only how you yourself construe Christianity is the One True Path to immortality and salvation. And not just for Alice.

I will rather be pointing you to what Jesus Christ says. What I say is of no consequence, apart from that.

Come on, IC, that's just you telling us that the Christian Bible is true because it is the words of God. And then the fact that it is the word of God proves that it is true.

Instead, what makes my discussions with you quite different from my discussions with those Christians who have taken a "leap of faith" to God, is that you actually insist that beyond the circular "logic" embedded in quoting Jesus Christ from the Bible to "prove" that He exists, you claim there is actual evidence that a God, the God, your God does in fact exist.

And since a part of me truly does want to believe in God again, when someone like you tells me that they have actual evidence to prove that the God I once worshipped and adored myself does exist, I can't help but wonder, "this time...is it true? Does he have such evidence?"

Then I basically came to conclude that even you do not really believe this. But: are you actually deluding yourself here as well? Do you genuinely, consciously believe "in your head" that the Christian God does exist -- that He is the source for both objective morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side -- but that "subconsciously" another part of you knows that deep down inside those videos do not demonstrate it?

Or is this whole IC thing here just a persona...or a character you play to entertain yourself?

Well, according to IC, if you are someone who thinks exactly as he does about abortion, that means that you are by nature good and necessarily embody good character.

But not just any Christian. After all, there are many different interpretations of Christianity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... 20distinct

And of the 2.6 billion total Christians around the globe, 1.345 billion of them are Catholics.

And then to complicate things further, Christians are not the only ones who worship and adore the God of Abraham. There are also 1.6 billion Muslims and 14 million Jews.

No, Immanuel Can will assure you, true Christians are only those who think about the Christian God precisely as he does.

Go ahead, ask him how he can prove this definitively beyond a mere "leap of faith" or that truly pathetic "wager".

You're very odd.

When you write something silly or obviously false, like misrepresenting my view by way of your own incorrect paraphrase, and I simply pass it over, you repost it. It's as if you believe that it's actually very sage, and that by reposting it, you'll somehow make it important.

Yes, I did misconstrue your point. I thought you were attributing those qualities to mere mortals but instead you attributed them to God. But it was never my intention to deliberately misconstrue you. I was only attempting to grasp how you do connect the dots between the Fall, human nature, human character and Judgment Day given a context like Alice having an abortion.

[Immanuel Can]

Fine, then even the worst mass murderer can go to Heaven when he believes, Christianity is evil

So you don't believe there is forgiveness for sin?

That would bode a very ominous future for us all.

Good thing it isn't the case.

That's a very difficult and complicated question. Where do I draw the line?

Well, WE don't. It's not on us.

I think that forgiving all sins no matter how big, is a form of evil. I agree with the death penalty for some sins.

So does God. He imposes what's called "the Second Death" (Rev. 20:14) for sins unforgiven. That's more, even, than the thing we think of as physical "death." And it's forever.

But it's important to distinguish false repentance from true repentance. A true repentant is somebody who will do anything to rectify the wrong he has done and is truly sorry for it, and will do all he can to make it right; and since it's beyond his ability to repay the debt he has incurred, is willing to throw himself utterly on the mercy of God, giving up all to concede to Divine Justice and begging for clemency.

To such a one, there is nothing that cannot be forgiven.

This is why forgiveness cannot be of my arranging or yours. As the Bible says, "Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart." It is God alone who can say when a man is genuinely repentant; and He's promised there's forgiveness for any sin, no matter how great, provided that the repentant person really is repentant. But you and I, how are we able to judge such a thing? We would look at the outward seeming of things, and either get mad or permissive, according to what seemed to us. But that just shows how utterly inadequate we are as judges.

The good news is that there really is no sin so great God will not forgive it. And when you and I take the inventory of our own lapses and failures, that's very good to know. We have enough to do with doing that, and should leave the disposition of others to God, who alone knows their hearts.

[Atla]

So you don't believe there is forgiveness for sin?

That would bode a very ominous future for us all.

Good thing it isn't the case.

That's a very difficult and complicated question. Where do I draw the line?

Well, WE don't. It's not on us.

I think that forgiving all sins no matter how big, is a form of evil. I agree with the death penalty for some sins.

So does God. He imposes what's called "the Second Death" (Rev. 20:14) for sins unforgiven. That's more, even, than the thing we think of as physical "death." And it's forever.

But it's important to distinguish false repentance from true repentance. A true repentant is somebody who will do anything to rectify the wrong he has done and is truly sorry for it, and will do all he can to make it right; and since it's beyond his ability to repay the debt he has incurred, is willing to throw himself utterly on the mercy of God, giving up all to concede to Divine Justice and begging for clemency.

To such a one, there is nothing that cannot be forgiven.

This is why forgiveness cannot be of my arranging or yours. As the Bible says, "Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart." It is God alone who can say when a man is genuinely repentant; and He's promised there's forgiveness for any sin, no matter how great, provided that the repentant person really is repentant. But you and I, how are we able to judge such a thing? We would look at the outward seeming of things, and either get mad or permissive, according to what seemed to us. But that just shows how utterly inadequate we are as judges.

The good news is that there really is no sin so great God will not forgive it. And when you and I take the inventory of our own lapses and failures, that's very good to know. We have enough to do with doing that, and should leave the disposition of others to God, who alone knows their hearts.

And I hold that a repentant who will do anything to rectify the wrong he has done and is truly sorry for it, and will do all he can to make it right, will receive the most added forgiveness, and there are sins great enough where that's still not enough. That's the reality of our world, that's the kind of morality that an adult humanity will have to use.

Letting evil behaviour get away with it. Using absolute forgiveness to rope more people into believing in God. It's insane, laughable, morally bankrupt.

[Immanuel Can]

...there are sins great enough where that's still not enough.

Yes, sometimes you can't undo what you've done, it's true. That's another reason why forgiveness is much more than reparation...sometimes we can't fix our mistakes.

And that's actually true of all of us. You don't get through life without some moments where you look back and say, "I wish I hadn't done that; but there's no way to make it right, now." And that's the truth.

At the end of it all, though, all sins are against justice. But not against an abstract notion of fairness, merely; they're against God.

Letting evil behaviour get away with it.

Nobody I know is doing that. God's certainly not.

Using absolute forgiveness to rope more people into believing in God.

One can't "use" forgiveness; it's not the kind of thing that can be "used". It's either a reality, or it's not. Either sins can be forgiven, or sins are a permanent blight on us that can never be expunged -- that blight may seem big or small to us, but it's forever, in all cases, then. And we've all got some.

And the funny thing is, we all need forgiveness. We may be afraid to ask for it, or may be too terrified to believe in it; but we all still need it.

[Atla]

...there are sins great enough where that's still not enough.

Yes, sometimes you can't undo what you've done, it's true. That's another reason why forgiveness is much more than reparation...sometimes we can't fix our mistakes.

And that's actually true of all of us. You don't get through life without some moments where you look back and say, "I wish I hadn't done that; but there's no way to make it right, now." And that's the truth.

At the end of it all, though, all sins are against justice. But not against an abstract notion of fairness, merely; they're against God.

Letting evil behaviour get away with it.

Nobody I know is doing that. God's certainly not.

Using absolute forgiveness to rope more people into believing in God.

One can't "use" forgiveness; it's not the kind of thing that can be "used". It's either a reality, or it's not. Either sins can be forgiven, or sins are a permanent blight on us that can never be expunged -- that blight may seem big or small to us, but it's forever, in all cases, then. And we've all got some.

And the funny thing is, we all need forgiveness. We may be afraid to ask for it, or may be too terrified to believe in it; but we all still need it.

Some people don't deserve forgiveness, even if they "need" it.

I mean let's be clear here, forgiveness has two meanings, not punishing someone, and letting go of feelings of resentment towards that someone. I'm only talking about the punishment issue here.

Fortunately Hell probably doesn't exist though, we only have to be concerned with what happens in this world.