Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

But I've never met a Determinist who could live or even talk as if his alleged Determinism were really true.

But that isn't his fault; he has no choice but to act that way.

Quite so.

[Immanuel Can]

I would rather not use the term at all; talking about God is not really what I wanted to do, but you make avoiding him impossible.

This forum needs a God free zone.

I'm sure some topics may allow that. Morality will never be one of them, of course. Because the existence or non-existence of God changes everything in morality.

Demonstrably false.

So you think we can "demonstrate" that whether God exists or not has no impact on morality? That would be an interesting "demonstration" to see.

'Agent A says X is morally wrong; therefore (it's a fact that) X is morally wrong' - is a non sequitur for any agent, including any team's god. The only way around it is by means of a special pleading fallacy.

That's not actually a "demonstration." It's just an presumption. What it does is assume that morality itself is an objective reality prior to its own creation: that is, that it exists without having been created for any purpose or with any teleological goal. But of course, if God exists, morality IS created, and it's created with a teleological goal...so that would rather demonstrate the opposite -- that the existence of God would change that radically.

Non-moral premises can't entail moral conclusions.

But we Theists are not advocates of non-moral premises. We are not sharing your assumption that facts lack moral significance, and can be what has been called "bare facts," or what Hume thought were underlying the fact-value dichotomy. Rather, Theists believe that facts do have moral significance, for they all fit in somewhere, relative to God, His nature and His purposes in the Creation.

So again, the "demonstration" is purely presumptuous. If Theists agreed that morality precedes creation, or that facts can be "bare," then you might have a case. And no doubt, for those already committed to something like Physicalism or Materialism, you'd sound like you had a case. But you've really skipped the essential question that grounds all morality -- is there a God?

[Immanuel Can]

Are you defining "fair-minded" as agreeing with you? Could any fair-minded and rational person come to an alternative conclusion?

I was only saying that if somebody is behaving rationally and has the relevant data set in hand, the conclusion would be obvious.

As I have pointed out before, I look at the same universe as you, I have read the same Bible as you and I have examined the same arguments as you.

I have no idea how you can imagine that's true. On what basis could you claim to know what arguments I have examined, or how I see the universe?

Unless there is something in "the relevant data set" to which you are party and I am not, you must attribute my failing to agree with to my not being fair minded and rational. So which is it? Do you know something I don't, or am I irrational?

Oh, the former, of course. I wouldn't have any reason to think you're irrational, unless you had access to all the same data I do, and still refused to pay any attention to it. But I don't think you do, especially since some of the most important data is a product of existential and experiential investigations to which I don't think it's possible to suppose you have been privy. You would have to have been me, to do that.

There is part of the evidence for Christianity that can be had dispassionately -- things like the various rational arguments one finds in Natural Theology or Apologetics. But that all takes one only so far. There is part of knowing God that is intensely experiential and personal; God does not allow people to come to him by way of pure argumentation. He insists on a change of mind (or metanoia, sometimes losely translated "repentance") and faith, meaning a personal commitment of self to the reality of His existence and the goodness of His purposes toward one. As Hebrews has it:

"And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for the one who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that He proves to be One who rewards those who seek Him." (11:6 -- underlines mine)

[Skepdick]

Absolutely. The point of Socrates and the Oracle is that anyone who claims to know The Truth is almost certainly an idiot or a charlatan.

That's so peculiar, Socrates would've settled for "anyone who claims to know is almost certainly an idiot or a charlatan.". They named a method after him and all...

To paraphrase a dialogue that could've happened between Socrates and myself.

Me: Hey, I heard that the only thing you know is that you don't know anything. What's your name?
Socrates: I don't know.

That ethos is expressed by 'Nullius in verba' - 'Take nobody's word for it' the motto of the Royal Society and fundamental to the practise of science. If you claim to know better than that, then you are almost certainly an idiot or a charlatan.

Great! So show us some science. Nullus in verba. What color is this?

square-xxl.png

[Iwannaplato]

Absolutely. The point of Socrates and the Oracle is that anyone who claims to know The Truth is almost certainly an idiot or a charlatan. That ethos is expressed by 'Nullius in verba' - 'Take nobody's word for it' the motto of the Royal Society and fundamental to the practise of science. If you claim to know better than that, then you are almost certainly an idiot or a charlatan.

I'm missing a lot of the context, so some of my response may seem off.

I don't think take nobody's word for it is the motto of the Royal Society. I can imagine that some members do this in relation to some you findings, claims, etc. But as a general heuristic I doubt it in the extreme. First, this would mean they would have to repeat all prior research in the areas and perhaps outside their areas. But, in fact they tend to presume that whatever authorities (journals, experts, other scientists, models, etc.) are probablyh correct or at least well justified. Some of this they may take as working hypotheses, but much of it they take as very likely to be true so they are not going to look into it, but rather they will use is as background, jumping off points, given, etc. Other people's word will affect what they decide to test and research and what they will be unlikely to research.

Someone might say 'this is not taking some particular person's word for it'. It is taking the words of a bunch of experts who have confirmed each other's work. But have they???? Well, yes, I generally trust them, depending on how much industry is paying for their research and what paradigmatic assumptions they are going on, etc. But, that's me taking other people's word for thing. I can't consider redoing doing all of civilization's knowledge, though I'm probably more skeptical of current accepted paradigms than most. And each of us is taking our own word that we have looked at, for example industry biases and their effects on research and paradigmatic biases and determined that this research we can assume is correct and further the implications or models built from it are correct and these others are more iffy. And the self-evaluation involved also.

Then there's claiming to know the Truth making on an idiot or charletan.
Right off one thing that irritates me about Socrates on this is how clear it is he thinks he knows all sorts of things. Not only conclusions, but also how one goes about finding knowledge. His process he thinks is a way to find the truth and/or eliminate falsehoods. He had ideas about Art, society, divine inspiration, ontology...he thought evil was the result of ignorace. He's not some Buddhist master who refuses to answer questions by specific content in sentences. The guy managed to arrive not only at mundane truths but also a lot of big ass Truths.

And implying that you know the truth and mocking and undermining other people and their truths is not somehow different from stating truths. He conveyed masses of truths and Truths.

[Lacewing]

You'll have to go back and read the thread. I don't want to redo what I've already done.

I don't need to read 305 pages of this thread...

No. But when you come into a conversation, you could at least read the last few posts.

Do that. You'll find the answer you need there.

You condescending dishonest imposter who truncates posts to support your self-righteous distorted claims and evasiveness...

Your claim, 'Any concept of "God" would come with the same consequences, obviously', DOESN'T make sense, obviously... for reasons which you refuse to address.

Your interpretations don't apply to everyone.
Your claims are not infallible.
You are not the golden mouthpiece for all things to do with God... but rather, you continually demonstrate that you speak for something entirely different in service to yourself.

[Skepdick]

You condescending dishonest imposter who truncates posts to support your self-righteous distorted claims and evasiveness...

Your claim, 'Any concept of "God" would come with the same consequences, obviously', DOESN'T make sense, obviously... for reasons which you refuse to address.

Your interpretations don't apply to everyone.
Your claims are not infallible.
You are not the golden mouthpiece for all things to do with God... but rather, you continually demonstrate that you speak for something entirely different in service to yourself.

Replace the concept of "God" with any authority you recognize. The law? Maybe add a capital "L" in there.

You don't like The Rule of God?
How about The Rule of Law?

[Immanuel Can]

I don't need to read 305 pages of this thread...

No. But when you come into a conversation, you could at least read the last few posts.

Do that. You'll find the answer you need there.

You...

Read it or don't. I'm fine, either way.

But the hissy fit fails to impress.

[Lacewing]

Read it or don't. I'm fine, either way.

Drool over your own nonsense.

Your dishonesty and avoidance are legendary on this forum.

[Immanuel Can]

Read it or don't. I'm fine, either way.

Your dishonesty and avoidance are legendary on this forum.

Ah, the petty "Everybody hates you" strategy. I saw through that one in grade 8. Some of us actually grew past that stage, you know.

[Lacewing]

Read it or don't. I'm fine, either way.

Your dishonesty and avoidance are legendary on this forum.

Ah, the petty "Everybody hates you" strategy. I saw through that one in grade 8. Some of us actually grew past that stage, you know.

Your usual distortion of what's said. It has nothing to do with 'hating'. It's more about your tactics being pathetically transparent.

[FlashDangerpants]

Read it or don't. I'm fine, either way.

Your dishonesty and avoidance are legendary on this forum.

Ah, the petty "Everybody hates you" strategy.

She's not wrong.

[Immanuel Can]

Your dishonesty and avoidance are legendary on this forum.

Ah, the petty "Everybody hates you" strategy.

She's not wrong.

Me no believe. Me no care. Me not impressed.

[FlashDangerpants]

Ah, the petty "Everybody hates you" strategy.

She's not wrong.

Me no believe. Me no care. Me not impressed.

As the lady says, and as I can confirm, you are notorious for arguing entirely in bad faith. So it doesn't make much difference if you are impressed.

[Will Bouwman]

I was only saying that if somebody is behaving rationally and has the relevant data set in hand, the conclusion would be obvious.

As I have pointed out before, I look at the same universe as you, I have read the same Bible as you and I have examined the same arguments as you.

I have no idea how you can imagine that's true. On what basis could you claim to know what arguments I have examined, or how I see the universe?

Well, I imagine that after nearly 20 000 posts in 10 years, you have presented at least the bulk of your arguments. As for the universe, however you happen to see it, you clearly believe that we are looking at the same universe. As you say here:

There was gravity before anybody knew there was, and stars we cannot see existed before telescopes, and the North American continent was there before anybody discovered it.

Truth is truth. Beliefs can be true or false, depending on whether they conform to reality.

Unless there is something in "the relevant data set" to which you are party and I am not, you must attribute my failing to agree with you to my not being fair minded and rational. So which is it? Do you know something I don't, or am I irrational?

Oh, the former, of course. I wouldn't have any reason to think you're irrational, unless you had access to all the same data I do, and still refused to pay any attention to it.

Right. So it turns out that the extra knowledge that you have is deeply personal that you can express, but not actually demonstrate. Would it be irrational to hypothesise that your emotional and intellectual response to some stimulus only you feel might have some cause other than God? For instance:
"... research in the field of “neurotheology” — or the neuroscience of theological belief — has made some surprising discoveries that are bound to change how we think about spirituality.

For instance, some scientists suggest that religious experience activates the same brain circuits as sex and drugs.

Other research has suggested that damage to a certain brain region can make you feel as though someone’s in the room when nobody’s there."
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articl ... xedContent
Would it be fair-minded to dismiss the findings of neuroscience?