Is morality objective or subjective?

[Skepdick]

So if you know that Newton's perspective clashes with the way science is done; do you then agree or disagree with Newton that "God has no place in science" ?

As I have just said to Immanuel Can:

As it happens, Newton didn't believe his own theory of gravity could maintain the solar system. As he said in the General Scholium: "This most beautiful System of the Sun, Planets and Comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being." So yes, God very much had a role in Newton's universe, but not in science, which to Newton was what we mortals could study. If God decides to perform a miracle, that's not science.

It's so weird that when asked about your own perspective on God's place in science you present Newton's views and not your own.

I can only explain the question to you, I can't understand it for you...

[Immanuel Can]

Many want to go on to say, "...you can't have any evidence either," or even "Nobody can ever have any evidence"

More like "there is no evidence",

That's identical.

"show me your evidence",

That's impossible, for people who've already refused God. The Bible says he refuses any evidence to cynics. Instead, they get what they're asking for...nothing.

and "believe whatever you want but don't claim it applies to me".

Reality will arbitrate that. Either we'll all face God, as the Bible says, or we won't. Differing opinions will change nothing. Meanwhile, it would be an act of unbelievable cruelty not to notify others of what is to come.

Interestingly, though, Atheists generally are not hesitant to demand that their view be accepted by all, as if it were the only possible, rational, evidentiary, scientific or reasonable view. So I think that's a case of the pot calling the kettle "black."

[Immanuel Can]

'All' doesn't mean 'one'.

That response doesn't even make sense as a response to what I said. You need to explain, I guess.

According to the definition that you gave to prove there's one reality... you said that "Reality" means ALL that is real. That does not prove your claim because the definition would have to be something like: "Reality" means ONE that is real.

Still not clear, I'm afraid.

Reality inherently means "all that is real," whatever you include in that. I see no reference to "one" in it. Where you're pulling that from, you're going to have to explain.

[Immanuel Can]

If God decides to perform a miracle, that's not science.

True: but if there were no science, neither would there be any miracles. The recognition of an event as "miraculous" requires that the observer understands the ordinary scientific regularities that usually govern the situation-in-view.

In other words, the disciples of Jesus didn't come to believe in the Resurrection because they didn't know that dead men don't get up and walk around; they believed because they knew that very well.

That's also why a miracle is not a contradition of science. Rather, it's an interruption, by Divine action, of that set of scientific regularities that God Himself has positioned to govern ordinarily a particular situation.

We can debate whether any miracles have taken place; we can't argue, though, that if such have, they are contradictions of science., or that they undermine a scientific worldview. The miraculous inherently affirms the ordinary effectiveness of science.

And to get personal confirmations of your own, you'd have to take those two steps God always requires: to believe in at least the possibility He exists, and to be willing to believe that He could reward you for an honest search.

Absent those things, you're never going on any kind of search anyway, so they seem pretty modest expectations, wouldn't you say?

Both those things I am still willing to entertain, despite what I considered honest searches. However modest God's expectations, He apparently wasn't impressed with my efforts.

I'm interested. What did you do, on your search?

This, I am told, is my fault:
“Therefore, when a person refuses to come to Christ it is never just because of a lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God's Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis fails to become a Christian because of a lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with god.”
William Lane Craig

I don't know the context of Dr. Craig's remark there. It does look, though, from what you provide, that he's speaking of the same idea...namely, that it takes more than a mere set of dry, intellectual factoids to bring a person into a dynamic, living, personal and committed relationship to God. And if that's what he means, I guess I'd have to say he's right: if the intellectual demands have been met, so that a reasonable person should be at least open to the possibility of God, and if that person remains unwilling even to entertain the possibility, I think the only place we can look to is the second feature of the Hebrews prescription: namely, that that person simply obdurately refuses to invest even a modest credence in the intention of God to reward his search. He's somehow angry and dead-set oppositional to the God he claims he does not believe in. What else can one say? What could be his motives for that?

C.S. Lewis, the former Atheist, looked back on his own past intellectual struggles against God with this poignant reflection:

"I was at that time living like many atheists; in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was equally angry with him for creating a world."

[Immanuel Can]

Is it all atheists, most atheists, just some atheists, a few atheists, or only the very rare type of atheist such as Dawkins, or Hitchens?

It depends. If there were silent Atheists, nobody would know about them. But there are a lot of Atheists, even on this forum, who are far from silent about their beliefs, and far from shy about saying that other people have no right to believe what they themselves refuse to believe.

It wouldn't be much of a discussion forum if all the atheists here were silent; you would have no one to talk to.

Well, there would be Theists, of course...and we have out own reasons for conversation and debate.

But I think it was you who claimed that Atheists simply "don't want to talk about it"; but personally, I find them only all too eager to do so.

I daresay that you have not yet seen evidence that pixies exist, but I doubt that you would consider it a personal confession of ignorance to say so.

It certainly would be. Not in the pejorative sense, of course; but if somebody said to your or to me, "I believe in pixies," and we said, "I'm ignorant of any evidence of that kind," then we'd certainly be speaking the truth. "Ignorance" simply means "having no knowledge."

And that is the claim of the agnostic: "I have no evidence, either way." And that's fine for him. But Atheism always seems to want to go further, and say, "Nobody else is ever allowed to find evidence for God, either." Not explicitly, of course, because made explicit, the claim is just too dumb for words, and nobody likes to manifest stupidity; but in effect, that's what the Atheist is clearly hoping to be heard to say...something to the effect of, "Your faith is a delusion, not just to me, but for you as well," just as Dawkins so clearly said.

There must be lots of famous atheists, but very few are famous for being atheists.

Some are. Quite a few have made careers out of it, and some still do. But with good reason, they don't really deserve their fame, I think. It's not a tremendous intellectual achievement, to have been skeptical on the basis of personally having no evidence.

[Lacewing]

Many want to go on to say, "...you can't have any evidence either," or even "Nobody can ever have any evidence"

More like "there is no evidence",

That's identical.

Maybe to your skewed view. Saying "there is no" is not the same as saying "there can never be"... you just haven't demonstrated it yet, so it seems unlikely you will.

"show me your evidence",

That's impossible, for people who've already refused God. The Bible says he refuses any evidence to cynics. Instead, they get what they're asking for...nothing.

All that suggests is that you'll see whatever you believe in. Not impressive enough for some... such as Christians who leave theism.

and "believe whatever you want but don't claim it applies to me".

Reality will arbitrate that. Either we'll all face God, as the Bible says, or we won't. Differing opinions will change nothing. Meanwhile, it would be an act of unbelievable cruelty not to notify others of what is to come.

Well maybe you should broaden your pulpit instead of prancing around here for your own glory.

Interestingly, though, Atheists generally are not hesitant to demand that their view be accepted by all, as if it were the only possible, rational, evidentiary, scientific or reasonable view. So I think that's a case of the pot calling the kettle "black."

The difference is that theists want non-theists to believe in something that makes no sense when all things are considered, and despite all to the contrary, and based on a book of manmade interpretations from another time in history... which is not even ALL of history.

Non-theists want to sober up the intoxication of theist thinking because we want more clarity and less delusional extremism in the world that we all share.

[Immanuel Can]

Saying "there is no" is not the same as saying "there can never be"... you just haven't demonstrated it yet, so it seems unlikely you will.

Well, now, that is at least a little more modest and apt. You're right: that you have no present knowledge of the evidence does not count for much, really, and it's best we don't make more of it than it can offer. However, your guestimate at whether or not there is such evidence remains less reliable.

"show me your evidence",

That's impossible, for people who've already refused God. The Bible says he refuses any evidence to cynics. Instead, they get what they're asking for...nothing.

All that suggests is that you'll see whatever you believe in.

No. It just suggests you'll never find what you staunchly refuse to see.

Common sense will tell you the same.

[Lacewing]

Reality inherently means "all that is real," whatever you include in that. I see no reference to "one" in it. Where you're pulling that from, you're going to have to explain.

Because you claimed there's one reality. I asked how you know that. You answered that it's in the definition of the word 'reality'. It's not. There's nothing about 'one' in the definition, as you've come to acknowledge above. So I guess this is another example of you being unable to show how you actually know what you claim.

No worries.

[Lacewing]

Saying "there is no" is not the same as saying "there can never be"... you just haven't demonstrated it yet, so it seems unlikely you will.

Well, now, that is at least a little more modest and apt. You're right: that you have no present knowledge of the evidence does not count for much, really, and it's best we don't make more of it than it can offer. However, your guestimate at whether or not there is such evidence remains less reliable.

It makes no sense. You make no sense. Those are powerful indicators.

That's impossible, for people who've already refused God. The Bible says he refuses any evidence to cynics. Instead, they get what they're asking for...nothing.

All that suggests is that you'll see whatever you believe in.

No. It just suggests you'll never find what you staunchly refuse to see.

Common sense will tell you the same.

See my first comment. Common sense is thwarting your claims. You are the only one staunchly refusing to see it.

[Immanuel Can]

You answered that it's in the definition of the word 'reality'. It's not.

Where is this "one" concept included in the definition? I asked you for that, not for obfuscation.

[Harbal]

But I think it was you who claimed that Atheists simply "don't want to talk about it"; but personally, I find them only all too eager to do so.

I think I was speaking for myself when I said that, and it was because I was posting about morality and you diverted the conversation towards God, which was a direction I had no interest in going in. I don't claim anything on behalf of atheists; they are all individuals with only one thing necessarily in common; they do not believe in God.

I daresay that you have not yet seen evidence that pixies exist, but I doubt that you would consider it a personal confession of ignorance to say so.

It certainly would be. Not in the pejorative sense, of course; but if somebody said to your or to me, "I believe in pixies," and we said, "I'm ignorant of any evidence of that kind," then we'd certainly be speaking the truth. "Ignorance" simply means "having no knowledge."

Well you could call yourself agnostic on the matter of pixies, and that might be technically correct, but I think you would behave as though there were no such thing. And I think there is a distinction between ignorance of genuine evidence for the existence of something, and ignorance of supposed evidence. Needless to say, I consider both evidence for the existence of God and pixies to be of the supposed kind. People have been trying to prove the existence of God since the concept of God was first dreamt up, so I'm sure if someone did come up with proof it would have been reported in the news. So no, I don't think it is fair to say that my attitude towards God is based on ignorance.

And that is the claim of the agnostic: "I have no evidence, either way." And that's fine for him. But Atheism always seems to want to go further, and say, "Nobody else is ever allowed to find evidence for God, either."

That seems unreasonable of them, but I can't comment with any authority, as I am completely ignorant of the facts concerning Atheism. But, regarding agnosticism; I can't really see what it matters whether I call myself an atheist or an agnostic. Either way, I would still just be someone who is completely disinterested in God and religion.

There must be lots of famous atheists, but very few are famous for being atheists.

Some are. Quite a few have made careers out of it, and some still do. But with good reason, they don't really deserve their fame, I think. It's not a tremendous intellectual achievement, to have been skeptical on the basis of personally having no evidence.

You put a great deal of effort into trying to convince people that God exists, and you don't have evidence to support it. You certainly claim there is evidence, but all such that I am aware of is far too feeble to be called evidence. So you are just as guilty of doing what you complain about of others.

[Immanuel Can]

But I think it was you who claimed that Atheists simply "don't want to talk about it"; but personally, I find them only all too eager to do so.

I think I was speaking for myself when I said that, and it was because I was posting about morality and you diverted the conversation towards God, which was a direction I had no interest in going in.

Well, the problem with that strategy is simple: no God, no morality. Both Doestoevsky and Nietzsche saw that. So you're going to convince yourself there's no such thing as objective morality, because that's literally all an Atheist can rationally do.

I can't really see what it matters whether I call myself an atheist or an agnostic.

One's honest, and one isn't. If one believes in objective moralty, there's a difference.

There must be lots of famous atheists, but very few are famous for being atheists.

Some are. Quite a few have made careers out of it, and some still do. But with good reason, they don't really deserve their fame, I think. It's not a tremendous intellectual achievement, to have been skeptical on the basis of personally having no evidence.

You put a great deal of effort into trying to convince people that God exists, and you don't have evidence to support it.

Actually, I have lots...and have provided the same, on many occasions. Some, I would say, is conclusive, even. And I've provided means for people to go father, and to find their own evidence, too.

Provide what I may, I can never stop a person from saying, "I refuse to regard that as evidence." Obdurate refusal cannot be beaten with logic.

[Harbal]

But I think it was you who claimed that Atheists simply "don't want to talk about it"; but personally, I find them only all too eager to do so.

I think I was speaking for myself when I said that, and it was because I was posting about morality and you diverted the conversation towards God, which was a direction I had no interest in going in.

Well, the problem with that strategy is simple: no God, no morality.

I make moral judgements and decisions frequently, and so do the vast majority of people; in fact, it is likely that the only ones who don't are those with a psychological disorder. So no problemo, after all.

Both Doestoevsky and Nietzsche saw that.

Why do you think I'm interested in what Doestoevsky and Nietzsche saw?

So you're going to convince yourself there's no such thing as objective morality, because that's literally all an Atheist can rationally do.

I don't have to convince myself of it; it is blindingly obvious to me that there is no such thing as objective morality.

I can't really see what it matters whether I call myself an atheist or an agnostic.

One's honest, and one isn't. If one believes in objective moralty, there's a difference.

I don't believe in objective morality.

You put a great deal of effort into trying to convince people that God exists, and you don't have evidence to support it.

Actually, I have lots...and have provided the same, on many occasions. Some, I would say, is conclusive, even. And I've provided means for people to go father, and to find their own evidence, too.

Provide what I may, I can never stop a person from saying, "I refuse to regard that as evidence." Obdurate refusal cannot be beaten with logic.

You don't have any evidence, because there is no evidence. The stuff you present as evidence is only any good for preaching to the already converted. Who in their right mind is going to refuse to accept genuine evidence if the consequences of doing so are what you claim them to be? If you could come up with something even slightly convincing it would at least make me think twice.

[Immanuel Can]

I think I was speaking for myself when I said that, and it was because I was posting about morality and you diverted the conversation towards God, which was a direction I had no interest in going in.

Well, the problem with that strategy is simple: no God, no morality.

I make moral judgements and decisions frequently, and so do the vast majority of people;

Yes, I'm sure you do. But if you're an Atheist, you cannot make them because they're right. You can only make them because they're convenient, or traditional, or habitual...but never because there's an objective reality backing the choice you make. It's always totally arbitrary, from an Atheist perspective.

Both Doestoevsky and Nietzsche saw that.

Why do you think I'm interested in what Doestoevsky and Nietzsche saw?

I should think you'd be very interested in what two men of broad reputation, significant achievement as philosophers, and sharp intelligence realized...especially since one was a Theist and one was a celebrated Atheist. I would think you'd want to ask yourself why they'd agree on this, when on so much else they disagreed. But not everybody is curious, I guess.

So you're going to convince yourself there's no such thing as objective morality, because that's literally all an Atheist can rationally do.

I don't have to convince myself of it; it is blindingly obvious to me that there is no such thing as objective morality.

Well, that's my point: it's assumptive, not demonstrated; but for somebody already committed to Atheism, it's irresistible...or "blindingly obvious," as you say...although ultimately probably more "blinding" than "obvious."

I can't really see what it matters whether I call myself an atheist or an agnostic.

One's honest, and one isn't. If one believes in objective moralty, there's a difference.

I don't believe in objective morality.

Well, then, it hardly matters whether you call yourself one thing or another. Honesty is only a virtue in a universe with objective morality in it. Otherwise, it's just a convenience or an inconvenience, as circumstances arrange.

You don't have any evidence, because there is no evidence.

Where's your evidence for the claim, "There is no evidence"?

You have none. It's a wish. It's a disposition. It's not a rational postulate. You actually have no idea what evidence there may or may not be, or who may have it...and the same is true for all of us, in every matter, so it's beyond the possibility of denial. What we DO all know is only whatever evidence we may personally have. And that's what makes our situation on this Earth inevitably a matter of probability, not certitude, and of faith and commitment, not of arid detachment.

But the commitment cannot be avoided, because we all have to live our lives somehow, according to some kind of compass points. As Bob Dylan said, "You gonna have to serve somebody."

A funny thing about Atheists, though: they think that serving themselves, making themselves their own little "god," is some kind of badge of honour. Their "god" came into the world uttterly clueless and against his will, stumbled through a short and painful life of brief triumphs and disasters as the victim of material circumstances, and will die shortly and feed worms. That's not much of a compass point for anything, really.

[Harbal]

Well, the problem with that strategy is simple: no God, no morality.

I make moral judgements and decisions frequently, and so do the vast majority of people;

Yes, I'm sure you do. But if you're an Atheist, you cannot make them because they're right. You can only make them because they're convenient, or traditional, or habitual...but never because there's an objective reality backing the choice you make. It's always totally arbitrary, from an Atheist perspective.

Well it isn't strictly arbitrary, there is some sort of principle behind my moral judgements, but you are right, there is no objective reality backing up the moral choices I make.

I don't have to convince myself of it; it is blindingly obvious to me that there is no such thing as objective morality.

Well, that's my point: it's assumptive, not demonstrated; but for somebody already committed to Atheism, it's irresistible...or "blindingly obvious," as you say...although ultimately probably more "blinding" than "obvious."

I don't know what your point is here. But I am not committed to atheism, I am committed to following what I understand to be the truth.

I don't believe in objective morality.

Well, then, it hardly matters whether you call yourself one thing or another. Honesty is only a virtue in a universe with objective morality in it. Otherwise, it's just a convenience or an inconvenience, as circumstances arrange.

Honesty is most certainly a virtue in my estimation, even though it need not be in anyone else's, that is why it cannot be called objective truth. My morality does have an objective source, which is myself, but it isn't objective in a wider sense because it does not obligate anyone else to accept it as morally right.

You don't have any evidence, because there is no evidence.

Where's your evidence for the claim, "There is no evidence"?

You have none. It's a wish. It's a disposition. It's not a rational postulate.

As far as I'm aware, there is no concrete evidence for any supernatural claim, so I would say it is very rational to reject such claims when you make them.

You actually have no idea what evidence there may or may not be, or who may have it...and the same is true for all of us, in every matter, so it's beyond the possibility of denial.

Yes, that is correct, but there are circumstances under which it is reasonable to judge something so unlikely that, unless solid evidence is produced, it is acceptable to expect that it never will be produced.

But the commitment cannot be avoided, because we all have to live our lives somehow, according to some kind of compass points. As Bob Dylan said, "You gonna have to serve somebody."

A funny thing about Atheists, though: they think that serving themselves, making themselves their own little "god," is some kind of badge of honour. Their "god" came into the world uttterly clueless and against his will, stumbled through a short and painful life of brief triumphs and disasters as the victim of material circumstances, and will die shortly and feed worms. That's not much of a compass point for anything, really.

Well that's your way of looking at the situation, but my way of looking at it is considerably different.