Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

Reading this, I can't help questioning the objectivity of the translators.

Don't worry...you can trust them. But you don't have to guess. You can look at the original through interlinear translations, if you have the time and patience. But you don't really need to, because the translators have been very careful, in those particular versions. That's the thing about Biblical literalists: they don't believe you can mess with the text.

However, the test I'm proposing doesn't even ask Bible reading of you. I'm just saying, start the conversation with God directly, yourself, in your own language, and with your own concerns, and see where He takes you from there. There could actually hardly be an easier starting point than that.

You have encouraged me to try this several times now, and I suspect it could be effective in some cases, but for reasons that have nothing to do with God. It sounds very much like some sort of psychological technique of persuasion. If it does work, I am betting it would work equally well if I went into the woods everyday and had a similar conversation with the spirit of the forest.

I don't object to you trying both, so long as you make the sincere effort. I'm certain you'll know the difference, if you do.

I am assuming that the only account of God and what he has spoken of is in the Bible, is that correct? Maybe we could look at some sample moral issues and see what God has to say about them, but I would be entirely dependent on you to tell me what to look at, and how to understand it. What do you think?

We could. But where to start....

Well, an obvious place would be with the most famous moral instructions, the famed "10 Commandments." Most people think those are kind of basic. What about if you pick one, and we talk about it? You can find them listed here: https://lifehopeandtruth.com/bible/10-c ... ents-list/

Well my idea was to do it the other way round, and start with a moral issue that we wanted guidance on. I think that would more closely replicate a real life situation, as most people aren't Bible experts to start with.

Well, since both law codes and moral codes started with religious prohibitions and approbations, I would say that the "real life" way was to go the other direction. However, that's not so important.

What is important, however is that there's really no way to do what you're suggesting, I think.

Let's take homosexuality as an example. How do we go about moving from that to a commandment, since the matter under dispute is the moral status of homosexuality itself? We can't deduce from our visceral approval of, or antipathy to it, because what we want to find out is what its objective moral status is, not merely our subjective emotional reaction to it.

So where do we go from there? We can't assume that because, say, Harbal has an instinctive sympathy for homosexuality that a code that prohibits it would be immoral, or that a code that allows or lauds it would be moral. That's the question we're trying to decide: so we would be committing the logical fault of "assuming our conclusion," if we judged various moral codes by their conformity to our existing prejudices, wouldn't we?

[Immanuel Can]

You're presentation to him was as if there was one religion to check out and that THE situation is all or nothing.

No, I've told him he's free to try other things. And of course, he is.

[Harbal]

Well my idea was to do it the other way round, and start with a moral issue that we wanted guidance on. I think that would more closely replicate a real life situation, as most people aren't Bible experts to start with.

Well, since both law codes and moral codes started with religious prohibitions and approbations, I would say that the "real life" way was to go the other direction. However, that's not so important.

What is important, however is that there's really no way to do what you're suggesting, I think.

Let's take homosexuality as an example. How do we go about moving from that to a commandment, since the matter under dispute is the moral status of homosexuality itself? We can't deduce from our visceral approval of, or antipathy to it, because what we want to find out is what its objective moral status is, not merely our subjective emotional reaction to it.

So where do we go from there? We can't assume that because, say, Harbal has an instinctive sympathy for homosexuality that a code that prohibits it would be immoral, or that a code that allows or lauds it would be moral. That's the question we're trying to decide: so we would be committing the logical fault of "assuming our conclusion," if we judged various moral codes by their conformity to our existing prejudices, wouldn't we?

I don't think I quite follow you, but no matter, we can go to the 10 commandments if you like. I don't really know what to say about them, so perhaps you could say something.

[Lacewing]

The important point is rather that the Atheist claims to have no evidence for God, while refusing to set any test for evidence. It's exactly what one would expect: no test, no results.

1) Doesn't one typically only test for what they think might exist? Generally, if someone goes looking for something, they are already motivated to find it.

2) Life is continually full of proof and revelations that human beings do not expect or test for, so why would proof for an all-powerful, ever-present god rely on individual human belief and tests, such that an unproven god is the fault of a human being?

3) Again, many atheists were previously theists, believing in and talking to a god, and receiving answers from that god, only to eventually recognize the hypnotizing power of human belief and potential that can tie one to a theist framework and create one's dependency on it. Can you perceive such a thing (underlined) when you look at other theist belief systems than your own? Many atheists have demonstrated heartfelt desire and commitment to explore theism -- they simply came to different perspectives than theists.

[Lacewing]

You have to have a modicum of hope that you'll find.

So it's not really an unbiased 'test'. It's a 'believe the possibility and prove it to yourself' exercise. As we can see in human nature, such an exercise works for all sorts of beliefs for all sorts of reasons.

[iambiguous]

The important point is rather that the Atheist claims to have no evidence for God, while refusing to set any test for evidence.

Given that he refuses to specify how anything at all could ever convince him of the existence of God, how can it be a surprise to anybody that he continues to claim he's seen no such evidence?

It's exactly what one would expect: no test, no results.

I'm now more inclined to suspect that IC may well be afflicted with one or another "condition". How else to explain all the frenetic wiggling that he does. In fact, I don't believe anyone here is more adept at avoiding the points that I raise than he is.


Can you believe this post?!

Atheists are now obligated to devise a test in order to prove that there is no God!!

As for evidence that a God, the God does exist? I've noted what would work for me. I pray to God that for the next 24 hours not a single innocent child is harmed in any way. I wake up the next morning and it's a fact. The news media is marveling over the fact that no children anywhere suffered around the globe.

On the other hand, which God was it? The Christian God? Or one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

[FlashDangerpants]

Let's take homosexuality as an example. How do we go about moving from that to a commandment, since the matter under dispute is the moral status of homosexuality itself? We can't deduce from our visceral approval of, or antipathy to it, because what we want to find out is what its objective moral status is, not merely our subjective emotional reaction to it.

If that's not bullshit then it appears that moral reasoning is beyond human endeavour and the "truth" of the matter must be undiscoverable through merely rational means?

If we need a voodoo ritual to find out whether gentlemen bumming other gentlemen is ungentlemanly, there's an issue with claims of moral knowledge right there.

[iambiguous]

Except you're not being told to "convince yourself" of anything. You're being invited to reach out, to search, to examine the case.

You're being promised success, if you will genuinely seek for God.

Yes, this is his message to atheists.

But what he avoids like the plague is that many of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...see him as the atheist for not embracing the one true God. Their God, not his. Indeed, for all we know an extant God may be more outraged by those who worship another God than those who believe in No God at all.

They want him to reach out and to exam their own One True Path.

Instead, when confronted with all of the other religious denominations he just scoffs at them. They are all quite simply wrong. There can only be one Supreme Being. And the Christian Bible makes it abundantly clear it's not their God.

In fact, given IC's obsession with True Christianity, hell, even Catholics might be risking eternal damnation.

[Dontaskme]

Say something intelligent and relevant, or just don't bother.

If there was something other than God then God would not be God.
Why would an all one God and only God need to test whether he exists or not when he already exists?
Who is the ''other'' who is invited to seek out God, if God is everything.

There you go, something intelligent.

But it seems you are deliberately avoiding adressing these questions because you do not understand that reality is nondual, because you have no capacity to believe or understand nonduality...

ok fair enough..keep clingling to your delusions/fantasies, and lies, aka man-made stories and beliefs.

[iambiguous]

I believe Cinderella exists, I've seen her in a Disney Movie.

That's a good comment on subjective morality, actually: "I imagined my actions were moral, so they were."

Or...

I imagine that the Christian God exists, so He does.

I imagine that Christian morality is the Way to immortality and salvation, so it is.

Or, perhaps, "I believe Jesus Christ does exist because I saw Him in The Passion of the Christ."

Amen.

[Dontaskme]

I believe Cinderella exists, I've seen her in a Disney Movie.

That's a good comment on subjective morality, actually: "I imagined my actions were moral, so they were."

Or...

I imagine that the Christian God exists, so He does.

I imagine that Christian morality is the Way to immortality and salvation, so it is.

Or, perhaps, "I believe Jesus Christ does exist because I saw Him in The Passion of the Christ."

Amen.

Spot on.

[Immanuel Can]

Well my idea was to do it the other way round, and start with a moral issue that we wanted guidance on. I think that would more closely replicate a real life situation, as most people aren't Bible experts to start with.

Well, since both law codes and moral codes started with religious prohibitions and approbations, I would say that the "real life" way was to go the other direction. However, that's not so important.

What is important, however is that there's really no way to do what you're suggesting, I think.

Let's take homosexuality as an example. How do we go about moving from that to a commandment, since the matter under dispute is the moral status of homosexuality itself? We can't deduce from our visceral approval of, or antipathy to it, because what we want to find out is what its objective moral status is, not merely our subjective emotional reaction to it.

So where do we go from there? We can't assume that because, say, Harbal has an instinctive sympathy for homosexuality that a code that prohibits it would be immoral, or that a code that allows or lauds it would be moral. That's the question we're trying to decide: so we would be committing the logical fault of "assuming our conclusion," if we judged various moral codes by their conformity to our existing prejudices, wouldn't we?

I don't think I quite follow you, but no matter, we can go to the 10 commandments if you like.

Well, if you don't have a particular interest in the Decalogue, we can do something more neutral, maybe.

Let's take something really fundamental, one of the few things about which objective morality and subjective morality really do seem to agree...there's not much, but there is this: incest. All societies, and practically every subjective index human beings have seem to agree that this one action is absolutely morally reprehensible.

Can you and I agree that incest...not, say, the mere marriage of cousins, but predatory fornication among consanguinous cellular family members, like a father or mother and a child...is really a morally wrong act?

if it is, what makes it wrong? Is it merely that, totally arbitrarily, society doesn't like it? Or is there really something fundamentally, objectively wrong with a person performing that sort of action?

[Dontaskme]

IC You appear to be very SMUG about you're knowledge of God

Even though you have absolutely no idea how to explain what God is. No idea at all, but that's fine, as long as God exists for you, there is nothing anyone communicating with you can do to oppose your God.

So, yeah, you have every reason to be SMUG about you're knowledge of God. But be that as it may, you are still stuck in the hopeless situation of NOT being able to explain to others how your God exists, or what your God looks like, or where your God comes from, or why your God exists at all.

So yeah, Dream on.

Until you can explain God to others in your own words and stop parroting the words of the Bible, that you did not write btw, then you'll just be an echo without a voice of your own.

[Immanuel Can]

The important point is rather that the Atheist claims to have no evidence for God, while refusing to set any test for evidence. It's exactly what one would expect: no test, no results.

1) Doesn't one typically only test for what they think might exist? Generally, if someone goes looking for something, they are already motivated to find it.

God fits that. We have no particular reason to think He doesn't exist, and the vast majority of people find it plausible to think He might. So a test would be appropriate, in such a case.

2) Life is continually full of proof and revelations that human beings do not expect or test for, so why would proof for an all-powerful, ever-present god rely on individual human belief and tests, such that an unproven god is the fault of a human being?

The meaning of the wording here is not clear to me. God doesn't "rely" on things, nor does His existence require the assent of "human beings." So maybe you can reword?

3) Again, many atheists were previously theists,

This is true in some cases. But statistically, there aren't "many" Atheists. And they tend to fit a particular demographic profile, as well...male, of middle-high intelligence, converting to Atheism in their teens, with troubled relationships with their fathers, and so on. The research on this has been done.

Many atheists have demonstrated heartfelt desire and commitment to explore theism

This is the opposite of what you said above. You said Atheists "were previously theists," and then that they had a "heartfelt desire to explore theism." So which is it? Were these imagined Atheists of yours already Theists but left it, or were they dispassionate outsiders earnestly seeking to explore that which they did not understand yet?

You can't be talking about the same Atheists, in both cases, obviously.

[Immanuel Can]

Say something intelligent and relevant, or just don't bother.

If there was something other than God then God would not be God.

I see. It was too much to ask of you. Gottit.