Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

to lubricate the stunted, blasphemous self-concept?

Did you mean to turn this into a laughing matter, Walker?

[Immanuel Can]

What, exactly, does the Bible have to say about incest?

Well, things like: "If there is a man who takes his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, so that he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the sons of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he bears his guilt." (Lev. 20:17) There is a whole list of such prohibitions.

You could explain why my idea of subjective moral judgement isn't viable for ever and a day, but I will only get a real sense of how weak it is if I am able to compare it to the real thing.

The opposite should be the case, rationally speaking: if there is no objective basis to morality, then sure, objectivism would be weak; but not only is objectivism weak (or more precisely, dead) but subjectivism still remains that way too -- it lacks even the false pretext of referring to anything real or obligatory: and thus, ALL morality is completely weak -- hence, moral nihilism would be the logical response.

So denying objectivism can't save subjectivism. It can, however, serve the argument for moral nihilism.

[Lacewing]

They have no good reason for their Atheism.

Wrong. Of course they do.

Why wouldn't an all-powerful, ever-present god clarify the singular truth for all, providing proof that is witnessed by everyone?

He has. They didn't like it.

Wrong. Why are there so many different types of theism?

Why is it left up to humans to see and agree despite so many diverse paths that claim to be the ONE path?

It's not. Mankind has enough information to make the right decision. The problem is not a matter of information, but one of will.

So between an all-powerful god and limited human man, everything is the limited human man's fault. Only a limited human man would make that up.

Why would any archaic book be the guide book for all time?

If it's just an "archaic guidebook," particularly one that was merely a human artifact, it wouldn't be. But then, that doesn't describe what the Bible actually is.

Actually, that does describe what it is. It's nonsense to think that it's such an enduring and sole directive from an ever-present god. The usefulness of it is for man's manipulation through interpreting it. It's convoluted and stagnant, and completely medieval as a representation for a vibrant, present, all-powerful god. The ability of theism to manipulate for self-service is evidently what actually appeals to you.

Let me reverse the question to you: if God did send a revelation of Himself for the good of humanity, at what point in history is the right point for Him to have sent it?

It doesn't make sense that God needs to 'send' anything at any 'point'. Neither does it make sense that there must be interpreters.

...hypnotizing power of human belief and potential that can tie one to a theist framework and create one's dependency on it...

Is your question, "How do we know we're not just believing in something because we want to believe in it? That's how I'm presently understanding it. Or have I missed some element of your question in my simplifying of it?

In considering all the different types of theism, can you recognize IN OTHERS the hypnotizing power their beliefs have on them, and the dependency that creates for them? To the point they can't see anything else.

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."

It's not the opposite at all.

It is, actually.

No, it's not, actually.

why would Atheists be "exploring" a thing they already know, let alone "demonstrate heartfelt desire and commitment" to find out things they already know?

You're convoluting this into unrecognizable nonsense.

Or are you trying to say something like, "These Atheists used to really believe Theism, but now they don't...and they were sincere," or something like that?

Yes, that is what I was saying. Not that hard to see.

The claim was not that they weren't "sincere" in some vague sense; it's that they never had a method for knowing how to test whether or not God existed, and so they just disbelieved by gratuitious will.

Wrong.

If an Atheist says, "There is no God," you have the same right: you should ask, "How did you find that out?" And if he has no good answer, you have no reason at all to take his claim seriously.

Many good answers and reasons have been put forth on this forum by many people. Your perspective is locked in from one angle, and cannot consider shifting to see any other angles. Your own answers -- for the claims you make -- don't hold water when you are questioned. The difference is that your claims suggest condemnation for all who don't believe as you do. And in fact, you dismiss theists who do not believe EXACTLY as you do. So, of course you do not see any other good answers or reasons. You are focused on sitting alone in self-righteousness beside your god.

You do not know what people have tested for themselves

What we do know -- both you and I know -- is that if somebody, by their own admission, has no test in the first place, then they haven't tested anything. It's just that simple.

People test and assess continually in their own ways. And not everyone feels compelled to 'test' what other people believe. You don't.

[Harbal]

What, exactly, does the Bible have to say about incest?

Well, things like: "If there is a man who takes his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, so that he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the sons of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he bears his guilt." (Lev. 20:17) There is a whole list of such prohibitions.

But it doesn't say why the man should bear guilt, it only says that he does. That is what I mean when I say that God just issues rules, and without an explanation for the rules, how are we to understand the reason for them, and if we don't understand the reason for them, how are we to know the seriousness of the consequences of breaking them? How would we know if, "don't spy on your sister taking a bath", is more or less important than, "Keep Off The Grass"?

And what if the man and his sister, his father's daughter or his mother's daughter, lay together (is that the right term?) but keep their clothes on, or wait until it's really dark?

[Immanuel Can]

They have no good reason for their Atheism.

Wrong. Of course they do.

Great.

List those reasons.

Why wouldn't an all-powerful, ever-present god clarify the singular truth for all, providing proof that is witnessed by everyone?

He has. They didn't like it.

Wrong. Why are there so many different religions?

Non-sequitur. It does not follow that if there are many wrong answers to some question, there's less likely to be a right one.

Why is it left up to humans to see and agree despite so many diverse paths that claim to be the ONE path?

It's not. Mankind has enough information to make the right decision. The problem is not a matter of information, but one of will.

So between an all-powerful god and limited human man, everything is the limited human man's fault.

Analytically (meaning "by definition of things"), if human beings have free will about God, then it means they have the freedom to disbelieve in Him, if they wish to do so. It doesn't imply they don't have sufficient reason to believe, nor that their problem is not one of will. It just means that "freedom" means having a choice between things.

Why would any archaic book be the guide book for all time?

If it's just an "archaic guidebook," particularly one that was merely a human artifact, it wouldn't be. But then, that doesn't describe what the Bible actually is.

Actually, that does describe what it is.

No, it doesn't, of course. Most of what's in it is not "guidebook" stuff at all. Much of it is narrative, some of it is poetry, lots of it is history, some is ethics, and so on. If you read it, I assure you that you would not be in doubt of that at all.

Let me reverse the question to you: if God did send a revelation of Himself for the good of humanity, at what point in history is the right point for Him to have sent it?

It doesn't make sense that God needs to 'send' anything at any 'point'. Neither does it make sense that there must be interpreters.

Sure it does. If one sends a message, then the recipient has to "interpret" it. That's as true of this message as of any other. And if God does not speak at all, then how would any of us know who He is, or what He asks of us?

...can you recognize IN OTHERS the hypnotizing power their beliefs have on them,

What are you thinking of? Wokies? Leftists? Communists? Feminists? Or were you assuming that only if the term "religious" can be attached to cultic thinking can the belief be "hypnotizing"?

I actually think the word is a little misleading: what happens is not so much "hypnotism," which suggests a sort of loss of normal cognitions, as that people get ideologically committed to particular beliefs, and then begin to build their lives around the assumptions of that ideology, and can become resistant and unreasonable when they're challenged, because changing one's beliefs can involve all sorts of consequences they have been trusting their ideology to fend off.

But the same is true of all human ideologies...and the fault is a human one.

why would Atheists be "exploring" a thing they already know, let alone "demonstrate heartfelt desire and commitment" to find out things they already know?

You're convoluting this into unrecognizable nonsense.

That's what it is, to me. You can't say that the Atheists both know what Theism's about (because they were allegedly Theists already) and that they need to "explore" Theism. Those two things don't make sense together.

Or are you trying to say something like, "These Atheists used to really believe Theism, but now they don't...and they were sincere," or something like that?

Yes, that is what I was saying. Not that hard to see.

Then I wish that was what you had said. It would have made it easier to understand.

But I doubt that's how it is, at least in the majority of cases; for I find the objections Atheists throw up against Atheism tend to fall into a very small group of very predictable and superficial claims. I think that if they were trying harder to understand Theism, they'd have more sophisticated criticisms. It actually gets quite boring when we Theists have to respond to the same few canards over, and over, and over, because Atheists think in such small grooves.

All I can tell you is that there are lots of good books that show this. And I recommend Andy Bannister's The Atheist Who Didn't Exist.

The claim was not that they weren't "sincere" in some vague sense; it's that they never had a method for knowing how to test whether or not God existed, and so they just disbelieved by gratuitious will.

Wrong.

It's right, actually.

If you think it's not, then what is their method? Stating it will prove your point.

People test and assess continually in their own ways.

Maybe. But some tests are foolish, and some do not reconcile with their subject matter. So sometimes "their own ways" are very counterproductive to finding anything out.

So let's see this "method" you allege that Atheists are using, and see if it appeals to us as a reasonable way to find out whether or not God exists.

What is it?

[Immanuel Can]

What, exactly, does the Bible have to say about incest?

Well, things like: "If there is a man who takes his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, so that he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the sons of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he bears his guilt." (Lev. 20:17) There is a whole list of such prohibitions.

But it doesn't say why the man should bear guilt, it only says that he does.

"Why?" Because incest is an offence against God. It's contrary to His nature and will. That's the grounds of all morality.

...without an explanation for the rules, how are we to understand the reason for them...

That's why it's necessary for God to reveal to us what He wants. We don't instinctively get everything right, because human beings are very fallible, and their judgment isn't always good. So God must speak, or we will not know what we need to know in order to do the morally right thing. He has to reveal His nature and will to us...because we're not going to figure them out on our own.

But I don't think you're particularly concerned about this, are you? I mean, you're not considering something inappropriate for yourself...

So maybe we should be focusing on justifying an objective or subjective moral theory, no?

[FlashDangerpants]

Well, things like: "If there is a man who takes his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, so that he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the sons of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he bears his guilt." (Lev. 20:17) There is a whole list of such prohibitions.

But it doesn't say why the man should bear guilt, it only says that he does.

"Why?" Because incest is an offence against God. It's contrary to His nature and will. That's the grounds of all morality.

And therefore the only way to know what moral facts there are is to ask God. And anybody who works any other way is condemned to systematic error?

[Immanuel Can]

But it doesn't say why the man should bear guilt, it only says that he does.

"Why?" Because incest is an offence against God. It's contrary to His nature and will. That's the grounds of all morality.

And therefore the only way to know what moral facts there are is to ask God. And anybody who works any other way is condemned to systematic error?

Anybody who works another way will have to hope their moral conscience is functioning 100% perfectly. If it is, they'll be just fine.

[Harbal]

Well, things like: "If there is a man who takes his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, so that he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the sons of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he bears his guilt." (Lev. 20:17) There is a whole list of such prohibitions.

But it doesn't say why the man should bear guilt, it only says that he does.

"Why?" Because incest is an offence against God. It's contrary to His nature and will. That's the grounds of all morality.

And human beings are rational creatures; it is contrary to our nature not to ask why and how. That is what has taken us from the cave to the Moon. That is what we do. I think it is unrealistic to expect people to blindly obey rules without being given a reason for them. And even if one were to accept that God, as our creator, is owed our unswerving obedience, that still leaves questions to be answered before we give it.

How do we know there is a God at all? How do we know that those who put down the words in the Bible knew anything about the nature of God, or what he wants of us?

without an explanation for the rules, how are we to understand the reason for them...

That's why it's necessary for God to reveal to us what He wants. We don't instinctively get everything right, because human beings are very fallible, and their judgment isn't always good. So God must speak, or we will not know what we need to know in order to do the morally right thing.

But the Bible doesn't tell us what we need to know, it only dictates what we must do. Maybe God doesn't care what a man does with his sister, but perhaps the man who wrote down that passage has an attitude of his own about that sort of thing. How can we ever be sure?

But I don't think you're particularly concerned about this, are you? I mean, you're not considering something inappropriate for yourself...

I don't know what you mean.

So maybe we should be focusing on justifying an objective or subjective moral theory, no?

I don't think there is any point in bothering with a subjective moral theory, because you would only be setting it up to knock it down. Besides, you have already made it abundantly clear what you think of any theory of subjective morality. But, by all means, go ahead with trying to justify an objective theory.

[FlashDangerpants]

"Why?" Because incest is an offence against God. It's contrary to His nature and will. That's the grounds of all morality.

And therefore the only way to know what moral facts there are is to ask God. And anybody who works any other way is condemned to systematic error?

Anybody who works another way will have to hope their moral conscience is functioning 100% perfectly. If it is, they'll be just fine.

That's an odd claim. It's possible to have a perfect, but accidental moral conscience? But there's no systematic way to know who has that without relgious ritual?

[Immanuel Can]

But it doesn't say why the man should bear guilt, it only says that he does.

"Why?" Because incest is an offence against God. It's contrary to His nature and will. That's the grounds of all morality.

And human beings are rational creatures; it is contrary to our nature not to ask why and how. That is what has taken us from the cave to the Moon. That is what we do.

Great. Then explain how rationality can inform us about morality.

I think it is unrealistic to expect people to blindly obey rules without being given a reason for them.

Well, we are given the reason. It's just that maybe it's not the reason you wanted to hear. It's because obeying the moral rules makes us more fit and more intelligent for relationship with God, which is our ultimate good.

If you've got a better "reason," then I'm all ears.

How do we know there is a God at all?

Because we all do. He's revealed his existence to us. (Romans 1)

without an explanation for the rules, how are we to understand the reason for them...

That's why it's necessary for God to reveal to us what He wants. We don't instinctively get everything right, because human beings are very fallible, and their judgment isn't always good. So God must speak, or we will not know what we need to know in order to do the morally right thing.

But the Bible doesn't tell us what we need to know,[/quote]
Actually, it does. But what you need to know and what you might want to know are sometimes two different things.

You might want to know the exact dimensions of the universe. But you don't. Moreover, you don't need to know that in order to live your life successfully, as what you are made to be. You can carry on just fine without that particular piece of information: but you could still want it.

But I don't think you're particularly concerned about this, are you? I mean, you're not considering something inappropriate for yourself...

I don't know what you mean.

Well, is incest your current issue? It's not mine, I have to say. Its utility as a discussion topic is that it's one of the few truly universal taboos human beings have, so I thought you might be prepared to accept is as a fundamental evil. But if not, then its utility is gone, and we can move on.

Is there anything you regard categorically as evil or wrong? Or anything as categorically good?

[Immanuel Can]

And therefore the only way to know what moral facts there are is to ask God. And anybody who works any other way is condemned to systematic error?

Anybody who works another way will have to hope their moral conscience is functioning 100% perfectly. If it is, they'll be just fine.

That's an odd claim. It's possible to have a perfect, but accidental moral conscience?

I didn't say it was possible at all.

I said that IF such were the case, they'd be fine. But is that the case?

[FlashDangerpants]

Anybody who works another way will have to hope their moral conscience is functioning 100% perfectly. If it is, they'll be just fine.

That's an odd claim. It's possible to have a perfect, but accidental moral conscience?

I didn't say it was possible at all.

I said that IF such were the case, they'd be fine. But is that the case?

I'm asking really if there is any link between human reason on thesubject of morality and actual truth of the matter. Is there any systematic way for humans to arrive at moral truth that doesn't require the intervention of a divine being?

[Immanuel Can]

That's an odd claim. It's possible to have a perfect, but accidental moral conscience?

I didn't say it was possible at all.

I said that IF such were the case, they'd be fine. But is that the case?

I'm asking really if there is any link between human reason on thesubject of morality and actual truth of the matter. Is there any systematic way for humans to arrive at moral truth that doesn't require the intervention of a divine being?

Kant tried. Mill tried. Aristotle and Aquinas tried. Others have tried. By consensus of serious moral philosophers, including all the secular ones, they've all failed. What do you recommend they try next?

[FlashDangerpants]

I didn't say it was possible at all.

I said that IF such were the case, they'd be fine. But is that the case?

I'm asking really if there is any link between human reason on thesubject of morality and actual truth of the matter. Is there any systematic way for humans to arrive at moral truth that doesn't require the intervention of a divine being?

Kant tried. Mill tried. Aristotle and Aquinas tried. Others have tried. By consensus of serious moral philosophers, including all the secular ones, they've all failed. What do you recommend they try next?

I'm asking really if there is any link between human reason on thesubject of morality and actual truth of the matter. Is there any systematic way for humans to arrive at moral truth that doesn't require the intervention of a divine being?


Sometimes I envy Harbal's ability to get a straight answer to a straight question out of you.