Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

So is the account in Genesis a literal description, or poetic license on the part of its author?

Is the account of The Big Bang literal or poetic? Is any Cosmological/Origin theory literal or poetic?

I don't know.

Some stuff happened. Now you are here. Asking how you got here.

I simply asked IC a question. I wasn't implying anything, or trying to make a point, so what are you getting at, exactly.

[Immanuel Can]

So is the account in Genesis a literal description, or poetic license on the part of its author?

I think it's literal. But I also think it's poetic. I do not think poets are automatically liars for being poets. It seems like a false dichotomy, to me; one may write the truth in poetic language or one may write falsehoods in poetic language.

So you probably have a follow-up question to that, I'm thinking...

Not really. I have been wondering for a while if you believe everything in the Bible to be literally true, and conforming exactly to the description written. I kept forgetting to ask you.

Oh.

Well, if you know about the Bible, you know that it contains various different kinds of writing: history, parable, poetry, prophecy, theology...so it's always important to understand the genre that's being employed. If, for example, somebody talks about "the four corners of the Earth," you could argue that he's unscientific and believes in flat, square planets...or you could simply realize he's being poetic, because north, south, east and west are four "corners." So there's a certain charitableness of spirit that is appropriate to intelligent reading. Those who don't exercise it end up sounding like dullards; but by the same measure, there is a duty to treat factual statements as factual.

The challenge with Genesis is that it's both poetic and literal. So there's some debate, for example, whether or not the Bible requires us to think in terms of creation in six solar days. But reasonable reading suggests that's wrong: because "day" is also used as a metaphor for "period of time," elsewhere in the Scripture; just as we, today, say things like "every dog has his day," meaning "every person has some period of time when his fortunes seem ascendant in some way." You get the idea, I'm sure.

In the same way, if something is marked as a parable by the context (such as the parable of the prodigal son, for example) we'd be very foolish to insist that the Bible is affirming there had to be a specific person who went through that narrative, or it's lying. The story's a parable. It's very clearly labelled in the text as a parable. It's offered as a wisdom narrative about a common human experience, rather than as a specific history of a person. So it's truthful, even though there was very probably no such person.

So we need to keep our genres straight; because the Bible isn't actually just one book or one kind of book; it's a library of 66 books, each with its own special function.

[Skepdick]

So is the account in Genesis a literal description, or poetic license on the part of its author?

Is the account of The Big Bang literal or poetic? Is any Cosmological/Origin theory literal or poetic?

I don't know.

Some stuff happened. Now you are here. Asking how you got here.

I simply asked IC a question. I wasn't implying anything, or trying to make a point, so what are you getting at, exactly.

No point. I am trying to determine whether you consider any of the accounts given as "poetic" or "literal".

Truth is a mobile army of metaphors after all...

[Harbal]

Is the account of The Big Bang literal or poetic? Is any Cosmological/Origin theory literal or poetic?

I don't know.

Some stuff happened. Now you are here. Asking how you got here.

I simply asked IC a question. I wasn't implying anything, or trying to make a point, so what are you getting at, exactly.

No point. I am trying to determine whether you consider any of the accounts given as "poetic" or "literal".

Truth is a mobile army of metaphors after all...

As far as the Bible is concerned, I don't know if it is meant to be taken literally.

[Skepdick]

As far as the Bible is concerned, I don't know if it is meant to be taken literally.

It's one thing how they are "meant" to be taken.
It's another how you actually take it.

Hence me asking you how whether you take The Big Bang theory literally or poetically.

[Harbal]

I think it's literal. But I also think it's poetic. I do not think poets are automatically liars for being poets. It seems like a false dichotomy, to me; one may write the truth in poetic language or one may write falsehoods in poetic language.

So you probably have a follow-up question to that, I'm thinking...

Not really. I have been wondering for a while if you believe everything in the Bible to be literally true, and conforming exactly to the description written. I kept forgetting to ask you.

Oh.

Well, if you know about the Bible, you know that it contains various different kinds of writing: history, parable, poetry, prophecy, theology...so it's always important to understand the genre that's being employed. If, for example, somebody talks about "the four corners of the Earth," you could argue that he's unscientific and believes in flat, square planets...or you could simply realize he's being poetic, because north, south, east and west are four "corners." So there's a certain charitableness of spirit that is appropriate to intelligent reading. Those who don't exercise it end up sounding like dullards; but by the same measure, there is a duty to treat factual statements as factual.

The challenge with Genesis is that it's both poetic and literal. So there's some debate, for example, whether or not the Bible requires us to think in terms of creation in six solar days. But reasonable reading suggests that's wrong: because "day" is also used as a metaphor for "period of time," elsewhere in the Scripture; just as we, today, say things like "every dog has his day," meaning "every person has some period of time when his fortunes seem ascendant in some way." You get the idea, I'm sure.

In the same way, if something is marked as a parable by the context (such as the parable of the prodigal son, for example) we'd be very foolish to insist that the Bible is affirming there had to be a specific person who went through that narrative, or it's lying. The story's a parable. It's very clearly labelled in the text as a parable. It's offered as a wisdom narrative about a common human experience, rather than as a specific history of a person. So it's truthful, even though there was very probably no such person.

So we need to keep our genres straight; because the Bible isn't actually just one book or one kind of book; it's a library of 66 books, each with its own special function.

I more or less know all this, even though I am not directly acquainted with the Bible. When I asked the question, I was thinking of things like the creation, and the account of Adam and Eve, and that of Noah and the flood. You might guess that I would be unable to accept any of these as being literally true, but neither can I see what they are pointing at if they are allegorical, so I can't help wondering how you think they are meant to be taken. I am asking out of curiosity, btw, not as an opening move in trying to start a new argument with you.

[Harbal]

As far as the Bible is concerned, I don't know if it is meant to be taken literally.

It's one thing how they are "meant" to be taken.
It's another how you actually take it.

Hence me asking you how whether you take The Big Bang theory literally or poetically.

I don' t know enough about physics to be able to understand the Big Bang theory, so I am in no position to take it in any particular way. I suppose when scientists are trying to describe what goes on at the atomic level to the public, they have to adopt a form of language that they would not use in the laboratory, in order for it to make any sense to us.

[iambiguous]

Your [Immanuel Can] assertion that humans can't be moral without God is pure fabrication and you either know it or you don't. If you don't then consider yourself now informed.

Unless, of course, he is able to actually demonstrate the existence of the Christian God. Then how could it not be true that any other morality [God or No God] is false?

You simply can't top omniscience and omnipotence when it comes to moral Commandments.

Of course humans can be moral without God. They need but think themselves into believing that one or another secular political ideology or deontological assessment or defense of biological imperatives is true objectively. Or they are indoctrinated by others into believing it.

The world is bursting at the seams with hundreds and hundreds of One True Paths to objective morality and/or immortality and salvation.

One way or another, we all make use of psychological defense mechanisms to anchor ourselves to one or another comforting and consoling moral font.

So, how can the bottom line not be that those who propose them are able to demonstrate why all rational men and women are obligated to embrace them in turn.

[FlashDangerpants]

Your [Immanuel Can] assertion that humans can't be moral without God is pure fabrication and you either know it or you don't. If you don't then consider yourself now informed.

Unless, of course, he is able to actually demonstrate the existence of the Christian God.

Surely for the purposes of discussing moral philosophy we can agree that any hypothesis that depends on God is at the very best moot subject to that determination, and for procedural puposes suspect/contended/unreliable within this sub.


Then every boring wanker who wants to spend their day arguing about whether there is or isn't a God can fuck off to the religion sub for that tedious endless waste of their time.

[Harbal]

Your [Immanuel Can] assertion that humans can't be moral without God is pure fabrication and you either know it or you don't. If you don't then consider yourself now informed.

Unless, of course, he is able to actually demonstrate the existence of the Christian God.

Surely for the purposes of discussing moral philosophy we can agree that any hypothesis that depends on God is at the very best moot subject to that determination, and for procedural puposes suspect/contended/unreliable within this sub.


Then every boring wanker who wants to spend their day arguing about whether there is or isn't a God can fuck off to the religion sub for that tedious endless waste of their time.

I don't see what difference it makes, because regardless of whether there is a God, we all know -even if we don't all acknowledge it- that most of our dealings with morality are of the strictly human kind. That's what morality is; how human beings think about and behave towards each other. The bloke who I bought my last car from probably had a debate with himself about whether or not to tell me it had quite a bad oil leak, and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have taken the wishes of God into account before he came to a decision. If a shop assistant gives you £5 too much change back, you either tell them or you don't, but who factors God into that choice?

Let those who believe in God talk amongst themselves about his rules, but it would be a completely pointless exercise for those of us who don't believe in God to join in.

Btw, he didn't mention anything about the oil leak, the bastard.

[FlashDangerpants]

Unless, of course, he is able to actually demonstrate the existence of the Christian God.

Surely for the purposes of discussing moral philosophy we can agree that any hypothesis that depends on God is at the very best moot subject to that determination, and for procedural puposes suspect/contended/unreliable within this sub.


Then every boring wanker who wants to spend their day arguing about whether there is or isn't a God can fuck off to the religion sub for that tedious endless waste of their time.

I don't see what difference it makes, because regardless of whether there is a God, we all know -even if we don't all acknowledge it- that most of our dealings with morality are of the strictly human kind. That's what morality is; how human beings think about and behave towards each other. The bloke who I bought my last car from probably had a debate with himself about whether or not to tell me it had quite a bad oil leak, and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have taken the wishes of God into account before he came to a decision. If a shop assistant gives you £5 too much change back, you either tell them or you don't, but who factors God into that choice?

Let those who believe in God talk amongst themselves about his rules, but it would be a completely pointless exercise for those of us who don't believe in God to join in.

Btw, he didn't mention anything about the oil leak, the bastard.

Indeed, that's all true because you never took "hiding the oil leak is sneaky and boo" and "hiding the oil leak is sneaky and wrong" to be sentences with identical conent was discused some months ago. We use words to describe rightness and wrongness because they are a working part of our normal language.

There's too many pages of religion in this topic for me to try and read back over the last 20 pages for a technical point. Did we end up with mister Can saying that what it actually means to say that X is bad is that X is contrary to the will of God? Or in ohter words "hiding the oil leak is sneaky and God-Boo". It would be awful if we had to coin the Frege-Dangerpants argument for him. Although technically the most awful bit would be trying to get IC to understand it this time.

[Skepdick]

Surely for the purposes of discussing moral philosophy we can agree that any hypothesis that depends on God is at the very best moot subject to that determination, and for procedural puposes suspect/contended/unreliable within this sub.

Surely for the purposes of discussing moral philosophy we can agree that any hypothesis that depends on determination is at the very best moot subject to that determination, and for procedural puposes suspect/contended/unreliable within this sub.

Then every boring wanker who wants to spend their day arguing about whether there is or isn't a God can fuck off to the religion sub for that tedious endless waste of their time.

Then every boring wanker who wants to spend their day arguing about whether there is or isn't Morality can fuck off to the religion sub for that tedious endless waste of their time.

If you are going to presuppose/determine Morality exists then theists are going to presuppose/determine God exists.

It's almost as if you want to wave your dictatorial wand and denounce any vocabularies other than your own...

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yeah, here's...

• Meaning of intuition in English. (knowledge from) an ability to understand or know something immediately based on your feelings rather than facts: Often there's no clear evidence one way or the other and you just have to base your judgment on intuition.
  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... /intuition

...your problem.


Try these...

Intuition

From The American Heritage® Dictionary...

noun: The faculty of knowing or understanding something without reasoning or proof.

noun: An impression or insight gained by the use of this faculty.

-----

From The Century Dictionary...

noun: A looking on; a sight or view.

noun: Direct or immediate cognition or perception; comprehension of ideas or truths independently of ratiocination; instinctive knowledge of the relations or consequences of ideas, facts, or actions.

noun: Specifically, in philosophy, an immediate cognition of an object as existent. [Some writers hold that the German Anschauung should not be translated by intuition. But this term is a part of the Kantian terminology, the whole of which was framed in Latin and translated into German, and this word in particular was used by Kant in his Latin writings in the form intuitus, and he frequently brackets this form after Anschauung, to make his meaning clear. Besides, the cognitio intuitiva of Scotus, who anticipated some of Kant's most important views on this subject, is almost identical with Kant's own definition of Anschauung. Intellectual intuition, used since Kant for an immediate cognition of the existence of God, was by the German mystics employed for their spiritual illumination (the term intuitio intellectualis was borrowed by them from Cardinal de Cusa), or light of nature.]

noun: Any object or truth discerned by direct cognition; a first or primary truth; a truth that cannot be acquired by but is assumed in experience.

noun: Pure, untaught knowledge.

-----

From the GNU version of the Collaborative International Dictionary of English...

noun obsolete: A looking after; a regard to.

noun: Direct apprehension or cognition; immediate knowledge, as in perception or consciousness; -- distinguished from “mediate” knowledge, as in reasoning;
; quick or ready insight or apprehension.

noun : Any object or truth discerned by intuition.

noun: Any quick insight, recognized immediately without a reasoning process; a belief arrived at unconsciously; -- often it is based on extensive experience of a subject.

noun: The ability to have insight into a matter without conscious thought.

-----

From Wiktionary...

noun: Immediate cognition without the use of conscious rational processes.

noun: A perceptive insight gained by the use of this faculty.

-----

From WordNet...

noun: instinctive knowing (without the use of rational processes)
noun: an impression that something might be the case

-----

You see the difference, yes?

Except for Kant's definition which is not relevant in this case
I don't see any difference at all. Note the bolded.

As I had stated, you merely use an unqualified term 'know' which is too loose and open.
So I asserted, your 'knowing' need to be qualified to knowing via intuition via feelings 'feel'.

Note this 3rd meaning of 'feel'.
feel = have a belief or impression, especially without an identifiable reason.

My point:
Your use of 'know' need to be qualified where the most appropriate is,
knowing by intuition [feelings -3rd],
not by reason, speculation, dreams, fiction, and the like.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Many more points occur... In no particular order:

1. It is particularly bizarre to witness you of all people accusing Prof. Blackburn and most other scholars, of projecting an absurd argument onto Kant. You still believe Boyd wrote an essay about me and Pete and Sculptor being moral antirealists because we lack cognitive function. That's the dumbest bullshit misreading ever, and you have stuck to it for years after "at least 20" reads of the source. So until you rectify that failure of yours, you can reel your neck in.

This is a strawman re Blackburn.
What Boyd implied is you, Pete and Sculptor as anti-moral_realists lack the moral cognition specifically within the sense of perceptual cognitive ability. I did not assert that you, Pete and Sculptor lack a cognitive function is other areas.
In contrast, people like Henry has high moral cognitive abilities thus his intuitive sense that there are objective moral facts.

You idiot. Of course he didn't make that argument, you read the apper 20 times and you failed to get the point even once, and now you still don't get it.

I thought you have turned over a new leaf.
Now you're back with unpleasantries which vexes the intellectual function diverting attention to the reptilian brain.
Its leopards and their spots.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I simply ask Atheists what test they have performed to convince themselves that God doesn't exist, and they tell me they have none. Some even boast that they think they don't need one. And then they want to insist they don't owe me an answer.

I've never met a single Atheist that has a test for whether or not God exists. Not one.

It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229

You have not given an effective counter to the above argument.

A good example of an argument being vastly overestimated by an Atheist. Thank you. It quite proves my contention that Atheists are sometimes far too easily impressed with arguments based on fundamental and obvious mistakes.

That being the case, it was never worth refuting.

I have the onus to correct any mistakes.
Can you give me an idea of what are the fundamental and obvious mistakes in my argument?