Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

It would just be plain wrong to dignify that rubbish with a response, IC.

Don't be wrong. It's so sad when people are wrong.

[bahman]

Let's put it this way: You cannot deny the fossils that remain from all species. Can you? If not, then it means that the act of creation of humans was gradual and not spontaneous as it is declared in the Bible.

Again, the whole point of embracing God and religion is to anchor "I" in one or another rendition of moral Commandments and in one or another rendition of immortality and salvation. All this "philosophical" stuff changes none of that.

In fact, I once met a woman at Essex Community College, a staunch Catholic, who insisted that all those fossils [dinosaurs and such] were actually planted in the ground by God Himself. Why? Because it was a way to test our faith in Him. A leap of faith has little or nothing to do with reasons, she insisted. You worship and adore God despite all of the many reasons not to.

Such as these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

I heard about that kind of belief. Thanks for reminding me.

[Harbal]

I don't think it makes any difference whether God exists or not.

Then you're the only person who thinks so. It's pretty clear it's the consideration that makes the most difference in the world possible.

Here I'm more inclined to agree with IC.

Each of us as individuals will come to our own subjective conclusions regarding God. The part I root existentially in dasein. But from my own frame of mind "here and now", if objective morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side are important to you, it makes all the difference in the world that He does exist.

Well let me modify it by saying it makes no difference to me. I can't say there is not something that fits within someone's definition of the word God, but it is blindingly obvious it takes absolutely no interest in the minutiae of our insignificant little human lives. Whether you believe in God or not might make a difference to how you feel, but it's not going to make a difference to anything else.

[bahman]

Well, if you'll forgive me, a "layman's knowledge" often doesn't amount to very much. Often it's just an assemblage of second-hand predispositions, absent any real or first-hand knowledge. It doesn't even entail knowledge of the key issues, I'm sad to say. So perhaps you're giving yourself too little credit. We can hope so.

And from where do you know what the Bible says is credible?

I was speaking to Harbal, about his statement that he had "layman's knowledge" of the Bible and science. I wasn't making a comprehensive argument for Biblical authority, even though I could. However, even if one does not agree that the Bible is true, one has to acknowledge that "layman's knowledge" of anything is often not very much.

What is your evidence? You had no spiritual experience, you have no data to confirm that what the Bible says is true...

[Gary Childress]

At what point did God create Adam and Eve?

May I recommend a reading of Genesis 1-3? It would take you all of 15 minutes, and save me going over some territory we should all already know.

No need to. Am I correct that Adam and Eve were created a few days after the other animals? Isn't that what the Bible states? Am I wrong?

[Immanuel Can]

And from where do you know what the Bible says is credible?

I was speaking to Harbal, about his statement that he had "layman's knowledge" of the Bible and science. I wasn't making a comprehensive argument for Biblical authority, even though I could. However, even if one does not agree that the Bible is true, one has to acknowledge that "layman's knowledge" of anything is often not very much.

What is your evidence?

For what? "Layman's" inherently means, "somebody who's not really in the know."

[Immanuel Can]

At what point did God create Adam and Eve?

May I recommend a reading of Genesis 1-3? It would take you all of 15 minutes, and save me going over some territory we should all already know.

No need to.

Apparently, you don't even know the first thing about Genesis. So yeah, there's a need to.

[bahman]

I was speaking to Harbal, about his statement that he had "layman's knowledge" of the Bible and science. I wasn't making a comprehensive argument for Biblical authority, even though I could. However, even if one does not agree that the Bible is true, one has to acknowledge that "layman's knowledge" of anything is often not very much.

What is your evidence?

For what? "Layman's" inherently means, "somebody who's not really in the know."

Evidence for the Bible is true. I cannot simply agree with the Bible and the story within. Think of Noha's story: Is it feasible to you that a man could make a ship that can accommodate a pair from all species?

[Gary Childress]

May I recommend a reading of Genesis 1-3? It would take you all of 15 minutes, and save me going over some territory we should all already know.

No need to.

Apparently, you don't even know the first thing about Genesis. So yeah, there's a need to.

Well, let's look at the text together then. Will this link suffice?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Would you say that this appears to be the writing of the Bible?

[Gary Childress]

I'm going to go fix dinner. I'll be back in a little while in hope that by that time you'll have confirmed whether or not the text above is indeed from the Bible.

[Gary Childress]

So without IC's input at this point, I'll go ahead and say that it appears to me that the Bible runs counterfactual to the fossil record. It seems difficult to believe that the fossil record could be made to show that every living species on Earth was created on the same day, human beings included.

Now we know that it is claimed by some that a "day" in the Bible actually refers to an "epoch".

So my next question is, will the clergy ever fix what is allegedly a mistranslation of Hebrew or Sanskrit or whatever? Or is there any English version of the Bible that correctly replaces the word "day" with the word "epoch" in Genesis? A simple "yes there are" or "no there aren't" will suffice.

I mean, if the Bible were a high school science text book that stated evolution happened in days instead of billions of years, academic scientists would be roaring to have the error corrected. As it stands now there are (according to Google) around 2.38 billion Christians in the world. How many of those people are running around with a grossly mistranslated version of God's word, thinking that carbon dating must be completely irrelevant because it doesn't confirm what their mistranslated Bibles say about the time span of creation? I mean, how anti-education is that? Possibly up to 2.38 billion people rejecting the latest scientific discoveries because they're running around with an outdated version of a book that has been grossly mistranslated for (maybe) at least 2000 years. Common, IC. When is the Vatican going to get its act together and pull the inaccurate texts?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Excerpt from The Human Situation by W. Macneile Dixon (Delivered to The Gifford Lectures 1935-1937):

ALLOW, SINCE YOU CANNOT DENY, that this strange being, man, is nature's architecture. Allow, as you must allow, that she has not limited his desires to material goods, or mere physical well-being. Look how he is willing to sacrifice them, vitam impendere vero, to stake his life for the truth, for his soul's satisfaction -- a remarkable peculiarity in a worm of the dust. This worm will die for his creed, his country, his honour; a very delicate matter to account for by chemical reactions. To find the way to truth men have endured thirst and hunger, meditated in caves, on mountain tops, scourged themselves, stood motionless on pillars, undertaken lacerating pilgrimages, dedicated themselves to eternal silence, tortured their minds and bodies to destruction. Strange inhabitants are we of a world so strange that at one moment the heart aches at its loveliness, at another aches at its miseries, so strange that when we think of death we are in love with life, when of life we are enamoured of death. What kind of beings are we in fact? Whatever we are, never forget that we are nature's children, her contradictions are ours, ours also her talents and graces.

Questions in plenty throng upon us, questions to which no convincing answers have been given-the origin of things, the existence of God,time and space, the nature of mind, the mean-ing of life, the fate of the soul. Plato cannot inform us, nor Newton, nor Kant, nor Darwin. What is our business in the world, if we have any, and how are we to occupy ourselves while its tenants? An idle question, no doubt, for most men anxiously engaged, as the majority are engaged, in the task of keeping body and soul together, clinging to life with apparently no other aim save clinging to life.

But can we indeed be said to have any task in the world at all?Is it to seek pleasure and happiness, or, setting these aside, to prepare ourselves for another and wholly different world to come? -- a question which has sharply divided opinion. If to find happiness here is the wise man's endeavour, how best to secure it? If in another place, of what kind is it likely to be, and how are we to prepare ourselves for it? Should we concern ourselves with the lives of others, to secure their happiness, or pursue our own independently, seeking, after the manner of some ascetics and quietists, an existence as far withdrawn as pos-sible from the activities of human society? If, on the other hand, it is of the community and our neighbours we should chiefly think, should we endeavour to provide what they tell us would satisfy them, or what we, armed with superior wisdom, know would be much better for them, since by the grace of God we always have that knowledge? How easy are generalisations, and how futile. Does kindness to animals, for example,which we are all persuaded is a duty, include kindness to the wolf and the scorpion, the locust, the tsetse fly and the mosquito?Controversy upon most matters of consequence appears likely to be acute and prolonged.

How, we may further ask, are the proper principles of living to be discovered at all? If you propose to take nature as your guide, tell us what morality is taught by nature. What is her own morality? Has she in fact any? If not, is there a divine revela-tion enjoining us to eschew her ways, as perhaps antiquated, and to substitute other and better ways? We hear much of the preference of men for goodness, truth and beauty. Is this noble preference any more.than an idiosyncrasy, an eccentricity,an interesting feature of the human species, distinguishing it among other animals, as his trunk distinguishes the elephant, or his hump the camel? Is it of any more intrinsic importance than a preference, let us say, for classical architecture over Gothic, or a vegetarian over a carnivorous diet?

Times so remarkable as those in which we are privileged to live brighten the intelligence. They are more than remarkable, they are revolutionary. Since the Renaissance there has been no such upheaval of thought, no such revaluation of values as in the century upon which we have entered. Now as then, within about fifty years, within the span of a single lifetime, all the old conceptions, the previous beliefs in science, in religion, in politics, have been wholly transformed; a change has taken place,we might almost say, in the inclination of the earth's orbit. We might fancy our planet had passed through some zone of cosmic disturbance. We are surrounded by specialists the most bril-liant in every branch of human enquiry. But for a conspectus, a unifying creed, the plain man knows not where to look, and is plunged in a sea of perplexity. He reads one book to find its conclusions flatly contradicted by the next he opens. One is reminded of the celebrated summing up by Mr. Justice Maule. 'Gentlemen of the jury -- If you believe the evidence of the plaintiff in this action, you will no doubt find for the defendant; if on the other hand you believe the evidence of the defendant, you will no doubt find for the plaintiff. But if, like myself, you believe the evidence of neither, God help you all! Gentlemen of the jury, you may consider your verdict.'

[Alexis Jacobi]

Did someone say "dinner"?

[Gary Childress]

Did someone say "dinner"?

Tortellini and brocolli this evening. Courtesy of chef Gary. I'm slowly climbing the culinary ladder from toast and hot chocolate to more complicated dishes requiring the reading of directions on the back of a package.

[iambiguous]

Then you're the only person who thinks so. It's pretty clear it's the consideration that makes the most difference in the world possible.

Here I'm more inclined to agree with IC.

Each of us as individuals will come to our own subjective conclusions regarding God. The part I root existentially in dasein. But from my own frame of mind "here and now", if objective morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side are important to you, it makes all the difference in the world that He does exist.

Well let me modify it by saying it makes no difference to me. I can't say there is not something that fits within someone's definition of the word God, but it is blindingly obvious it takes absolutely no interest in the minutiae of our insignificant little human lives. Whether you believe in God or not might make a difference to how you feel, but it's not going to make a difference to anything else.

I basically agree. But what doesn't change [for me] is that in the absence of God, we don't have access to moral commandments, to immortality and to salvation.

And those things become more or less important to us as individuals depending on the actual circumstances we find ourselves in. And depending on the extent to which our own personal experiences brought us closer to religion or further away from it. Me, I'm fractured and fragmented morally and when I'm gone I'm gone forever and ever. Oblivion.

Which is why my own focus here is less regarding what others believe about God and more regarding their capacity to demonstrate that what they believe is in fact true for all of us.