Is morality objective or subjective?

[bahman]

To be with God, to live in a cursed world, and then return to Him IF He chooses us according to His grace,

No, that's determinism. That's not good Christian theology.

That is what happened to Adam and Eve.

That, you can answer yourself. The fact that you are pursuing "sinlessness" bespeaks that you know you don't have it.

I am trying my best...

Who told you that your "best" is good enough? I thought "sinlessness," moral perfection was your aim.

Yes, that is one of my aims. And another one is to know the truth.

Well, if the truth is limited then we can for sure find it given enough amount of time.

What reason do you have to imagine that truth is "limited"? And you'll need it to be "limited" enough for the amount of "time" you have...which is about 78 years, on the average, and for the fact of your bodily limitedness, in that you can't be everywhere, or even most places, to discover the relevant sufficiency of truth...

Looks like you've cut yourself a task you'll never do.

By we I mean humans, not only me. I don't know if the truth is finite or not. I said if.

[Immanuel Can]

...what are generally accepted as Christian principles,...

Now you're talking. What would those "principles" actually be?

Well I said that not all Christians seem to regard the Bible as being literally true,

Okay, that's your assumption: that for somebody to be a Christian, they don't have to believe the Bible is literally true?

The trick, of course, is to be able to say what "literally true" looks like. Because if somebody is the sort of unrefined literalist who thinks, for example, that what is clearly marked as poetry, parable or analogy has to have actually happened in real life, then that person isn't actually a "literalist," but a sort of "hyper-literalist," or "over-literalist" who's gone beyond what the text itself will even warrant. But I don't see you as wanting to get involved in a discussion of that sort, so I'll leave that aside.

Really, the question is not about general interpretation, but about whatever is the mininum a person can believe and still be a Christian. So it doesn't really matter whether a person believes in a epoch Creation or a six-day Creation, for example, because the Bible itself does not make that a test of faith. But there are some things that the Bible does explicitly make a test of faith, and these are the non-negotiables that make a person a Christian. And a lot is said about these particular beliefs. For example, 1 John 5:1 reads very simply, "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God..." That's pretty clear.

There's some detail to fill out, of course, such as "what does it mean to be 'born of God,'" "what is 'the Christ'", and "in what does 'belief' consist," but for the most part, this is a good opening statement of what makes a person a real Christian or not.

[Immanuel Can]

To be with God, to live in a cursed world, and then return to Him IF He chooses us according to His grace,

No, that's determinism. That's not good Christian theology.

That is what happened to Adam and Eve.

It's not, actually. They made a choice. Determinism assumes there's no such thing as a choice.

I am trying my best...

Who told you that your "best" is good enough? I thought "sinlessness," moral perfection was your aim.

Yes, that is one of my aims.

Then you are confessing that you are not there yet. How are you assured that your "best," as you call it, is "far enough" to satify the demands of the perfect justice of a perfect God?

Well, if the truth is limited then we can for sure find it given enough amount of time.

What reason do you have to imagine that truth is "limited"? And you'll need it to be "limited" enough for the amount of "time" you have...which is about 78 years, on the average, and for the fact of your bodily limitedness, in that you can't be everywhere, or even most places, to discover the relevant sufficiency of truth...

Looks like you've cut yourself a task you'll never do.

By we I mean humans, not only me.

That does you absolutely no good. The human race itself is not infinite, but mortal, limited, local and flawed. Whatever ultimate truth is out there, you can be quite certain already it will never be possessed by the human race. But even if the human race could somehow do the impossible, and drink the ocean of possible truth that's out there, how would that help you? You'll be personally long dead before any such thing could even be possible.

[Harbal]

Now you're talking. What would those "principles" actually be?

Well I said that not all Christians seem to regard the Bible as being literally true,

Okay, that's your assumption: that for somebody to be a Christian, they don't have to believe the Bible is literally true?

I wouldn't call it an assumption. I just know that there are some people who call themselves Christian, but are not Bible literalists.

The trick, of course, is to be able to say what "literally true" looks like. Because if somebody is the sort of unrefined literalist who thinks, for example, that what is clearly marked as poetry, parable or analogy has to have actually happened in real life, then that person isn't actually a "literalist," but a sort of "hyper-literalist," or "over-literalist" who's gone beyond what the text itself will even warrant. But I don't see you as wanting to get involved in a discussion of that sort, so I'll leave that aside.

Is the Adam and Eve story poetry, parable or analogy, or is it meant to be taken literally?

But there are some things that the Bible does explicitly make a test of faith, and these are the non-negotiables that make a person a Christian. And a lot is said about these particular beliefs. For example, 1 John 5:1 reads very simply, "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God..." That's pretty clear.

There's some detail to fill out, of course, such as "what does it mean to be 'born of God,'" "what is 'the Christ'", and "in what does 'belief' consist," but for the most part, this is a good opening statement of what makes a person a real Christian or not.

Well that's not clear at all without knowledge of the "detail", and I don't have that knowledge. So what is "the Christ"?

[Immanuel Can]

Is the Adam and Eve story poetry, parable or analogy, or is it meant to be taken literally?

I would say that it's literal. And anybody who believes otherwise is going to end up with some serious theological contradictions to deal with. But is it a heaven-or-hell matter? That's a lot less certain. I wouldn't stand on that, the way I'd stand on something like 1 John 5:1.

But there are some things that the Bible does explicitly make a test of faith, and these are the non-negotiables that make a person a Christian. And a lot is said about these particular beliefs. For example, 1 John 5:1 reads very simply, "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God..." That's pretty clear.

There's some detail to fill out, of course, such as "what does it mean to be 'born of God,'" "what is 'the Christ'", and "in what does 'belief' consist," but for the most part, this is a good opening statement of what makes a person a real Christian or not.

Well that's not clear at all without knowledge of the "detail", and I don't have that knowledge. So what is "the Christ"?

The word "Christ," like the word "christening," refers to one who has been anointed with oil, designating him as a priest / king. It's the exact equivalent in Greek of the Hebrew concept, "Hamashiach," which also means "anointed one," and refers specifically to the promised eternal Priest-King of Israel, the Messiah. (Not even most Jews are aware of this; they think "Christ" is some sort of Gentile title; but it's easy to check out.)

So every time you see the name "Jesus Christ," what it means is "Jesus is the One who will redeem Israel and save the world." And that's what a person must believe in order to be a "Christ-one," which is the meaning of "Christian."

[Harbal]

Is the Adam and Eve story poetry, parable or analogy, or is it meant to be taken literally?

I would say that it's literal. And anybody who believes otherwise is going to end up with some serious theological contradictions to deal with.

Then I suppose it's a matter of what sort of contradictions you most want to avoid. Theological contradictions, or rational contradictions.

The word "Christ," like the word "christening," refers to one who has been anointed with oil, designating him as a priest / king. It's the exact equivalent in Greek of the Hebrew concept, "Hamashiach," which also means "anointed one," and refers specifically to the promised eternal Priest-King of Israel, the Messiah. (Not even most Jews are aware of this; they think "Christ" is some sort of Gentile title; but it's easy to check out.)

So every time you see the name "Jesus Christ," what it means is "Jesus is the One who will redeem Israel and save the world." And that's what a person must believe in order to be a "Christ-one," which is the meaning of "Christian."

That does explain something, but I'm not really a whole lot wiser. Luckily for me, I don't need to be.

[Immanuel Can]

Is the Adam and Eve story poetry, parable or analogy, or is it meant to be taken literally?

I would say that it's literal. And anybody who believes otherwise is going to end up with some serious theological contradictions to deal with.

Then I suppose it's a matter of what sort of contradictions you most want to avoid. Theological contradictions, or rational contradictions.

That's not accurate, actually. But if you think otherwise, describe the process of evolution without making reference to any original mating pair. I haven't been able to find anybody who can do it, so far...maybe you'll be the first.

The word "Christ," like the word "christening," refers to one who has been anointed with oil, designating him as a priest / king. It's the exact equivalent in Greek of the Hebrew concept, "Hamashiach," which also means "anointed one," and refers specifically to the promised eternal Priest-King of Israel, the Messiah. (Not even most Jews are aware of this; they think "Christ" is some sort of Gentile title; but it's easy to check out.)

So every time you see the name "Jesus Christ," what it means is "Jesus is the One who will redeem Israel and save the world." And that's what a person must believe in order to be a "Christ-one," which is the meaning of "Christian."

That does explain something, but I'm not really a whole lot wiser. Luckily for me, I don't need to be.

Well, as I always say, "We'll see."

[Harbal]

I would say that it's literal. And anybody who believes otherwise is going to end up with some serious theological contradictions to deal with.

Then I suppose it's a matter of what sort of contradictions you most want to avoid. Theological contradictions, or rational contradictions.

That's not accurate, actually. But if you think otherwise, describe the process of evolution without making reference to any original mating pair. I haven't been able to find anybody who can do it, so far...maybe you'll be the first.

I think that's one of those fallacies that we philosophers like to frown on. The logic of evolution has no bearing on the logic of the creation myth.

I don't imagine there was an original mating pair, as such. I guess the process of evolution started with single cells dividing, and what happened thereafter was so gradual that any development would have been barely perceptible. To imagine there was a single point at which sexual reproduction just popped into play out of the blue would be rather ridiculous. One would need to be a little out of touch with reality to think such a thing could happen.

That does explain something, but I'm not really a whole lot wiser. Luckily for me, I don't need to be.

Well, as I always say, "We'll see."

Don't worry about it, we all have bad habits.

[Immanuel Can]

Then I suppose it's a matter of what sort of contradictions you most want to avoid. Theological contradictions, or rational contradictions.

That's not accurate, actually. But if you think otherwise, describe the process of evolution without making reference to any original mating pair. I haven't been able to find anybody who can do it, so far...maybe you'll be the first.

I think that's one of those fallacies that we philosophers like to frown on.

What "fallacy"? We can easily prove you're right: just explain how the human race can evolve without involving any original mating pair...if you can.

But you can't do it. And that tells you something that certainly DOES involve a fallacy: it's called "assuming the conclusion." For even though there's no plausible narrative that escapes the fact of some original mating pair, you insist on denying the existence of such. That takes great faith, I would say.

To imagine there was a single point at which sexual reproduction just popped into play out of the blue would be rather ridiculous.

We're not even talking about cells, though you're right: there's more huge problems with trying to explain how asexual cell reproduction suddenly "lept" into full-on sexual reproduction. We're talking about early hominids. And the problem persists at every stage: for each "advance" has to involve some first sexual-mating pair that conveyed the first "advantageous" gene that turned the rest of humanity into the next alleged "stage."

And if that's right, then evolutionism doesn't require just one original mating pair, but an original mating pair for every single "stage" of evolution.

So, far from escaping the Adam-Eve idea, you've now multiplied the necessity of it.

That is, unless you've got some other narrative we can believe, one that does not implicate genes and sexual reproduction. Then you could possibly have, at least, some contrary possibility, even if you can't show it's true.

[iambiguous]

A "leap of faith" here would seem more reasonable [to me] if it revolved around the assumption that if the Bible is the word of God then of course it is literally true.

A leap of faith only makes sense if the possible consequences of not making it are too terrible to risk.

And that's certainly the case for many. No God? Then no moral commandments, no immortality, no salvation. Or call it a wager instead.

Even then, one has to ask how justified is that faith; how likely is the thing you put your faith into to be worthy of it? In the case of the Bible, I would say zilchamundo. That's Latin, btw.

Well, some, of course, are indoctrinated by their family as children to think that moral commandments, immortality and salvation justify a lot of faith in God. Considering the truly bleak alternatives. But here [for me] everything comes to revolve around dasein. Some experiences take us closer to God, other experiences farther away. But it's different for all of us. And the communication breakdowns here are legendary. What do we really know about each other?

The one thing we can say for sure about the Bible is that it was written by human beings. They may have claimed they were merely writing it down on behalf of God, but why the fcuk would you believe them?

Because many want to believe them. Because so much is at stake on both sides of the grave.

As long as that part never goes away, leaps of faith will follow. I wish that I could somehow make another one myself.

Then [for me] back to those like IC and William Lane Craig who go beyond a leap of faith and argue that there is in fact both scientific and historical evidence that the Christian God does exist.

And yet there are people who are far more qualified in the fields of science and history who would say they are talking bollocks.

Suggesting [to me] that leaps of faith themselves revolve far more around the psychology of objectivism than any particular theologies. Or any particular philosophical assessments here.

[Harbal]

That's not accurate, actually. But if you think otherwise, describe the process of evolution without making reference to any original mating pair. I haven't been able to find anybody who can do it, so far...maybe you'll be the first.

I think that's one of those fallacies that we philosophers like to frown on.

What "fallacy"?

The fallacy of trying to give an implausible idea credibility by presenting the alternative to it as being even more unlikely.

We can easily prove you're right: just explain how the human race can evolve without involving any original mating pair...if you can.

I can't, but I'm not promoting the theory of evolution in this instance, and we can dismiss it as untenable for the duration of this particular conversation, so let's get back to Adam and Eve. How did God create them? Let's see if you can deliver an explanation to support your view, which contains the detail that you demanded of me in support of what you assumed to be my view.

So, far from escaping the Adam-Eve idea, you've now multiplied the necessity of it.

That is, unless you've got some other narrative we can believe, one that does not implicate genes and sexual reproduction. Then you could possibly have, at least, some contrary possibility, even if you can't show it's true.

I am offering you no alternative to the Adam and Eve story; we are dealing with it as a stand alone issue. I don't know if there have ever been any serious reports a fully formed adult human beings just materialising out of nowhere, but I'm pretty sure there have been no verifiable cases of it, so here is your opportunity to give a step by step explanation of how that could happen.

[Harbal]

A "leap of faith" here would seem more reasonable [to me] if it revolved around the assumption that if the Bible is the word of God then of course it is literally true.

A leap of faith only makes sense if the possible consequences of not making it are too terrible to risk.

And that's certainly the case for many. No God? Then no moral commandments, no immortality, no salvation. Or call it a wager instead.

Why do you need moral commandments, don't you have your own sense of morality? You don't even have to see it as being subjective. There must be many things that strike you as being morally wrong, so just consider them as such without applying the objective/subjective label to them. And the best thing about that is you are allowed to question your moral values from time to time, and maybe revise them if you find them lacking. Or is that to much responsibility?

Do you really want immortality? I don't know how old you are, but I am getting frighteningly close to 70, and I could conceivably be around for another 20 years. Well I am telling you that if I am here for that much longer, I will be at the point where eternal oblivion is all I desire.

Salvation? Salvation from what? If you live long enough, it could well be that salvation from life is all you want.

[Immanuel Can]

I think that's one of those fallacies that we philosophers like to frown on.

What "fallacy"?

The fallacy of trying to give an implausible idea credibility by presenting the alternative to it as being even more unlikely.

Well, that's not a "fallacy," actually; it's called "argumentation to the best explanation." And since all empirical knowledge is probabilistic, it's also unavoidable for everybody.

...let's get back to Adam and Eve. How did God create them?

How did the Supreme Being and First Cause of everything create anything? How does an all-powerful God do what He does? That's your question? It's pretty much a self-answering one, I would say. The "how" is Him...by the nature of what God is, it's possible for Him to create anything he wishes to.

I think you're (wrongly) imagining that there could be some prevenient, more ultimate set of "natural laws" that must govern God; because otherwise, I can't even make sense of the question. But if that's what you're imagining, then I have to say that nobody who advocates Monotheism of any kind thinks that's how it is. You've simply misunderstood what they claim, I guess.

I am offering you no alternative to the Adam and Eve story;

If that's true, then it's the theory we should accept until further notice, since, as you claim, you have no other theory.

[iambiguous]

A leap of faith only makes sense if the possible consequences of not making it are too terrible to risk.

And that's certainly the case for many. No God? Then no moral commandments, no immortality, no salvation. Or call it a wager instead.

Why do you need moral commandments, don't you have your own sense of morality?

My sense of morality, however, is "fractured and fragmented" given the points I raise in the OPs here:
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529
https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=194382

And "here and now" I still believe [as does IC] that in the absence of God [Christian or otherwise], neither moral commandments nor immortality and salvation are within the reach of mere mortals.

You don't even have to see it as being subjective. There must be many things that strike you as being morally wrong, so just consider them as such without applying the objective/subjective label to them.

No, I do not believe that anything that any of us do is inherently/objectively/deontologically wrong. Instead, my thinking here revolves more around this frame of mind:

People tap me on the shoulder and ask "can you seriously believe that the Holocaust or abusing children or cold-blooded murder is not inherently, necessarily immoral?"

And, sure, the part of me that would never, could never imagine my own participation in things of this sort has a hard time accepting that, yes, in a No God world they are still behaviors able to be rationalized by others as either moral or, for the sociopaths, justified given their belief that everything revolves around their own "me, myself and I" self-gratification.

And what is the No God philosophical -- scientific? -- argument that establishes certain behaviors as in fact objectively right or objectively wrong? Isn't it true that philosophers down through the ages who did embrace one or another rendition of deontology always included one or another rendition of the transcending font -- God -- to back it all up?

For all I know, had my own life been different...for any number of reasons...I would myself be here defending the Holocaust. Or engaging in what most construe to be morally depraved behaviors.

After all, do not the pro-life folks insist that abortion itself is no less a Holocaust inflicted on the unborn? And do not the pro-choice folks rationalize this behavior with their own subjective sets of assumptions.

Though, okay, if someone here is convinced they have in fact discovered the optimal reason why we should behave one way and not any other, let's explore that in a No God world.

What would be argued when confronting the Adolph Hitlers and the Ted Bundys and the 9/11 religious fanatics and the sociopaths among us. Arguments such that they would be convinced that the behaviors they choose are indeed inherently, necessarily immoral.

How would you reason with them?

And the best thing about that is you are allowed to question your moral values from time to time, and maybe revise them if you find them lacking. Or is that to much responsibility?

That works for you, fine. But I have managed to think myself into believing that in the absence of God, it is still no less a moral and political prejudice rooted existentially in dasein. Those on both sides of an issue can revise their thinking, but that doesn't make the arguments from the other side go away.

Thus, another assumption of mine: that moderation, negotiation and compromise -- democracy and the rule of law -- reflects "the best of all possible worlds." But that's no less a subjective prejudice rooted in my own personal experiences.

Do you really want immortality? I don't know how old you are, but I am getting frighteningly close to 70, and I could conceivably be around for another 20 years. Well I am telling you that if I am here for that much longer, I will be at the point where eternal oblivion is all I desire.

Yes, some are able to acquire this frame of mind. Others are not. It always comes down to how much you have to lose on this side of the grave. Or on how much pain and suffering you must endure.

Personally, I'd be willing to give immortality a chance myself if suicide remained an option. Given that "no turning back" trip down the toilet.

[Harbal]

What "fallacy"?

The fallacy of trying to give an implausible idea credibility by presenting the alternative to it as being even more unlikely.

Well, that's not a "fallacy," actually;

I think we both know very well that it is. But I won't press the matter, I know how much saving face means to you.

...let's get back to Adam and Eve. How did God create them?

How did the Supreme Being and First Cause of everything create anything?

Hang on a minute, you can't just conjure up a supreme being, and first cause, and expect me to go along with it. I didn't agree to that. Whatever you believe about God is a matter for you, but you are not entitled to expect anyone else to accept the truth of it. I know of no supreme beings.

You seem to be saying that two fully formed adult human beings just came into existence, which seems quite a remarkable claim, and it can hardly be considered unreasonable of me to ask how something like that, which under any set of circumstances that we know of would be completely impossible, could come about. I am asking no more of you than you ask of anyone who proposes an alternative view to yours.

I think you're (wrongly) imagining that there could be some prevenient, more ultimate set of "natural laws" that must govern God; because otherwise, I can't even make sense of the question. But if that's what you're imagining, then I have to say that nobody who advocates Monotheism of any kind thinks that's how it is. You've simply misunderstood what they claim, I guess.

But I am not a monotheist, and am under no obligation to accept any of their claims. If you want to conduct an argument under monotheist rules, you should only argue with monotheists.

If your only concern is to account for Adam and Eve to your own satisfaction, we can leave it there, otherwise you have much explaining to do.

I am offering you no alternative to the Adam and Eve story;

If that's true, then it's the theory we should accept until further notice, since, as you claim, you have no other theory.

We both know there is a theory that I find infinitely more acceptable than yours, but I am not offering it as an alternative on this occasion. We have been there, done that, and I have a pile of T-shirts I don't know what to do with.