Is morality objective or subjective?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27605
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:02 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 3:50 pm
Well, I know the history. Verifiably, it is. Not just Bacon, who was a Christian working from Christian suppositions, and invented the very method itself, but many major scientists -- even today -- have been Christians, working under the same sorts of assumptions. To go back to Archemedes et al. is to go back too early: they neither understood "science" as referring to a systematic discipline, nor did they use any such methodology. What successes they had were purely technical...and good on them, for that...but it wasn't until the emergence of real science, in the Christian West, that things like the Technological Revolution really took off. And it's not coincidence, says Whitehead.

In fact, if you know the history of pre-science or technology, particularly prior to the 19th Century, you will know that practically every single person working in the pre-scientific kinds of areas was also a clergyman. It was only people like them who even had sufficient education to do anything "scientific." So science and Christianity have some common history...there can be no reasonable doubt of that.
So what relevance does Christianity have to the way science is conducted now?
We're still operating under an assumption that Materialism gives us absolutely no reason to make: that the world is governed by laws and rationality, and that human beings can, with the right method, reliably 'decode' its secrets. That's science.

But here's the key: that assumption, that when we think in a disciplined way, that reality will yield its secrets, is only an assumption until proved. It had to be presupposed before anyone could even think that a thing like science could be done. So until people believed -- prior to science itself -- that they could expect the world to be governed by rationality and themselves to be reliably connected to that reality, science remained unthinkable.

The supposed link between Materialism and science is actually very new, and a post-Enlightenment phenomenon. But Materialism would give us reason only to expect a chaotic reality, and no reason to suppose that there was any reason at all why human beings would be creatures capable of reason, or that reason would relate to reality itself. If my brain is nothing but a random accident in a place that is produced by random forces, why should I believe what my brain tells me? Why should I not, instead, think I was seeing randomness only?

So science requires a faith in the order of the universe. That faith pre-exists the scientific method itself, and underwrites it. But the reasons for that belief are first and foremost, metaphysical, not experimental.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 8301
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

I was conversing with Yahweh yesterday, as is our custom, and suggested to Him that there are new theories, with genetic studies data support, concerning a Common Ancestor of all forms of life. “Nonsense!” he said. “I created life in stages over a series of days. And it culminated with my Crown Achievement: the Original Mating Pair!”

[I was temped to ask about their navels but feared this would divert things irretrievably so I went straight to the most central issue on my mind:]

“You scooped up some dirt, right, and moulded it into Man, is that your recollection?”

“Precisely. And it’s all there in the Book I wrote”.

“Okay, but our memory is not always perfect and our recollection sometimes is defective, do you agree?”

He shot a loaded sideways glance at me but said “Yes, I suppose that is reasonable”.

“And you have a trillion galaxies minimum within just this one Existence Bubble to administer, isn’t that right Sir?”

“Indeed, that is so… But Jacobi, where are you going with this!?”

“I propose that you did not hover over the newly created Earth as such, but rather you were actually under the Waters of the Deep, down near one of those primeval vents from which hot materials glowed out from the Center of the World; and it was not “dirt” as such you moulded into a manly shape, but rather you fiddled with undersea substances, enzymes and gunk and whatnot, stuff lying to Divine Hand as it were, and this stuff you moulded into Life’s Primal Substance. Well? Is it possible?!

[I anticipated being smited for my insolence but to my great surprise Yahwey agreed with the suggested premise!]
_____________________________
While no fossil evidence of the LUCA exists, the detailed biochemical similarity of all current life (divided into the three domains) makes it plausible. Its characteristics can be inferred from shared features of modern genomes. These genes describe a complex life form with many co-adapted features, including transcription and translation mechanisms to convert information from DNA to mRNA to proteins. The earlier forms of life probably lived in the high-temperature water of deep sea vents near ocean-floor magma flows around 4 billion years ago.
A Smithsonian article:
In the last few years, DNA analysis has allowed researchers to redraw the tree of life in incredible detail, but there’s always been a question mark at the base of the tree. While it’s unlikely that researchers will ever find the exact species that started it all, they recently came up with a pretty good description of LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor of all of Earth's creatures, sometimes referred to as microbial Eve.

Life as we know it is currently divided into six kingdoms: plants, animals, fungus, protists, eubacteria and archaebacteria. The first four belong to the a domain known as eukaryotes, sporting cells with distinct nuclei. The other two kingdoms, eubacteria and archaebacteria are single-celled organisms without a distinct nucleus. All of them evolved from a single-celled ancestor that lived about 4 billion years ago when Earth was celestial baby.

After all those billions of years of change, LUCA’s fingerprints are still visible in the genes of modern organisms. That’s why William Martin, an evolutionary biologist at Heinrich Heine University in Düsseldorf, Germany, set out to study LUCA's trail in the genes of bacteria and archaea, the two groups researchers believe became eukaryotes.

Tracking genes in bacteria is particularly difficult because they can swap genetic material, making it hard to discern whether the single-celled organisms received a gene from an ancestor or picked it up from another species along the evolutionary road, reports Robert F. Service at Science. So Martin and his team decided to search for genes shared by at least two species of modern bacteria and two archaea, an indicator that the gene was likely inherited and not an evolutionary hitchhiker.

The researchers combed through DNA databanks, analyzing the genomes of 2,000 modern microbes sequenced over the last two decades. From six million total genes, they found 355 gene families that were widespread among the microbes, which means they were likely to be genes LUCA passed down. They published their results in Nature Microbiology.

LUCA’s genes are those of an extremophile organism that likely lived in an area where seawater and magma meet on the ocean floor, known as hydrothermal vents, reports Nicholas Wade at The New York Times. Similar creatures still haunt these environments among the toxic plumes of sulfides and metals. And many researchers already believe this is where life first began.

“I was flabbergasted at the result, I couldn’t believe it,” Martin tells Michael Le Page at New Scientist. “It’s spot on with regard to the hydrothermal vent theory.”

The genes show that LUCA lived in habitat with no oxygen, Service writes. It also fed on hydrogen gas, meaning it was likely an organism that lived near super-heated volcanic vents where hydrogen gas was likely produced. LUCA’s lifestyle is similar to two types of microbes that researchers have uncovered, the anaerobic bacteria in the genus clostridium and the hydrogen gobbling archaea in the methanogens group, James Lake, an evolutionary biologist at UCLA tells Service

But not everyone is convinced that the hydrogen gobbling vent-dweller Martin uncovered is really LUCA. John Sutherland of the University of Cambridge in England, whose research suggests the origins of life began on land and not deep in the ocean, tells Wade that life could have developed elsewhere and then been shoved down into places like hydrothermal vents during global disasters like the Late Heavy Bombardment, a catastrophic period in Earth’s history between 4 billion and 3.8 billion years ago in which the planet was reshaped by a shower of asteroids and comets.

In fact, he argues that basic chemistry shows life likely originated in pools of water on land, Darwin’s “warm little ponds.” Ultraviolet light from the sun, which does not reach down to hydrothermal vents, he argues, is a key element in that chemistry.

More research is necessary for scientists to unravel the twisting branches of the tree of life and to determine if Martin’s LUCA is a super-great aunt or the microbial Eve.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 8301
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:17 pm But here's the key: that assumption, that when we think in a disciplined way, that reality will yield its secrets, is only an assumption until proved. It had to be presupposed before anyone could even think that a thing like science could be done. So until people believed -- prior to science itself -- that they could expect the world to be governed by rationality and themselves to be reliably connected to that reality, science remained unthinkable.

The supposed link between Materialism and science is actually very new, and a post-Enlightenment phenomenon.
My impression has been that when “we” (those early men like Herakleitos, Parmenides, Anaxagoras and then Pythagoras) began to think in mathematical terms, that out of that a sense of “discoverable order” developed. And “science as such” began quite early in a groping manner back then.

It seems to me quite a stretch to propose that “our sciences” came to us through Christian theology.

However, what I expect you want to suggest is that our sciences developed as gifts of Grace by the Benevolent Christian God, right?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27605
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:47 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:17 pm But here's the key: that assumption, that when we think in a disciplined way, that reality will yield its secrets, is only an assumption until proved. It had to be presupposed before anyone could even think that a thing like science could be done. So until people believed -- prior to science itself -- that they could expect the world to be governed by rationality and themselves to be reliably connected to that reality, science remained unthinkable.

The supposed link between Materialism and science is actually very new, and a post-Enlightenment phenomenon.
My impression has been that when “we” (those early men like Herakleitos, Parmenides, Anaxagoras and then Pythagoras) began to think in mathematical terms, that out of that a sense of “discoverable order” developed. And “science as such” began quite early in a groping manner back then.
If that were right, then they'd have discovered the scientific method. And they'd have had a systematic approach that would have been so profound that, as it did later, it would have instantly led to an early industrial revolution.

But as it was, they didn't. And you'll be familiar with things like the theories of "humours" and such that persisted for thousands of years, as a result. We can thank peole like Aristotle for a lot of that. They were trying to get things right, of course; but they were lacking the method to do it.

So let me ask you this: China has many intelligent people, and most of the world's population. India has much of the rest. Then there's Africa, South and North Americas, Russia...nobody says there aren't very, very bright people in all these places; and lots of them. So how do you account for the fact that science was discovered on an obscure little island in the North Atlantic, with only a tiny proportional fragment of the world's population on it?

What's your explanation of that?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 10729
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:17 pm
So science requires a faith in the order of the universe. That faith pre-exists the scientific method itself, and underwrites it. But the reasons for that belief are first and foremost, metaphysical, not experimental.
But does Christianity have a role in, or influence, how science is practiced in these modern times?
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 8301
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:55 pm If that were right, then they'd have discovered the scientific method. And they'd have had a systematic approach that would have been so profound that, as it did later, it would have instantly led to an early industrial revolution.
I happen to know for a fact that Jesus Christ -- who of course is God and All-Knowing -- actually did teach the Disciples the systematic approach and the Scientific Method. And he instructed them to include various basic essays on the Method in the biographical accounts of his mission. Are you aware of this?

The Method should have initiated, right then and there, the Scientific Revolution. But what happened to those essays, Immanuel? What deviltry occurred, behind the scenes I expect, that kept Christ's Science Gospels from getting out and doing their work?

I admit that about those machinations I am somewhat in the dark.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27605
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 5:24 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:17 pm
So science requires a faith in the order of the universe. That faith pre-exists the scientific method itself, and underwrites it. But the reasons for that belief are first and foremost, metaphysical, not experimental.
But does Christianity have a role in, or influence, how science is practiced in these modern times?
You'll have to ask the many and prestigious scientists who are Christians...like Francis Collins, who headed up the human genome project, or Wilder Penfied, in neuromapping, or John Lennox, the pure mathematician from Oxford...
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27605
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 5:39 pm I happen to know...
Before that, do you "happen to" answer my question?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 10729
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 7:11 pm
Harbal wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 5:24 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 4:17 pm
So science requires a faith in the order of the universe. That faith pre-exists the scientific method itself, and underwrites it. But the reasons for that belief are first and foremost, metaphysical, not experimental.
But does Christianity have a role in, or influence, how science is practiced in these modern times?
You'll have to ask the many and prestigious scientists who are Christians...like Francis Collins, who headed up the human genome project, or Wilder Penfied, in neuromapping, or John Lennox, the pure mathematician from Oxford...
Okay, it's just that I assumed you were making some sort of point when you drew attention to the historic connection between Christianity and science.
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 8301
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 7:12 pm
Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 5:39 pm I happen to know...
Before that, do you "happen to" answer my question?
You as well as I know that the Old Testament -- the Tanakh if we wanted to use the hip Jewish term -- contains, if one knows how to decypher Gematria -- the elements of the scientific method clearly expressed. You know as well as I know that HaShem (the hip Judaic term for God) put into His holy scripture everything.

So the real question you must be asking is Why did not *science* and the Industrial Revolution occur in BC 800? or in 1,800 BC?

You are trying to tell us that it is by God's grace that modern science and a technological revolution popped up in about the 16th century AD. But you know that the Hebrews knew all of this long long ago because HaShem was their Chief. And you also know why they hung on to that knowledge and didn't let it out!

This is my second answer to your question. I know you got it on the first go-round but pretend you didn't!

Knowledge of God will immediately produce knowledge of the workings of the Cosmos, and will lead directly to scientific and industrial revolutions.

I believe I understand why you stress God-Knowledge with such adamancy.

There. A second time I answer your question. Will you require a third? 🤡
User avatar
Alexis Jacobi
Posts: 8301
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:00 am

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Alexis Jacobi »

Francis Collins began the BioLogos Foundation:
The BioLogos Foundation is a Christian advocacy group that supports the view that God created the world using evolution of different species as the mechanism. It was established by Francis Collins in 2007 after receiving letters and emails from people who had read his book, The Language of God. The primary audience was Christians in the beginning, but Collins as well as later leaders of the organization have sought to engage with scientific skeptics as well as general audiences invested in biological science.

BioLogos affirms evolutionary creation as a core commitment.
Evolutionary creation, also presented as Evolutionary creationism, is the religious belief that God created the earth using processes of evolution. The concept is similar to theistic evolution and accepts modern science, but there are theological differences.

Its supporters, who tend to be conservative evangelical Christians, hold that God continues to be actively involved in evolution, to a greater extent than theistic evolutionists believe this.

There is diversity among evolutionary creationists in explaining how these two concepts fit together.
A Scientific American article on Collins (part interview)

Having just perused his general views, I suspect that though he became a believer (and had the conversion-experience of most Christians), I doubt that he takes the Bible literally. I doubt he regards the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve as *real personages*. Nor the Ark etc. as a real event.

So what is going on here is that a man came to an inner decision to believe in the Divine Being (Jesus) without believing in the trappings of Biblical lore. He describes himself as having oodles of doubt and all manner of uncertainty, yet he holds to the inner dimension of his belief.

That is a very very different Christian internal turning.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 9284
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by bahman »

Alexis Jacobi wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 8:53 pm Francis Collins began the BioLogos Foundation:
The BioLogos Foundation is a Christian advocacy group that supports the view that God created the world using evolution of different species as the mechanism. It was established by Francis Collins in 2007 after receiving letters and emails from people who had read his book, The Language of God. The primary audience was Christians in the beginning, but Collins as well as later leaders of the organization have sought to engage with scientific skeptics as well as general audiences invested in biological science.

BioLogos affirms evolutionary creation as a core commitment.
Evolutionary creation, also presented as Evolutionary creationism, is the religious belief that God created the earth using processes of evolution. The concept is similar to theistic evolution and accepts modern science, but there are theological differences.

Its supporters, who tend to be conservative evangelical Christians, hold that God continues to be actively involved in evolution, to a greater extent than theistic evolutionists believe this.

There is diversity among evolutionary creationists in explaining how these two concepts fit together.
A Scientific American article on Collins (part interview)

Having just perused his general views, I suspect that though he became a believer (and had the conversion-experience of most Christians), I doubt that he takes the Bible literally. I doubt he regards the Garden of Eden and Adam and Eve as *real personages*. Nor the Ark etc. as a real event.

So what is going on here is that a man came to an inner decision to believe in the Divine Being (Jesus) without believing in the trappings of Biblical lore. He describes himself as having oodles of doubt and all manner of uncertainty, yet he holds to the inner dimension of his belief.

That is a very very different Christian internal turning.
I don't think IC would accept the idea of evolutionary creationist!
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27605
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 7:47 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 7:11 pm
Harbal wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 5:24 pm But does Christianity have a role in, or influence, how science is practiced in these modern times?
You'll have to ask the many and prestigious scientists who are Christians...like Francis Collins, who headed up the human genome project, or Wilder Penfied, in neuromapping, or John Lennox, the pure mathematician from Oxford...
Okay, it's just that I assumed you were making some sort of point when you drew attention to the historic connection between Christianity and science.
And you didn't understand what I said? I said that the entire episteme of science presupposes both an intelligible universe, a rational observer, and a reliable connection between the two, all of which is not something Materialism can tell you to expect at all, but Theism can. So Christianity, or equally, Judaism, actually underwrites the entire scientific project. All of it.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 27605
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 8:59 pm I don't think IC would accept the idea of evolutionary creationist!
You're correct...and with good reason, too. I think Collins, despite being both a Christian and a scientist, has a flaw in his understanding, in this regard. He doesn't seem to have thought of the theological implications of Evolutionism as it applies to humans.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 10729
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Is morality objective or subjective?

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 9:48 pm
Harbal wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2024 7:47 pm
Okay, it's just that I assumed you were making some sort of point when you drew attention to the historic connection between Christianity and science.
And you didn't understand what I said? I said that the entire episteme of science presupposes both an intelligible universe, a rational observer, and a reliable connection between the two, all of which is not something Materialism can tell you to expect at all, but Theism can. So Christianity, or equally, Judaism, actually underwrites the entire scientific project. All of it.
Is that why you find it particularly galling when science undermines or contradicts the Bible? It must seem like a sort of betrayal.
Post Reply