Is morality objective or subjective?

[Age]

There's no way they could have seen Darwin coming.

Actually, Darwin was not highly original, nor was he the first person to want to find a way of arguing that existence came about without Creation. See Lamarck, Lyell, Buffon, Wallace, Hutton...etc. He was just the first person to present such a theory in a way that it might be believed at all...provided, of course, one was eager enough to believe it already.

I know Darwin wasn't the only one, but he's the most iconic, and researching and mentioning the others might have made me look like I was showing off. I daresay the theory met with quite a mixed reception to begin with, but most folks seem eager enough to believe it now.

For some 'believers' they just cannot shake 'their beliefs' off at all, no matter how Wrong or False the belief. For there are still some who believe that the earth is flat. 'Believers' in God, no matter how obviously False and Wrong 'their beliefs' are, to others, also just cannot 'shake' 'those beliefs' off.

Intense curiosity is a basic human characteristic, and science is merely an inevitable consequence of that.

Except it's not. The Chinese were curious. The Indians were curious. The Africans were curious. The Aboriginals were curious. All people are curious. None of them discovered science. So again, I have to ask you why they didn't. What's the alternate theory?

Well they're all doing it now, and I don't think China and India have turned Christian.

I would simply put it down to our inability to stop asking the question, "why"?.

If that were it, science would have lept out of China or India long before it appeared in a little island in the Atlantic.

And the reason it didn't is because they weren't Christians?

Actually, atheists probably make better scientists than Christians,

Atheists now can do science. Left to their own devices, Atheists would probably have never made science at all, anymore than polytheists did. They had no reason to suppose it would even be possible, and according to many of them, no faith with which to believe in that which they had not already seen.

Not only are you Christians natural scientists, you've also got extraordinary imagination.

[Age]

I daresay the theory met with quite a mixed reception to begin with, but most folks seem eager enough to believe it now.

Some always were. For millennia, literally, there have been people desperately searching for such an explanation.

Is this like how some people are, still, desperately searching for an explanation of how a 'he' God created everything.

For they know that God is a 'he' and that 'he' created absolutely everything, but they just do not yet know how. So, these people have been desperately searching for such an explanation, right?

Or, is it completely different, when one is not a believer in that God created absolutely everything?

The important question is why they were so eager, and why so many are so eager now. Why should one long so much to eradicate the idea of God from the universe?

Because no logical nor rational reason has ever been given, previously, for keeping the idea that God is a male gendered being who created absolutely everything.

Surely even you "immanuel can" can see just how Truly absurd and ridiculous that idea looks, and sounds?

Or, are you really that 'deaf' and 'blind' regarding this?

if you are, then could this be because of 'a belief' you have, somehow?

Are they longing to have an existence with no objective meaning, no objective values, no objective truth, no ultimate purpose, no life beyond our mere 75 years or so, and so on?

The actual and irrefutable answers to these, and other Truly meaningful things, can be, and was, found without absolutely any previously belief in God at all.

So, how do you feel on hearing this claim?

Why would anyone prefer such a thing to any alternative?

Why do you believe that you have to believe that a male gendered being created everything before it is the 'only way' to have an existence 'with' these things you listed here?

Why has led you to believe such a thing?

I would think that's unlikely.

Who cares?

What you think here was based an absolutely False premise to even begin with.

Much more likely, the Freudian explanation applies: namely, that they longed to get rid of God so they could be in charge of themselves, solely and exclusively, and beholden to nothing.

What do you think 'the role' is, exactly, of being an 'adult human being'?

Do you still need to be controlled by something else?

If yes, then why, what is wrong with you?

That was the big attraction of Atheism, I suspect. And it certainly squares with what research has shown about the demographics of Atheism, even today.

Here we have great example of one just making up and saying just about absolutely anything, hoping that 'it' will somehow back up and support their 'currently' held onto beliefs and presumptions.

But, as could be very easily and very simply proved absolutely True, if and when this one would be asked to provide 'the name' of the, supposed, 'research' and supply 'the names', and their previous views, beliefs, prejudices, and/or presumptions who 'orchestrated' that so-called 'research', in regards to some claim about 'the demographics of so-called "atheism", even today, then this one will not provide and supply these things.

Except it's not. The Chinese were curious. The Indians were curious. The Africans were curious. The Aboriginals were curious. All people are curious. None of them discovered science. So again, I have to ask you why they didn't. What's the alternate theory?

Well they're all doing it now, and I don't think China and India have turned Christian.

Nor have the Atheists, for that matter. They've borrowed ably from what Christianity generated, thus admitting the greatness of the achievement, and the failure of their own to produce such a revolution. But it would seem that none of them was capable of discovering science. Why not?

So, only a so-called "christian" appears could have created 'science', itself. Well according to "immanuel can" only.

And, imagine the irony if it was a "christian" who did invent the very thing that ended up discovering, and proving, that how this Universe is being Created HERE-NOW is actually not by a male gendered being/thing, at all.

[Age]

I think I might have a gene missing, or something.

Genes have absolutely nothing at all to do with 'belief', itself.

Just like belief has absolutely nothing at all to do with 'genes', themselves.

When I first joined the forum I never used emojis. I detested them, but I got so fed up with being misunderstood that I finally gave in to using them as a way of better conveying my meaning or intention.

Honestly, I cannot even work out what any of the emojis even actually mean.

I have enough trouble working out what each individual person here is 'actually meaning' just with the actual words that they say and use here. And, it is words, themselves, which is how 'meaning', itself, is meant to be shared, and understood, among you human beings.

Why I have trouble working out what you each, individually, mean with and by the words you use, is because you each, individually, have and use your very own specific and very own individual different definitions.

I do not even look at emojis. Trying to decipher 'actual meaning' from words is enough for me here.

You may have noticed the one at the end of the comment you quoted. I put it there to indicate that I wasn't being entirely serious.

Again, I did not even notice it, until I read your first sentence here in this response. And, even when I looked at, and look at again now, I still have absolutely no idea what it could mean, nor could be referring to, at all, let alone exactly.

Guess what I'm going to do now.

I could, but I prefer to seek out and obtain and gain 'actual clarity', instead.

But, which I will not do now.

[Immanuel Can]

I daresay the theory met with quite a mixed reception to begin with, but most folks seem eager enough to believe it now.

Some always were. For millennia, literally, there have been people desperately searching for such an explanation.

What people, and how do you know that?

There's a lengthy history of people trying to find ways of explaining away the existence of God. It's nothing new. Ian Taylor's done a nice job of writing about a bunch of them.

I wouldn't describe the general acceptance of evolution as being the result of eagerness.

It definitely was. When Darwin wrote his theory, there was no scientific support for it. It was a speculation, based on casual observation of similarities between things like Galapagos finches. Even that was merely intra-species modification, not evolution. And as today, there was zero evidence for trans-species mutation of one species into another. So today, it's just as much a product of eagerness as it was then, really. The theories been elaborated, changed, had its timelines vastly expanded, been revised...but it's still just a theory.

It's just part of the pool of general knowledge now,

General knowledge can be overrated, too. Some of it is just common prejudice. But you're right that it's passed into the common lore, and is believed now because "it's what everybody says," or "because my grade 9 science teacher said so." Moreover, it's been embraced by a certain subset of actual scientists, for two reasons: one, that they're just as likely to be Atheists, or to want to control their own fates, as anyone else is; but two, that if there's no God, then science itself becomes the ultimate and exclusive road to "truth." That's a lot of prestige at stake for the disciplines of "science." And that's just a temptation to great for some of them. So they are attracted to the belief in a facile link between strict Materialism and science.

Why should one long so much to eradicate the idea of God from the universe?

I think you sometimes forget that not everyone is as preoccupied with God as you are.

Funny. For somebody not preoccupied with God, this has been a lengthy conversation.

I have no problem recognising that the Church was probably responsible for providing the education that gave the suitably minded the wherewithal to develop scientific methods and practices, but why on earth you think that is anything to do with God, or their attitude towards him, is baffling.

I actually explained that, very clearly, I thought.

How does a scientist know to expect the universe to be rational and comprehensible? If he's an Atheist, he should expect it to be chaotic and unpredictable...that's what he says it came from. But people like Bacon knew why they should expect order, laws, and comprehensibility in the universe: they believed it is the creation of a law-giving, orderly, rational God who desires to make Himself known through his creations, and has intended that his chief creature, man, should be able to "decode" and use this order. In other words, the whole impetus for going looking for natural laws is...faith in God.

[Dubious]

When Darwin wrote his theory, there was no scientific support for it. It was a speculation, based on casual observation of similarities between things like Galapagos finches. Even that was merely intra-species modification, not evolution.

If that's the case, how did your merely intra-species modification occur if not by evolution?

And as today, there was zero evidence for trans-species mutation of one species into another. So today, it's just as much a product of eagerness as it was then, really. The theories been elaborated, changed, had its timelines vastly expanded, been revised...but it's still just a theory.

Ever hear of speciation which isn't just a theory!

Darwin indicated that species could form by the evolution of one species splitting into two, or via a population diverging from its extant ancestor to the point it was a new species. Darwin's insights into evolution were brilliant, especially in light of their being made in the absence of genetics. Indeed, ideas about heredity and the introduction of new genetic material via mutation were to come long after Darwin's founding theories of evolution.

How does a scientist know to expect the universe to be rational and comprehensible? If he's an Atheist, he should expect it to be chaotic and unpredictable..

For sure! It must have been a surprise for everyone - except theists of course - on how and why the sun came up every morning!

[Immanuel Can]

When Darwin wrote his theory, there was no scientific support for it. It was a speculation, based on casual observation of similarities between things like Galapagos finches. Even that was merely intra-species modification, not evolution.

If that's the case, how did your merely intra-species modification occur if not by evolution?

Variation within a species is normal, and can even be humanly reproduced and manipulated: look what we have done in selective breeding of cows, dogs or cats? But for Evolutionism to make its case, it needs much more than variation within a single species: it needs definitive proof of one species becoming another. Evolutionism thinks fish can become men. It thinks amphibians can become birds, or monkeys can become men -- well, that last one is a dead issue now, of course.

And as today, there was zero evidence for trans-species mutation of one species into another. So today, it's just as much a product of eagerness as it was then, really. The theories been elaborated, changed, had its timelines vastly expanded, been revised...but it's still just a theory.

Ever hear of speciation which isn't just a theory!

Yes. When the speculation becomes a hypothesis, the hypothesis becomes an experiment, and then the hypothesis is substantiated. After that, it isn't just a theory anymore.

Darwin indicated that species could form by the evolution of one species splitting into two, or via a population diverging from its extant ancestor to the point it was a new species.

Now you've got it. And that's precisely why, say, selective breeding of sheep or pigs fails to model evolution. It's just variations within a species.

[Dubious]

Evolutionism thinks fish can become men.

Evolution started long before fish became fish or fish became men.

Yes. When the speculation becomes a hypothesis, the hypothesis becomes an experiment, and then the hypothesis is substantiated. After that, it isn't just a theory anymore.

Kind of glib but considering the immense amount of detail involved in its substantiation, speciation has long been confirmed as fact. That is true.

It's just variations within a species

There is no such thing as JUST variations within a species. There's a process involved in creating those variations; that process is called evolution which is no-longer a theory but a granitic fact.

Evolution, being an immensely slow process, can't compete with a guy in a laboratory enabled in a virtual instant to engineer an outcome it would take evolution an eon to accomplish or may never accomplish since there is no actual intent in evolution. All manifestation of life as we have known it is here by serendipity only.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no such thing as JUST variations within a species.

Yeah, actually. There is. Look at your cats...no two the same. But all the same species.

Very routine.

[Age]

Some always were. For millennia, literally, there have been people desperately searching for such an explanation.

What people, and how do you know that?

There's a lengthy history of people trying to find ways of explaining away the existence of God. It's nothing new. Ian Taylor's done a nice job of writing about a bunch of them.

There is also a so-called 'lengthy' history of people trying to find way explaining the exist of God, and some people were even still trying to, up to the days when this was being written.

But, as can be clearly seen, absolutely none of them actually could.

I wouldn't describe the general acceptance of evolution as being the result of eagerness.

It definitely was. When Darwin wrote his theory, there was no scientific support for it. It was a speculation, based on casual observation of similarities between things like Galapagos finches.

And, when the bible was written there was obviously no scientific support for it, also. There was, however, plenty of 'speculation'.

Even that was merely intra-species modification, not evolution. And as today, there was zero evidence for trans-species mutation of one species into another.

So, this then means, irrefutably, that some male gendered creature created everything, separately. Who, by the way, flooded the whole earth, but told you human beings to build a boat, and sail around the whole earth and pick up absolutely as many different species as you can, as long as you get a male and a female from each species, then just hang around on 'the boat', and then once the waters start receding, (to who knows where), then start sailing around again, and pick and choose whatever species you like and drop them off to the now becoming visible different islands.

So today, it's just as much a product of eagerness as it was then, really. The theories been elaborated, changed, had its timelines vastly expanded, been revised...but it's still just a theory.

But the 'God is male gendered', is not 'a theory' at all is it "immanuel can"?

It's just part of the pool of general knowledge now,

General knowledge can be overrated, too. Some of it is just common prejudice. But you're right that it's passed into the common lore, and is believed now because "it's what everybody says," or "because my grade 9 science teacher said so." Moreover, it's been embraced by a certain subset of actual scientists, for two reasons: one, that they're just as likely to be Atheists, or to want to control their own fates, as anyone else is; but two, that if there's no God, then science itself becomes the ultimate and exclusive road to "truth." That's a lot of prestige at stake for the disciplines of "science." And that's just a temptation to great for some of them. So they are attracted to the belief in a facile link between strict Materialism and science.

Why should one long so much to eradicate the idea of God from the universe?

I think you sometimes forget that not everyone is as preoccupied with God as you are.

Funny. For somebody not preoccupied with God, this has been a lengthy conversation.

I have no problem recognising that the Church was probably responsible for providing the education that gave the suitably minded the wherewithal to develop scientific methods and practices, but why on earth you think that is anything to do with God, or their attitude towards him, is baffling.

I actually explained that, very clearly, I thought.

How does a scientist know to expect the universe to be rational and comprehensible?

If one is 'expecting' some thing, then they are not a True 'scientist'.

If he's an Atheist, he should expect it to be chaotic and unpredictable...that's what he says it came from.

Coming from nothing or coming from God, which came from nothing is as chaotic and irrational as each other.

And, if you are going to say and claim that a male gendered creature, which you label as 'God' did not come from nothing as 'it' existed forever, then who's 'thinking' here is chaotic, irrational, and unpredictable is fairly well very obvious.

Sure, the thinking in that head may well not be that 'unpredictable' at all as it is obviously unchangeable from the well maintained 'belief' that it is, but it is absolutely 'unpredictable' in the sense that if you could believe an always existing male gender creature/thingy could create absolutely everything else, then you are capable of being absolutely anything else that could be absolutely 'unpredicted'.

But people like Bacon knew why they should expect order, laws, and comprehensibility in the universe: they believed it is the creation of a law-giving, orderly, rational God who desires to make Himself known through his creations, and has intended that his chief creature, man, should be able to "decode" and use this order.

So, here you are just 'self-refuting' your own claims and arguing against "yourself" "immanuel can".

'This one' is just doing what you say 'others' do, which you argue that they should not be doing.

In other words, the whole impetus for going looking for natural laws is...faith in God.

But this will obviously distort and skewer one's own perception, one's own way of looking at things, and one's own way of seeing, and concluding, things, obviously.

Are you suggesting here that this is the best way to go about in Life, searching or looking for the Truth?

[Dubious]

There is no such thing as JUST variations within a species.

Yeah, actually. There is. Look at your cats...no two the same. But all the same species.

Very routine.

Evidently you can't tell the difference between the cosmetic contrasts between members of the same species that you're referring to, meaning their outward appearance and the type of evolutionary variations which can modify a whole species. We have different faces and may have a different skin color but we're still members of the same group called homo sapien. That part hasn't changed regardless of what we look like.

[Harbal]

How does a scientist know to expect the universe to be rational and comprehensible? If he's an Atheist, he should expect it to be chaotic and unpredictable...

I'm sure our early ancestors did find their world chaotic and unpredictable, but over time they would have inevitably noticed patterns in nature, and being the inquisitive creatures that humans are, they would have looked for the reasons.

But people like Bacon knew why they should expect order, laws, and comprehensibility in the universe: they believed it is the creation of a law-giving, orderly, rational God who desires to make Himself known through his creations,

But if scientific investigation was inspired by God, science would be dealing with stuff like how to make a human being from a handful of clay, or how to make the waters of the sea part to form a convenient path, or how to spontaneously turn water into a crisp, fruity, white wine that goes nicely with loaves and fish.

and has intended that his chief creature, man, should be able to "decode" and use this order.

If that's what you believe, why do you suppose the Bible is rather short on scientific technique?

In other words, the whole impetus for going looking for natural laws is...faith in God.

No, you are confusing it with the impetus to become a vicar.

[Age]

When Darwin wrote his theory, there was no scientific support for it. It was a speculation, based on casual observation of similarities between things like Galapagos finches. Even that was merely intra-species modification, not evolution.

If that's the case, how did your merely intra-species modification occur if not by evolution?

Variation within a species is normal, and can even be humanly reproduced and manipulated: look what we have done in selective breeding of cows, dogs or cats?

How, exactly, is this, supposedly, 'humane'?

And, why is the 'human' word involved within the 'humanly' word, as though being 'human' is somehow related with being good, doing right, and/or having or showing 'kindness'.

Surely, selectively breeding other animals for human's own wants, desires, or purposes is not exactly the best good, right, nor kindest thing to do. Also, are not cows, selectively, 'bred' just so you human beings can then kill them, to eat them? Unless, of course, they are, selectively, 'bred' to 'win prizes' at shows for the human owners, only, or are, selectively, 'bred' just so you can get some milk, from them?

But for Evolutionism to make its case, it needs much more than variation within a single species: it needs definitive proof of one species becoming another.

Does "creationism", to make its case, 'need' definitive proof that different species just popped into Existence, at different times?

Or, do the human being species just 'need' to accept and believe this to be true?

By the way "immanuel can", were all species created into Existence all at the exact same time when absolutely everything else just 'popped into Existence', or were they created into Existence at different times?

If the latter, then why, and how, exactly?

If the former, then how, and why, exactly?

Evolutionism thinks fish can become men. It thinks amphibians can become birds, or monkeys can become men -- well, that last one is a dead issue now, of course.

Why is that last one here a so-called 'dead issue', to you, "immanuel can"?

And as today, there was zero evidence for trans-species mutation of one species into another.
So today, it's just as much a product of eagerness as it was then, really. The theories been elaborated, changed, had its timelines vastly expanded, been revised...but it's still just a theory.

Ever hear of speciation which isn't just a theory!

Yes. When the speculation becomes a hypothesis, the hypothesis becomes an experiment, and then the hypothesis is substantiated. After that, it isn't just a theory anymore.

Darwin indicated that species could form by the evolution of one species splitting into two, or via a population diverging from its extant ancestor to the point it was a new species.

Now you've got it. And that's precisely why, say, selective breeding of sheep or pigs fails to model evolution. It's just variations within a species.

[Skepdick]

Again, I ask dick to come down out of the theoretical clouds in regard to the points I raised above regarding incest.

You want me to come down from the theoretical clouds and address your theoretical points? What a clown

Nothing. I ask dick to examine other conflicting goods that are important to him/her pertaining to objective morality. Nothing.

Situational ethics don't give a damn about your whataboutism.

Look, I can't stop others here from making fools of themselves. I can only suggest when they are.

You can't even stop yourself from making a fool of yourself..

[Immanuel Can]

There is no such thing as JUST variations within a species.

Yeah, actually. There is. Look at your cats...no two the same. But all the same species.

Very routine.

Evidently you can't tell the difference between the cosmetic contrasts between members of the same species that you're referring to, meaning their outward appearance and the type of evolutionary variations which can modify a whole species.

Hey, that's the distinction I already drew, between "interspecies" and "intraspecies." So I'm not the one who doesn't know it.

[Immanuel Can]

How does a scientist know to expect the universe to be rational and comprehensible? If he's an Atheist, he should expect it to be chaotic and unpredictable...

I'm sure our early ancestors did find their world chaotic and unpredictable, but over time they would have inevitably noticed patterns in nature, and being the inquisitive creatures that humans are, they would have looked for the reasons.

But that explanation swallows a whole lot, without even noticing. If Atheism were right, then there SHOULD have been no "reasons" things happen. Things should have been what Atheists believe they are -- the random products of accident -- time plus chance. There should have been no "patterns," and no "inquisitive creatures" capable of decoding the order that was manifestly in the universe and makes science possible. There should simply have been chaos, and nothing else; and certainly no sentient beings capable of processing all this order.

But people like Bacon knew why they should expect order, laws, and comprehensibility in the universe: they believed it is the creation of a law-giving, orderly, rational God who desires to make Himself known through his creations,

But if scientific investigation was inspired by God, science would be dealing with stuff like how to make a human being from a handful of clay, or how to make the waters of the sea part to form a convenient path, or how to spontaneously turn water into a crisp, fruity, white wine that goes nicely with loaves and fish.

You're confusing the miraculous with the merely material. For material phenomena, there are explanations in material phenomena: but for miraculous events, by definition, the only possible right explanation is, "God intervened to make it happen on this one occasion." If it's something that has a merely material explanation, then it was never a miracle in the first place; it was just a material event, and can be expected to recurr every time the material preconditions for it are met.

and has intended that his chief creature, man, should be able to "decode" and use this order.

If that's what you believe, why do you suppose the Bible is rather short on scientific technique?

It's got a lot more about science than you may know. But that's not the answer. The proper answer is that the Bible is not a textbook: it was not written that way, and its purpose was not to provide mankind with the mere means to manipulate material reality (which is what science is essentially for). The Biblical purpose is to put all that mankind is and does into the right, meaningful narrative context, so we would understand "the story we're in," and be able to play our roles appropriately. That's something about which science, being uninvolved with morality or meaning, cannot tell us about.

So the Biblical narrative is designed not merely to dally with low-stakes things like human engineering problems, but rather with the overarching metanarrative of our meaning and purpose. It gives us clarity not about how we can "get things done," which is not its purpose, but rather clarity about what sorts of things are right to do, and what sorts of people we ought to be, and what's worth investing oneself in for our seventy-five or eighty years of life...the sorts of things no science has ever told us, or ever could.