Is morality objective or subjective?

[popeye1945]

Are you suggesting that morality is subjective? And if so, what does subjective mean or why do you say it is subjective?

Because all meanings belong to the conscious subject, biology is the measure and the meaning of all things. Meaning is what happens to one's biology and how outside forces/energies alter it to give us experience/meanings and knowledge on a subjective level. It is not out there, meaning that is, it is what is out there and its effects upon us. We do not experience the true or ultimate reality we experience its effects on us and our feelings about that experience.

What do you mean by "biology is the measure and meaning of all things"? What is "biology"? I would think meaning is more than just what happens to one's biology. That sounds a bit like psychologism, something that concerned philosophers such as Edmund Husserl who is considered a founder of what is often termed "phenomenology". Husserl thought that psychologism was a mistaken way to look at things. We are subjects, yes, but we are also subjects of...

Biology is life in all its differing forms yet the same in essence. Biology is also consciousness, life is consciousness, and consciousness is life. No meaning IS, just what happens to our biology and nothing more. Our collective biological experiences are what we term our apparent reality, for it is a biological readout of the collected experiences of our altered biological nature. I am not familiar with your references so cannot comment. You state, "We are subjects yes, but also subjects of." Please explain subjects of, to what are we subjects?

[Immanuel Can]

But neither of us know if it's "truth" or not.

What would God have to do for you in order for you to "know"?

I don't know. Maybe if God presented himself to me, it might help? \_(*_*)_/

You "don't know"? "Maybe"?

That's not exactly an unequivocal commitment to be open to even the possibility. That being so, there's no wonder you feel you don't "know." There's no way you could know, is there?

[Harbal]

But I've lived for 56 years without religion and I will probably finish things out that way as well.

Think of how little sense that makes. "I've lived 50 years as a smoker, so I may as well smoke until I get cancer."

I've lived 56 years as a none smoker, so I may as well start smoking now in order to give myself health problems. That would have been a far more realistic analogy.

[Gary Childress]

You state, "We are subjects yes, but also subjects of." Please explain subjects of, to what are we subjects?

We are subjects of in the sense that we can't extricate ourselves from our perceptions and experiences to stand outside of them entirely independent of them. To say that biology is everything is to elevate biology above all else and that is a second hand experience, not the way we experience life when we get right down to it.

[Immanuel Can]

But I've lived for 56 years without religion and I will probably finish things out that way as well.

Think of how little sense that makes. "I've lived 50 years as a smoker, so I may as well smoke until I get cancer."

I've lived 56 years as a none smoker, so I may as well start smoking now in order to give myself health problems. That would have been a far more realistic analogy.

Well, I guess we'll see.

[Gary Childress]

What would God have to do for you in order for you to "know"?

I don't know. Maybe if God presented himself to me, it might help? \_(*_*)_/

You "don't know"? "Maybe"?

That's not exactly an unequivocal commitment to be open to even the possibility. That being so, there's no wonder you feel you don't "know." There's no way you could know, is there?

I say I don't know because I've had hallucinations and delusions before. After recovering from them, I took them as being such. If God is going to contact me, he's going to need to somehow find a way to overcome that problem that I unfortunately have--not of my choosing. But then he's God creator of everything. Surely, he has the power to figure out a way to genuinely contact me if he chooses.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't know. Maybe if God presented himself to me, it might help? \_(*_*)_/

You "don't know"? "Maybe"?

That's not exactly an unequivocal commitment to be open to even the possibility. That being so, there's no wonder you feel you don't "know." There's no way you could know, is there?

I say I don't know because I've had hallucinations and delusions before. After recovering from them, I took them as being such. If God is going to contact me, he's going to need to somehow find a way to overcome that problem that I unfortunately have--not of my choosing. But then he's God creator of everything. Surely, he has the power to figure out a way to genuinely contact me if he chooses.

Maybe He already has...and you were too busy being cynical to take notice; is that possible?

[Gary Childress]

You "don't know"? "Maybe"?

That's not exactly an unequivocal commitment to be open to even the possibility. That being so, there's no wonder you feel you don't "know." There's no way you could know, is there?

I say I don't know because I've had hallucinations and delusions before. After recovering from them, I took them as being such. If God is going to contact me, he's going to need to somehow find a way to overcome that problem that I unfortunately have--not of my choosing. But then he's God creator of everything. Surely, he has the power to figure out a way to genuinely contact me if he chooses.

Maybe He already has...and you were too busy being cynical to take notice; is that possible?

I suppose that's possible.

[Will Bouwman]

Can God make 2+2=5?

Of course not.

And yet he can build a world in which:
God has perfect foreknowledge of every decision you will make + There is nothing you can do to change the decisions God already knows you will make = God gave you freewill.

...God knows both the choices you will make and the choices you will not make; but the choices themselves are authentic and remain made entirely by you. It's like an observer watching a car travelling on a GPS map: if one knows where the car is going, one can perhaps correctly predict every turn the car will take; nevertheless, the observer is not driving the car or making the choices of the turns. There is a whole map out there, and many possible turns, all genuinely open to the driver. The observer's foreknowledge does not affect that in the least.

Ah, so God doesn't have perfect foreknowledge, he only knows whether we are damned or not. So:
God knows whether you are going to heaven or hell + You can get there anyway you like = Your freewill doesn't extend to changing your destination.
That smacks of voyeurism.

But of course, the Atheist does indeed have this contradiction problem. For denying God any role in making things happen (by definition) he must believe that everything is nothing more than a product of time and chance...

I'm not interested in your musings about "the Atheist", that is as much a product of your needs as your God is. As an atheist, I am not committed to any belief, not even that God does not exist. I just happen not to believe that he does.

[Will Bouwman]

What would God have to do for you in order for you to "know"?

I don't know. Maybe if God presented himself to me, it might help? \_(*_*)_/

You "don't know"? "Maybe"?

That's not exactly an unequivocal commitment to be open to even the possibility. That being so, there's no wonder you feel you don't "know." There's no way you could know, is there?

What would science have to do in order for you to be open to even the possibility of evolution?

[Skepdick]

What would science have to do in order for you to be open to even the possibility of evolution?

I am entirely open to evolution as conceptual tool.
Just as I am open to irreducible complexity as a conceptual tool.

Those are just thinking hats for attacking practical problems. They are complementary, not mutually exclusive.

When we move away from theoretical lip service and onto applied science/engineering all evolution needs to do is satisfy the "reproducibility" criterion of procedural knowledge.

Here's the periodic table. Grab whatever elements you need, go in a lab and reproduce some humans.

Until you do - I don't give a shit if evolution is "true" or "false". All that matters to me is that you can't reproduce the process.

If you only "know" how to ride a bicycle in theory, but you can't ride a bicycle in practice then you don't have any knowledge.

[Will Bouwman]

What would science have to do in order for you to be open to even the possibility of evolution?

I am entirely open to evolution as conceptual tool.
Just as I am open to irreducible complexity as a conceptual tool.

So we agree that God is a conceptual tool.

[Skepdick]

What would science have to do in order for you to be open to even the possibility of evolution?

I am entirely open to evolution as conceptual tool.
Just as I am open to irreducible complexity as a conceptual tool.

So we agree that God is a conceptual tool.

So we agree that reality is a conceptual tool.
As are adjectives.
As is language.
As is truth.

Such as the language "God is real"; and "Philosophy is not real"; or "It's true that reality does not exist".

Language is an incredibly useful and versatile tool.

[Gary Childress]

I am entirely open to evolution as conceptual tool.
Just as I am open to irreducible complexity as a conceptual tool.

So we agree that God is a conceptual tool.

So we agree that reality is a conceptual tool.
As are adjectives.
As is language.
As is truth.

Such as the language "God is real"; and "Philosophy is not real"; or "It's true that reality does not exist".

Language is an incredibly useful and versatile tool.

Are conceptual tools conceptual tools?

[Skepdick]

Are conceptual tools conceptual tools?

Are questions?