Philosophy Now Forum

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 24, 2025 11:36 pm We're indeed talking about it now. Is your point to make an obvious point?

We are talking, but less fully about what happens to “religiousness” and “spirituality” in men when they face the erasure of that former horizon.

I, Antonius Block — oops! I mean Alexis Jacobi — am preparing myself to discourse on this very important topic.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Fri Jul 25, 2025 12:25 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 24, 2025 11:36 pm We're indeed talking about it now. Is your point to make an obvious point?

We are talking, but less fully about what happens to “religiousness” and “spirituality” in men when they face the erasure of that former horizon.

I, Antonius Block — oops! I mean Alexis Jacobi — am preparing myself to discourse on this very important topic.

How is that horizon being "erased" by agnosticism? Do you prefer others to be ignorant instead?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 24, 2025 10:15 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 24, 2025 9:39 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Jul 24, 2025 9:29 pm You are not wrong, as I have been indicating.

Yes, we know. I’m right. I’ve demonstrated it by the absence of any moral axioms associated with subjectivism.

Where you are wrong is in asserting that you have, or have access to, and can produce, the absolute, objective moral rules backed up by that Supernatural Entity.

I haven’t tried to show that yet. You’re too impatient.

But if you go back and read my last message in response to Mike, you’ll get a better understanding of why some authority is always necessary, and also be reminded of why “it’s subjective” is no answer at all.

All you end up with is something is moral for no other reason than God proclaims it moral. God could proclaim genocide "moral" and according to you it would be moral. God could drown all of humanity in a flood and you would have to conclude that it was moral for God to do so because God is the root of all morality.

Yes.

And isn't that a clear demonstration of the fact that there is no such thing as "objective" morality?

I mean, wouldn't any moral laws established by the supreme arbiter of morality (God), simply be based on God's "subjective" opinion regarding what is, or what isn't moral?

Perhaps we all...

(and especially the followers of the Christian God, who, as Gary pointed out, feel it was moral of God to drown all of humanity [including innocent babies] in a flood, and is poised to subject untold billions of defenseless souls to an eternity of torture in Hell)

...might have better luck looking for "objective" morality in the "Platonic" realm?

Surely there must exist an "ideal" form of morality somewhere within the context of the "All-That-Is",...

...for it sure ain't in the Bible.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Jul 25, 2025 1:21 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 24, 2025 10:15 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 24, 2025 9:39 pm
Yes, we know. I’m right. I’ve demonstrated it by the absence of any moral axioms associated with subjectivism.

I haven’t tried to show that yet. You’re too impatient.

But if you go back and read my last message in response to Mike, you’ll get a better understanding of why some authority is always necessary, and also be reminded of why “it’s subjective” is no answer at all.

All you end up with is something is moral for no other reason than God proclaims it moral. God could proclaim genocide "moral" and according to you it would be moral. God could drown all of humanity in a flood and you would have to conclude that it was moral for God to do so because God is the root of all morality.

Yes.

And isn't that a clear demonstration of the fact that there is no such thing as "objective" morality?

I mean, wouldn't any moral laws established by the supreme arbiter of morality (God), simply be based on God's "subjective" opinion regarding what is, or what isn't moral?

Perhaps we all...

(and especially the followers of the Christian God, who, as Gary pointed out, feel it was moral of God to drown all of humanity [including innocent babies] in a flood, and is poised to subject untold billions of defenseless souls to an eternity of torture in Hell)

...might have better luck looking for "objective" morality in the "Platonic" realm?

Surely there must exist an "ideal" form of morality somewhere within the context of the "All-That-Is",...

...for it sure ain't in the Bible.
_______

Why do you think there is most certainly no such thing as objective morality? If a king who writes the rules for his civilization declares genocide to be moral, does that make it moral? If God were to instruct his followers to perform genocide, would it be moral because God commanded it, or would it still be immoral even though God commanded it?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 24, 2025 10:15 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 24, 2025 9:39 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Thu Jul 24, 2025 9:29 pm You are not wrong, as I have been indicating.

Yes, we know. I’m right. I’ve demonstrated it by the absence of any moral axioms associated with subjectivism.

Where you are wrong is in asserting that you have, or have access to, and can produce, the absolute, objective moral rules backed up by that Supernatural Entity.

I haven’t tried to show that yet. You’re too impatient.

But if you go back and read my last message in response to Mike, you’ll get a better understanding of why some authority is always necessary, and also be reminded of why “it’s subjective” is no answer at all.

All you end up with is something is moral for no other reason than God proclaims it moral.

Actually, no, you don’t. You’ve got what’s called a “false dichotomy” buried in the phrasing of your claim. There’s no reason at all to make a difference between the phrases “right” and “what God commands.” God commands that which is right, and what is right is what He commands; because He is good. So it’s as if you were asking, “Is God the Father, or is He the Creator?” The only possible answer is, “Yes, to both.”

But whether you understand that or not, and whether you are willing to understand it or not, it won’t save secularism. Secularism still will not be able to ground a single moral axiom…whether or not any other religion or ideology can.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 25, 2025 1:51 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 24, 2025 10:15 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Jul 24, 2025 9:39 pm
Yes, we know. I’m right. I’ve demonstrated it by the absence of any moral axioms associated with subjectivism.

I haven’t tried to show that yet. You’re too impatient.

But if you go back and read my last message in response to Mike, you’ll get a better understanding of why some authority is always necessary, and also be reminded of why “it’s subjective” is no answer at all.

All you end up with is something is moral for no other reason than God proclaims it moral.

Actually, no, you don’t. You’ve got what’s called a “false dichotomy” buried in the phrasing of your claim. There’s no reason at all to make a difference between the phrases “right” and “what God commands.” God commands that which is right, and what is right is what He commands; because He is good. So it’s as if you were asking, “Is God the Father, or is He the Creator?” The only possible answer is, “Yes, to both.”

But whether you understand that or not, and whether you are willing to understand it or not, it won’t save secularism. Secularism still will not be able to ground a single moral axiom…whether or not any other religion or ideology can.

And yet God commanded the Israelites to perform genocide, so are you agreeing that God's command was immoral even though he commanded it according to your go to book?

De-anchor morality from god who's existence depended only on a temporary belief system and morality becomes thoroughly subjective as proven by all its endless instantiations throughout history, many considering the other immoral.

That's the long and short of it. What more is there to really say about it except when discussing the merits of individual moralities which too amounts to a completely subjective discourse.

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Jul 25, 2025 2:01 am De-anchor morality from god who's existence depended only on a temporary belief system and morality becomes thoroughly subjective as proven by all its endless instantiations throughout history, many considering the other immoral.

That's the long and short of it. What more is there to really say about it except when discussing the merits of individual moralities which too amounts to a completely subjective discourse.

Why would morality necessarily be subjective if there is no God? Does that mean that those who make the rules arbitrarily make up morality, meaning someone could say that murder is moral, and that alone would make it moral?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jul 25, 2025 1:52 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 25, 2025 1:51 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Thu Jul 24, 2025 10:15 pm

All you end up with is something is moral for no other reason than God proclaims it moral.

Actually, no, you don’t. You’ve got what’s called a “false dichotomy” buried in the phrasing of your claim. There’s no reason at all to make a difference between the phrases “right” and “what God commands.” God commands that which is right, and what is right is what He commands; because He is good. So it’s as if you were asking, “Is God the Father, or is He the Creator?” The only possible answer is, “Yes, to both.”

But whether you understand that or not, and whether you are willing to understand it or not, it won’t save secularism. Secularism still will not be able to ground a single moral axiom…whether or not any other religion or ideology can.

And yet God commanded the Israelites to perform genocide, so are you agreeing that God's command was immoral even though he commanded it according to your go to book?

God is the giver of all life. Does He have the right to demand life?

Who are you weeping for? Is it the Amorites, or the Midianites, or who?

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Jul 25, 2025 2:01 am De-anchor morality from god who's existence depended only on a temporary belief system and morality becomes thoroughly subjective...

No. The word simply ceases to refer to anything at all. It becomes no more than a temporary delusion itself.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 25, 2025 2:30 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Fri Jul 25, 2025 1:52 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 25, 2025 1:51 am
Actually, no, you don’t. You’ve got what’s called a “false dichotomy” buried in the phrasing of your claim. There’s no reason at all to make a difference between the phrases “right” and “what God commands.” God commands that which is right, and what is right is what He commands; because He is good. So it’s as if you were asking, “Is God the Father, or is He the Creator?” The only possible answer is, “Yes, to both.”

But whether you understand that or not, and whether you are willing to understand it or not, it won’t save secularism. Secularism still will not be able to ground a single moral axiom…whether or not any other religion or ideology can.

And yet God commanded the Israelites to perform genocide, so are you agreeing that God's command was immoral even though he commanded it according to your go to book?

God is the giver of all life. Does He have the right to demand life?

Who are you weeping for? Is it the Amorites, or the Midianites, or who?

So I take it you disagree that God's command in your holy book for the Israelites to commit genocide was immoral? Is that because you think morality is whatever God says it is?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 25, 2025 2:32 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Jul 25, 2025 2:01 am De-anchor morality from god who's existence depended only on a temporary belief system and morality becomes thoroughly subjective...

No. The word simply ceases to refer to anything at all. It becomes no more than a temporary delusion itself.

Why is morality a "delusion" to you without God's existence? Does that mean people who believe in morality are insane?

IC. There is no reason to think that morality is a delusion. You are upset because your God is questioned. So you throw out everything good in life but not the bad, in anger. It's literally your way or else you'll run around telling everyone that there is no morality. It doesn't follow that no God = no morality. We don't know what we don't know, like what the source of morality is, for example.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Jul 25, 2025 2:32 am

Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Jul 25, 2025 2:01 am De-anchor morality from god who's existence depended only on a temporary belief system and morality becomes thoroughly subjective...

No. The word simply ceases to refer to anything at all. It becomes no more than a temporary delusion itself.

No! Actually to de-anchor morality from any god prerequisite throws light on what morality is and how it came to be across the planet in all its variations; very different from the one and only morality you regard as absolute for everyone.

Antonius Block wrote:There are a few different things that occur in a man when a meta-narrative is punctured and when one collapses. It makes sense to talk about this, at least as I see things.

Man, a man, is pushed back into himself, not only psychologically but thrust back into his physical being, as if (not saying it is) his only realm, his fate, that which he cannot avoid any longer. How strange and melancholy this is. He faces “total annihilation” — because death becomes absolute — whereas before he held in his fantasizing mind all sorts of alternatives.

I do not think man loses his spiritual self, but that self by necessity must rely on it-self but with an additional helper or guide: the so-conceived higher self, which is always depicted as non-affiliated (to some God-Authority). This Guide is not encumbered (so much) by strict moral rules, and is not (so) opposed to experimentation with many levels of experience. Life in so many ways opens up to one less commandeered by that giant, nearly tyrannical god-idea.

In this sense the former God Concept kept one from full experience of the world — life, incarnated being.

Another talent must be developed: the use of consciousness and awareness as an “existential magic”. I’ll employ a common trope: the freed man can use his conscious focus to “manifest” what Guidance impels him toward. The will is understood to be a tool, something to be honed.

I refer to many different spiritual, and “magical” tools that began to be used by people when freed from that Over-Authority.

But I am not saying it was all good. Indeed, the will of man, unconstrained, very easily gets trapped in unrestricted passions and desires.

These are just a few references to modalities that have opened up when the restraining horizon fell away.

Falling back (in this sense) into the mire of the world, the tar-pit, causes man to assume responsibility for his moral being, what he chooses to do and what he chooses to avoid at all cost. Not because he is over-lorded by a Tyrant, but because he has assumed responsibility for himself.

But it must be faced: there are multitudes who cannot bear that freedom. It totally unsettles them. Freedom destroys them.

So we must show mercy: they need a Giant Restraining Order, a conceived edifice, super-restraints that keep them safe.