Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:So go ahead, tell me what experiment this Dr Craig proposes to demonstrate the existence of 'God' in the same way that your scientist's experiment works to demonstrate to me the phenomena he believes he's noted?

You may regret asking this, mate. Craig has a suite of so-called arguments of such infantile calibre that any logician could drive a semi-trailer through them sideways, but unsurprisingly this makes no difference whatsoever since he only preaches to the converted, where the beatification of ignorance is an expression of the highest form of truth.

artisticsolution wrote:Would you agree that he knows EVERYTHING about us? So, when you think or say something, and you imagine yourself in front of God saying the same thing, would you tell him with pride or would you hesitate?

Your test would be a good one IF sincerity was the measure of truth. But it's not. People can be sincerely wrong. And surely you would agree to that. So whether or not one could imagine oneself proudly declaring X or Y to God is only a good test if one's moral compass is also straight. But Christians know the human moral compass is bent. There is a great deal over which we express pride which is actually shameful, hurtful, selfish, cruel, shallow, etc.

I think for any Christian this test of their motives is a simple no brainer. Why are you fighting me so hard?

Because while intent is relevant to the moral equation, intent is only one part of a multi-part problem. Another is the action a person did. So, for example, if I drive my car irresponsibly, thinking sincerely that no harm could possibly come of it, and run down someone's child, it solves less than the whole problem for me to say, "I didn't mean to..." In fact, that's a rather pathetic defence, I think you'll agree.

So now you agree that, Christian's have occasional lapses. lol...So how can you tell if someone is 'good'then? You would have to know them a pretty long time to know their 'habitual actions.' Are you saying you have God's power to know EVERYTHING about them?

Ah, there's the all-or-nothing again. You don't have to know everything, of course. Nor does your estimation have to be as complete as God's. But there are some definite things (you cite "shooting Mexicans," for example), that would be rather good indicators of the attitude of the person in question, surely. A "lapse" can happen to anyone: but too many "lapses" indicate much deeper problems: they indicate habits of the heart.

This is why we have the injunction, "...by their fruit you will know them," from Christ. For fruit does not grow quickly or change instantly. It is on the tree for plenty of time for anyone to inspect the tree and say which kind it is. In fact, the tree habitually or seasonally produces only that fruit. So judging is not nearly so difficult as you're suggesting.

What do I care if someone is a true Christian or not?

Well, apparently you're at pains to criticize them. So you must care whether or not you're talking about real people...

Obvious Leo wrote:...there isn't a scientist in the world who doesn't know that his own theories are nothing more than working hypotheses until something better comes along.

And until he has a better hypothesis, he'll continue to believe in his old one. Or "have faith," if you will.

Immanuel Can wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:I believe every human sins, including Christians. So by your criteria, no one is a ' genuine Christian'.

Wow. Are you ever an all-or-nothing thinker.

Duh, no that is sooooo you.
Your worst than anyone else here on the Forum.

So what exactly are your criteria for a true Christian??

Immanuel Can wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:...there isn't a scientist in the world who doesn't know that his own theories are nothing more than working hypotheses until something better comes along.

And until he has a better hypothesis, he'll continue to believe in his old one. Or "have faith," if you will.

No, that's the religious nut in you speaking.

Q: "How do I know if Christianity is right? I mean, different people say different things, how do I know?"

A: The whole thing is a lot easier than you think. You do not have to accept anyone else's word or opinion about anything.

You have a conscience. Your conscience is the voice of God within you, and you must listen to it and obey it. It will tell you when something is right, and it lets you know with no mistake when something is wrong
http://www.meaning-of-life.info/BeingaChristian.html

AS - just dropping in with this. I can't get into the religious argument, because I've had more than enough of it.
{Edit: I seem to have talked myself back into it - damn temptation - it's SO wrong !! ]
However, this seemed pertinent to your OP.

Moral soundness - the ability to tell right from wrong - can get philosophically complicated. However, I think most of us are aware of what feels right intuitively. Most kids know about 'fairness' - but can argue over what is fair...Fair enough.
Some take religion and various commandments as their 'moral compass'.
However, what is 'right' for some, is 'wrong' for others. So many views/interpretations...

The above quote talks about the voice of conscience - and how it is God speaking. I don't believe this for one second; I agree that you should listen to your internal 'voice' but not necessarily obey it. It could very well be wrong. Cue critical thinking/philosophy.

What is 'a moral compass' - is it this natural feeling that people know what is right and wrong; and then knowing how to behave? A guide for morally appropriate behaviour. Hmmm, it isn't always that simple, is it?

The concept of morality is also relatively simple at its absolute core. It denotes conduct or duties based on what is right and wrong. Morality is considered to be the basis of character and is wrapped around ethics.
But while both the concept of a moral compass and the definition of morality are simple and clear, the concept of what constitutes morality is not. One person’s moral compass may not point in the same direction as another’s as far as right and wrong conduct and belief are concerned...
...
How can it be possible to construct a moral compass that can give the same north reading for all members of society when the mainstream belief of the population is that knowledge is endlessly evolving—that actions and beliefs must of necessity be fluid and adaptable to society’s changing popular culture?

Is religion the answer? Given the above mindset, even if religious organizations all taught the same ethical standards it would be difficult to establish a uniform moral north. But the larger problem with religion is that there is no agreed basis for morality...

http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/ethic ... /3574.aspx

AS wrote: The reason I started this thread is because I believe devout Christians have not developed a strong moral compass and instead rely on the bible and their peers to tell them the difference between right and wrong. People who are not religious rely on their moral compass to discern right from wrong, I think.

What do you mean by 'devout Christians' - fundamentalists? those who take the Bible literally? If so, then yes - they will take the Word as the Way to live the 'right' way. This might mean black and white thinking - without developing behaviour according to context/circumstance/societal change.
This is their 'moral compass'.

Others may be 'devout' in the sense of 'sincere' - regular churchgoers - who believe they are Christians and try to act in likewise manner - doing good.

Either may have a strong moral compass - however, is it a good thing to have?

Non-believers - again - so many views...no single 'moral compass' can be completely relied upon, can it?

IC wrote: ...But Christians know the human moral compass is bent...

What do you mean by a bent moral compass?
And how do you know that all Christians know this? Are you talking about your particular branch of Christianity; some True and Unfailing Moral Compass?

Oh, hello, MB:

marjoram_blues wrote:

IC wrote: ...But Christians know the human moral compass is bent...

What do you mean by a bent moral compass?

Nothing spooky. It's just a metaphor for whatever mechanism it is that tells us the difference between right and wrong, as per the heading of the strand. Call it "conscience" if you will, or "moral awareness," or "standards." Take your pick.

And how do you know that all Christians know this?

I don't know that they do. But they should. It's neatly explained in the Bible. "The heart of man is deceitful above all things..." It says a great deal more, but you get the gist.

Are you talking about your particular branch of Christianity; some True and Unfailing Moral Compass?

Heavens, no. I'm not attributing perfection to me or to my kind in this matter. Human beings are all highly fallible. Were they not, for what would they have need of God's help?

M to IC: What do you mean by a bent moral compass?
IC: Nothing spooky. It's just a metaphor for whatever mechanism it is that tells us the difference between right and wrong, as per the heading of the strand. Call it "conscience" if you will, or "moral awareness," or "standards." Take your pick.

M: So, as per your original statement - I'll pick one - are you saying that Christians know that human moral standards are 'bent' - is that right? In what sense of 'bent''?

M: how do you know that all Christians know this?
IC: I don't know that they do. But they should.
M: Of course you don't, so why did you say that they did? So ok, according to you, Christians should know that human moral standards are 'bent' - in some way.

IC: It's neatly explained in the Bible. "The heart of man is deceitful above all things..." It says a great deal more, but you get the gist.
M: It might say that the 'heart of man is deceitful' - this is not the same as saying that human moral standards are 'bent'.

M: Are you talking about your particular branch of Christianity; some True and Unfailing Moral Compass?
IC: Heavens, no. I'm not attributing perfection to me or to my kind in this matter. Human beings are all highly fallible. Were they not, for what would they have need of God's help?

M: Of course you are not attributing perfection to yourself or to your 'kind' ( whatever that might mean - fellow evangelical Lutherans? ). And for sure, humans are fallible. I was wondering what you considered an 'unbent' Christian moral compass, or standard ?
Human fallibility does not mean that humans need the help of God to reach some kind of an unfailing Truth of what is right and wrong. Humans are deceived by all sorts...

marjoram_blues wrote:So, as per your original statement - I'll pick one - are you saying that Christians know that human moral standards are 'bent' - is that right? In what sense of 'bent''?

Like a broken compass, may be right and may be wrong. The problem with an unreliable compass is that one never knows *when* it's telling you the truth and when it's not.

M: It might say that the 'heart of man is deceitful' - this is not the same as saying that human moral standards are 'bent'.

What difference are you pointing out?

Of course you are not attributing perfection to yourself or to your 'kind.

Oh, good. You get that. A lot of people labour under the delusion that Christians think they're 'special' people. We don't. (At least, those that understand good theology don't. I can't speak for every particular case.)

And for sure, humans are fallible. I was wondering what you considered an 'unbent' Christian moral compass, or standard ?

Well, if morality is objective (I think it is), then "unbent" would mean "agreeing with the objective truth about morality."

Human fallibility does not mean that humans need the help of God to reach some kind of an unfailing Truth of what is right and wrong. Humans are deceived by all sorts...

I would say it does. For it could be true that a perfidious compass may lead you safely out of the woods...but if it does, it will only be by accident that it does. The far greater chances are that it will not, for there are 359 degrees it can go wrong, but only one in which it will lead you objectively right. So it would be a very foolish person who trusted her compass to lead her to safety when she knew, in fact, that it was broken.

M: So, as per your original statement - I'll pick one - are you saying that Christians know that human moral standards are 'bent' - is that right? In what sense of 'bent''?
IC: Like a broken compass, may be right and may be wrong. The problem with an unreliable compass is that one never knows *when* it's telling you the truth and when it's not.
M: Ah OK - In terms of physical direction, there is a clear 'true North' by which to navigate safely through unfamiliar terrain. If this is broken then one might get lost. And find oneself travelling in another direction.
Depending on your travel objective or philosophy of life - this might turn out just fine after all. Or not. Depending. Of course, there are other strategies by which to physically orientate oneself. And adjust to the circumstances you find yourself in.
This might be the same as adjusting your own moral direction or choice. However, this is not necessarily a 'bad' or deceitful thing.


M: It might say that the 'heart of man is deceitful' - this is not the same as saying that human moral standards are 'bent'.
IC: What difference are you pointing out?
M: 'the heart of man is deceitful' :

http://biblehub.com/jeremiah/17-9.htm
International Standard Version: "The heart is more deceitful than anything. It is incurable— who can know it?
NET Bible: The human mind is more deceitful than anything else. It is incurably bad. Who can understand it?
GOD'S WORD® Translation: "The human mind is the most deceitful of all things. It is incurable. No one can understand how deceitful it is.
Jubilee Bible 2000: The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who shall know it?

Tell me, how you think that this should tell Christians that human moral standards are broken and unreliable. The human mind can deceive, for sure - how is this 'wicked' on one interpretation ? People can and do understand that perceptions of what is right/wrong are not always the same for all, at all times and in every place. There is not always a straight and easy line to follow; this is not about sinful mental deception.

M: Of course you are not attributing perfection to yourself or to your 'kind.
IC: Oh, good. You get that. A lot of people labour under the delusion that Christians think they're 'special' people. We don't. (At least, those that understand good theology don't. I can't speak for every particular case.)
M: Nope. Never have believed that 'special' nonsense.

M: And for sure, humans are fallible. I was wondering what you considered an 'unbent' Christian moral compass, or standard ?
IC: Well, if morality is objective (I think it is), then "unbent" would mean "agreeing with the objective truth about morality."
M: And what is that objective truth about morality that you agree with? Specifics, please?

M: Human fallibility does not mean that humans need the help of God to reach some kind of an unfailing Truth of what is right and wrong. Humans are deceived by all sorts...
IC: I would say it does. For it could be true that a perfidious compass may lead you safely out of the woods...but if it does, it will only be by accident that it does. The far greater chances are that it will not, for there are 359 degrees it can go wrong, but only one in which it will lead you objectively right. So it would be a very foolish person who trusted her compass to lead her to safety when she knew, in fact, that it was broken.

M : Yes indeed, you would say that. Which True Moral Compass always keep you safe, in an unbending moral direction? No room for subjective flexibility - creative and critical thinking - at all?

AS - I seem to have got myself nattering on about morality and religion. Didn't mean to get caught up again.
Will cut it short as soon as...

Artisticsolution wrote:

People talk shit...it's the Christian people who I hold more accountable because they should know better.

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Matthew 7:1-2

marjoram_blues wrote:Tell me, how you think that this should tell Christians that human moral standards are broken and unreliable.

Well "heart" in Scripture is not what we in the modern west think of. We think it has to do with love, and the "head" has to do with the brain. The ancients saw "heart," (or in some cases even the "liver") as a metaphor for the seat of human thoughts and desires...I suppose what we in modern parlance would call "soul" or "self." So when the Bible speaks of it being "wicked" or "deceitful," it is neither a insult to its abilities at intellection, nor any kind of slam on human love; rather it's a criticism of the human propensity to rationalize evil actions, to excuse bad behaviour, and to mislead the self as to what its true purposes are. Basically the Bible is very negative on the idea that human beings are wise to trust their own moral judgments. They're often self-serving.

The human mind can deceive, for sure - how is this 'wicked' on one interpretation ? People can and do understand that perceptions of what is right/wrong are not always the same for all, at all times and in every place. There is not always a straight and easy line to follow; this is not about sinful mental deception.

The Bible is realist* about epistemology. What this means is that it assumes that there is a reality "out there" so to speak, toward which any genuinely truthful propositions must relate. What you're channelling above seems to be modernist relativism, which assumes that there is no objective reality toward which propositions could relate, and only differences of opinion.

But that modernist relativist epistemology is, of course, rationally self-defeating in a very obvious way.

M: And what is that objective truth about morality that you agree with? Specifics, please?

Okay. "Moral" means anything that is consonant with the character and nature of God Himself. "Immoral" is anything antithetical to that character. Is that specific enough? Or were you looking for something else?

No room for subjective flexibility - creative and critical thinking - at all?

No, this doesn't follow from what I'm saying at all. "Creativity" is a creation of God. And "critical thinking" is something every rational being should do, and in fact, yet another faculty God has given us. Both are key elements of our humanity. But "creative" doesn't mean "making your own morality up," and "critical thinking" is not the same as "cynical dismissal." I'm not saying you're guilty of either: I'm just pointing out that these words are not synonyms.

And "subjective flexibility"? There's lots of room for that. But all of us know that there are limits to where that can go. "Subjectivity" has to live within moral guidelines. There are legitimate and illegitimate forms of human expression, because (and here we come full circle) the hearts of humankind are not filled only with good, creative, critical and healthy things; they're also full of violence, cruelty, selfishness, venom and other such elements. So "subjectivity" cannot be regarded amorally.

*Realist -- definition: "Realism, at it simplest and most general, is the view that entities of a certain type have an objective reality, a reality that is completely ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc."
Realism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy
see http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_realism.html

marjoram_blues wrote:AS - just dropping in with this. I can't get into the religious argument, because I've had more than enough of it.
{Edit: I seem to have talked myself back into it - damn temptation - it's SO wrong !! ]
However, this seemed pertinent to your OP.

Hi M,

I am delighted you stopped in, if you learned any new cuss words in German, feel free to share! I promise not to judge.

Thanks for the link. Of course you know, I am speaking to Christians...what type of Christians is harder to pin point since I am not sure what type my family is now. When I was forced to go to church, they called themselves "born again" but I think they got such a bad reputation for being nuts (some tried to 'save everyone by being highly annoying where one could not get away from the torment), that they took out the "born again" and now just call themselves Christians. I don't think they are as 'fundamental' as a 'holy roller' who takes the bible literally though. No this new blend is trying so hard to bring Christianity into current times.

I have noticed people becoming every more cynical these days and Christians are not immune. So this new brand of Christian has put a spin on the bible that is pure genius. It used to be, "turn the other cheek", now it is "Onward Christian Soldier." That is the only way I can describe it.

I can't understand this new combative Christian. I have always thought the bible had some good things going for it...esp. since I believe that some people just don't have a good intuitive moral compass and need to learn those skills. I thought the 10 commandments was a good place to start over all. Now mind you, I am not saying they should become religious, but that if one has trouble telling right from wrong then one can just learn the 10 commandments as a starting point...the abc's or morality if you will. I mean, ya gotta start somewhere...right?

Now this may sound absurd to you and me...who take for granted our moral compass..if you will...BuT I am starting to believe not all people come equipped with that intuitive feeling. We may not always follow ours, but at least we have 'it'. As we know right from wrong even if we may not choose to abide by our own understanding. But what if there are those who don't?

I have noticed some Christians are ever worried who is a "good" Christian and who is not. I think the Christians who think this are concerned because they have difficulty discerning right from wrong...morally handicapped if you will and they are afraid others are exactly like them but worse...because they don't have the bible to guide them. I mean there are certain things that most people can agree are wrong...like murder. But then the law is clear cut on that. So a Christian , who might be morally handicapped (not all Christians...just I have noticed a few have difficulty) can say, the bible says it's wrong and the law says it's wrong....Therefore it must be wrong. Sadly, that is not the case with all immorality...some morality has shades of grey. And certainly, in addition, I am not about to enter a discussion here about free will...that is a even more advanced course! lol...let's stick with the abc's as merely mentioning the simple test has got me in enough trouble...lol

What I am getting at, is. if the 10 commandments are the ABC's of morality, to Christians....then why would they actively break them when interpreting the bible? Logically it doesn't make sense. If you read something in the bible that causes you to say, "Let's kill illegals at the border!", Then chances are you are wrong about that one point....because if you go back and take a look at the ABC's ( the 10 commandments) you will see it says 'thou shall not kill'. So then logic would tell a christian, they interpreted the passage wrongly (whatever passage made yhem think it was okay to kill illegals)and thus it is wrong to advocate the killing of illegals. That is how they can check the math, so to speak.

Immanuel, said he didn't have a problem with my test per se...but chose to toss it because he felt I was putting down Christians. At least that is my take on our conversation.

Anyway, I am just saying is all. Just thinking out loud.

So how ya been, girlfriend. I almost typed Goilfriend...lol...what am I...a stooge? yuk yuk yuk...lol (holding my hand upright between my eyes to block the eye poke).