Is morality objective or subjective?

[iambiguous]

Why do you so often use the tactics of dishonesty and distortion to support your claims while it appears you actually know better? Is that what you think you must resort to because you have no other proof or demonstration? Maybe such claims (by you) don't truthfully support your beliefs if this is what they lead you to do on a forum.

Yes, this is a philosophy forum. We are expected to go considerably deeper in exploring God and religion here. Than, say, would likely be the case around the family dinner table or at the local bar or in Sunday School.

But philosophers are no less confronted with the stakes involved. Moral Commandments on this side of the grave, immortality and salvation on the other side of it.

Now, I don't know how honest IC is being here. Even to himself. But I do know that "here and now" he is still able to sink down into what many construe to be the truly priceless comfort and consolation that comes with believing in God. To lose that [as I once did myself] would, no doubt, be devastating for him. So there is almost nothing he won't do to shrug off or dismiss the arguments from others here that threaten his peace of mind.

For me then [with him], it's back again to this:

There is an infinite range of wrong opinions about "What is 2 +2?" That infinite range does not imply there is no answer, or that it's not "4". It just means that everybody who says, "5," "21" and "3,000" are all wrong, as is every other of the infinite number of wrong answers.

Whenever you post things like this -- math is the equivalent of religion? -- I'm back to thinking...

1] you have a "condition" and it's "beyond your control"
2[ IC is a character that you play here. Your arguments are so "canned" you are actually just being ironic...mocking Christians by exposing just how ridiculous their arguments can be
3] we live in a wholly determined universe and neither one of us are able to actually post anything other than what our brains compel us to.

Unless, of course, I'm wrong.

[iambiguous]

So you think dictionaries should come in various versions according to what religion you are?

No. But I do think that you can't get a precise definition of some things from a general dictionary.

And if you know dictionaries, you know that's true. There are not just general dictionaries, like the MW or the Oxford; there are specialist dictionaries for particular disciplines, such as medicine, engineering, linguistics, and theology.

Okay, let's start here: https://www.google.com/search?q=diction ... s-wiz-serp

Now, given the dictionary that you might prefer, note how it comes closest to defining the Christian God into existence.

And, while you're at it, I'm still interested in exploring what you construe to be the most powerful scientific and historical evidence here -- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX -- in demonstrating the existence of the Christian God.

How about it? In your view, the most potent segment of them all.

[Harbal]

Now, I don't know how honest IC is being here. Even to himself. But I do know that "here and now" he is still able to sink down into what many construe to be the truly priceless comfort and consolation that comes with believing in God. To lose that [as I once did myself] would, no doubt, be devastating for him. So there is almost nothing he won't do to shrug off or dismiss the arguments from others here that threaten his peace of mind.

I think this is what some of us find hard to understand. Never having experienced that need to believe, I can't imagine the pull of it, or what psychological state it could be a response to.

[Immanuel Can]

I think this is what some of us find hard to understand. Never having experienced that need to believe, I can't imagine the pull of it, or what psychological state it could be a response to.

You believe all kinds of things, H. Everybody does. You've just never thought, perhaps, that you were believing them.

You believe that when you get up in the morning, the floor will be there, under your feet. You believe when you brush your teeth that you won't get tooth decay. You believe that you will not suddenly die, and that you can count on tomorrow being there for you. You believe you are healthy. You believe your government is working in your interests. You believe strangers will not suddenly rob you. Nothing you do, you would do if you did not believe first that it was possible for you to do it.

It's not that some people have a desire to believe things, and some others don't. Rather, it's that some people know that we all have to believe things, and other people believe they are not believing in anything at all.

[Harbal]

And, while you're at it, I'm still interested in exploring what you construe to be the most powerful scientific and historical evidence here -- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX -- in demonstrating the existence of the Christian God.

It obviously doesn't stop at the need to believe, there is also that other need to get others to believe. That must mean something; there has to be a clue in that somewhere. I mean, there are plenty of us here promoting atheism, but I'm not aware of anyone who cares enough to compile a playlist of videos in an attempt to increase their persuasive fire power. I don't buy the "duty to try to save us" chestnut, I'm afraid.

[iambiguous]

Now, I don't know how honest IC is being here. Even to himself. But I do know that "here and now" he is still able to sink down into what many construe to be the truly priceless comfort and consolation that comes with believing in God. To lose that [as I once did myself] would, no doubt, be devastating for him. So there is almost nothing he won't do to shrug off or dismiss the arguments from others here that threaten his peace of mind.

I think this is what some of us find hard to understand. Never having experienced that need to believe, I can't imagine the pull of it, or what psychological state it could be a response to.

Well, most of us [one way or another] need/want to believe there is 1] a basis for differentiating moral from immoral behavior, 2] a basis for giving our lives meaning and purpose and, 3] a basis for believing that death is not tumbling over into the abyss that is oblivion.

I was once a devout Christian myself. So, yes, I know full-well how God and religion can provide that. It certainly provided me with it.

And even when others succeeded in convincing me it was almost certainly not truly believable, I was able to find other secular/ideological Isms that worked for me.

Sure, it was only on this side of the grave, but back then I was young and healthy...death was way, way out there "somewhere" well beyond my day-to-day interactions with others.

Then John and Mary's abortion, then William Barrett's "rival goods", then existentialism, then moral nihilism, then "old age".

All of this will always come down to a particular philosophy of life embedded in a particular set of circumstance. Some don't need God and religion, others do. The part I root in the Benjamin Button Syndrome and in dasein.

[Harbal]

I think this is what some of us find hard to understand. Never having experienced that need to believe, I can't imagine the pull of it, or what psychological state it could be a response to.

You believe all kinds of things, H. Everybody does. You've just never thought, perhaps, that you were believing them.

You believe that when you get up in the morning, the floor will be there, under your feet. You believe when you brush your teeth that you won't get tooth decay. You believe that you will not suddenly die, and that you can count on tomorrow being there for you. You believe you are healthy. You believe your government is working in your interests. You believe strangers will not suddenly rob you. Nothing you do, you would do if you did not believe first that it was possible for you to do it.

When I believe those things, it is because experience has demonstrated them to be worthy of belief, and I will only hold on to them as long as that continues to be the case. I have no deep psychological need to believe anything in particular, so I don't have beliefs that I feel I must hang onto at all costs if circumstances suggest I should abandon any of them.

It's not that some people have a desire to believe things, and some others don't. Rather, it's that some people know that we all have to believe things, and other people believe they are not believing in anything at all.

We have to believe that walking in front of a moving bus will do us no good, or that grabbing a live electrical wire is bad for us, because evidence of the folly of not having those those beliefs is constantly present, and our need to believe is directly linked to our survival. We also have beliefs the absence of which would not kill us, but that we nevertheless need in order to navigate our way through life, but I really can't see why anyone needs to believe in God in this day and age.

[Harbal]

Now, I don't know how honest IC is being here. Even to himself. But I do know that "here and now" he is still able to sink down into what many construe to be the truly priceless comfort and consolation that comes with believing in God. To lose that [as I once did myself] would, no doubt, be devastating for him. So there is almost nothing he won't do to shrug off or dismiss the arguments from others here that threaten his peace of mind.

I think this is what some of us find hard to understand. Never having experienced that need to believe, I can't imagine the pull of it, or what psychological state it could be a response to.

Well, most of us [one way or another] need/want to believe there is 1] a basis for differentiating moral from immoral behavior, 2] a basis for giving our lives meaning and purpose and, 3] a basis for believing that death is not tumbling over into the abyss that is oblivion.

I was once a devout Christian myself. So, yes, I know full-well how God and religion can provide that. It certainly provided me with it.

And even when others succeeded in convincing me it was almost certainly not truly believable, I was able to find other secular/ideological Isms that worked for me.

Sure, it was only on this side of the grave, but back then I was young and healthy...death was way, way out there "somewhere" well beyond my day-to-day interactions with others.

Then John and Mary's abortion, then William Barrett's "rival goods", then existentialism, then moral nihilism, then "old age".

All of this will always come down to a particular philosophy of life embedded in a particular set of circumstance. Some don't need God and religion, others do. The part I root in the Benjamin Button Syndrome and in dasein.

I understand what you are saying, but my own experience of life hasn't left me with the ability to identify with it.

[Immanuel Can]

When I believe those things, it is because experience has demonstrated them to be worthy of belief, and I will only hold on to them as long as that continues to be the case.

That's exactly how everybody believes things. You might add that you can believe things because they're rational -- after all, you can't pre-experience everything you need to believe in order to navigate the world. Or you can believe things on the authority of people whose integrity you have reason to trust...we all do that, to some extent, whether it's a man with a mortar board or one in a lab coat, or the "expert" we see on the telly news, or just somebody who's written a book.

So there's actually no mystery to ponder. People believe what they have a basis to believe. They don't believe because they have some inchoate "need to believe" things. There's always an object, data, experience or person in which the belief is being invested, and it's invested because that entity appears trustworthy.

[Walker]

I was once a devout Christian myself. So, yes, I know full-well how God and religion can provide that. It certainly provided me with it.

What sect? (only if you care to answer)

[Harbal]

When I believe those things, it is because experience has demonstrated them to be worthy of belief, and I will only hold on to them as long as that continues to be the case.

That's exactly how everybody believes things. You might add that you can believe things because they're rational -- after all, you can't pre-experience everything you need to believe in order to navigate the world. Or you can believe things on the authority of people whose integrity you have reason to trust...we all do that, to some extent, whether it's a man with a mortar board or one in a lab coat, or the "expert" we see on the telly news, or just somebody who's written a book.

So there's actually no mystery to ponder. People believe what they have a basis to believe. They don't believe because they have some inchoate "need to believe" things. There's always an object, data, experience or person in which the belief is being invested, and it's invested because that entity appears trustworthy.

Yes, I believe lots of things on trust; it would sometimes be very risky not to. I probably also believe lots of things that aren't true, but in many cases it doesn't matter. Evolution by natural selection, for example, is something I believe, but if it turned out to be untrue, or only partially true, it wouldn't change my life. If I believed in God it would be very similar: He would be out there juggling galaxies and manipulating the laws of nature, and I would be down here on earth doing the best I could at being human; it would make no difference to me at all. What incentive do I have to get over the implausibility barrier?

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, I believe lots of things on trust; it would sometimes be very risky not to. I probably also believe lots of things that aren't true, but in many cases it doesn't matter.

Well, when it does matter, it's best we do our "homework," and make sure our beliefs are on a sound basis.

But that's just rational belief. It's not thing spooky, or "religious" or irregular in any way.

Evolution by natural selection, for example, is something I believe, but if it turned out to be untrue, or only partially true, it wouldn't change my life. If I believed in God it would be very similar: He would be out there juggling galaxies and manipulating the laws of nature, and I would be down here on earth doing the best I could at being human; it would make no difference to me at all. What incentive do I have to get over the implausibility barrier?

Your view of what God would be, then, would be the Deistic view: "God" as an indifferent cosmic force, rather than a personal Entity interested in the project of what's going on here, with you and me.

And you're right. The existence or non-existence of the Deistic "God" would be more or less uninteresting. Since, the assumption is, that "deity" has no future plans or interest in the world or in us, whether he or a Big Bang started us all off would not really matter much. It would maybe change some things about early cosmology, but not much about how you and I experience existence today.

But what if that's not the right view of God?

[Walker]

You deleted the most important part.

1: Theology: the study of religious faith, practice, and experience
especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world

Folks refuse to say or write God for various reasons. What's your reason?

If that were the most important part, it would have been listed first -- and it said nothing about studying what's 'accurate about the one God', as I.C. claims.

When have I ever refused to talk about God? That's what we're talking about right now.

What is your reason for being so stupid?

Well, I read the definition you quoted and thought, that’s a pretty good definition. I said to myself, those dicitionary folks are so precise and that’s admirable. Something to emulate. Such economy of words. And I said, cudos to Lacy for quoting such precision.

So, I double checked it and to my horror, I saw that you omitted the word God from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary’s definition, and not only that, those precision fanatics over at the dictionary wrote God with a capital G. I thought, is it a literal blind spot? And I philosophically questioned, why do people shy away from the word. For example, observant Jews don't write God.

I’m sure you know what that capital G, that rhymes with We, means. It means, one specific God, not all gods.

And I thought, Lacewing, you left out the most important part, you silly goose. Merriam-Webster says, especially the one God.

And I said, shame on you Lacewing. Shame on you for such an inadvertent omission. (because I am gracious).

I know. It doesn’t fit what you think so aw shucks, just call me stupid … or else explain it to me like I’m eight years old, real clear like. 'Cause I just wandered in and maybe caught you in the middle of something important.

[Walker]

Folks refuse to say or write God for various reasons.

God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God [/size]God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God GodGod God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God GodGod God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God God


God

That took some one-pointed focus to do that. A continuous thought upon God.

That's excellent.

Link that to a concept and you've committed Japa. You're halfway there to the spiritual life, Harbal. You really had no choice, did you now. Be truthful.

[Harbal]

But what if that's not the right view of God?

I suppose it would make two of us who have got it wrong.