Philosophy Now Forum

The theistic moral model is actually pseudo-morality or bastardized morality without any justified empirical evidence [God is illusory] and sound philosophical reasoning [based on faith].

The theists smuggled in the term 'morality' into their flimsy model of good or evil [morality] when god is illusory and the behaviors of theists are threatened with fear of hell if they do not comply with God's law [which is actually subjective].

The only Pure and Pristine Morality Model is an efficient secular Framework and System of Morality and Ethics which is GUIDED by secular objective absolute moral oughts [ideal] justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.

Views?

Here is an interesting take [negative] on the Theistic Model of Morality;

Quote "

by Arpad Lajos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zh1H5kbdqHI&t=5s

The most recent form of the moral argument states that:

• 1. There cannot be objective moral values and duties without God
  2. Objective moral values and duties exist
  3. God exists

It seems that Christian apologists use this argument as one of their best trump to exclude Atheists from the discussion with telling them that they can be perfectly moral, but without their belief in God they do not have the philosophical foundation they would need.

i.) Being Atheist is not the belief in the lack of existence of God.
It is the lack of belief in the existence of God. The difference is fundamental. Since we do not factually know that a God exists, nor the contrary, either his existence or nonexistence is unkown and a matter of belief. For people such as myself, who refuse to assume God's existence or nonexistence due to scientific rigour statements which begin with "if Atheism is true" is meaningless. Atheism is the lack of belief in something. If you throw a dice I don't know whether it will be a six, I only know that its chance is 1/6. Therefore I do not believe that it will be a six, nor in the contrary, namely, that it will not be a six, however, if I'm intellectually honest, I will tell you that I find it unlikely that it will be a six, but I do not exclude it. Theist debaters often mix up Atheism with Naturalism and if you say that you are not believing in God, nor his lack of existence, they will often tell you that you only say something which is inside your skull. And yes, that's the case. If you avoid assuming pro or contra answer to God's existence and you are intellectually honest about it, then yes, you or I do not know whether God exists. But what we do know is that the scientifically plausible approach is to apply Occam's razor and avoid assuming anything unnecessarily, so while I, as an Atheist do not mix up religion with science, or, the things I know with the things I believe, those who use the moral argument basically attempt to introduce the existence of God into the realm of scientific facts, which, if not proven correctly will mislead everyone following their footsteps. Also, the exclusion of Atheists from the discussion on the grounds that we do not have the foundation for objective moral values and therefore we cannot say anything more about morality than "I like it" or "I don't like it" is a theocratic approach towards us and by definition unscientific, since dealing with our person is a well known fallacy, called argumentum ad hominem.

ii.) What makes a moral system objective?
A moral system is a set of moral rules, each rule revolving around the concept of good and bad, which can only be determined based on a validator, which is based on the values. Hence, if we define what "the values" are, then whatever saves, improves or creates value is "good" and whatever is doing the opposite is "bad". The moral system, which, ultimately rests on what values are, therefore is objective, if and only if the individual has no means to add his/her subjectivity by changing it. This effectively means that you or I cannot determine what "the values" are, even in a minuscule way, like voting and hence, this is a theocratic, totalitarian moral system. I do not intend to fall into dealing with the person of the Theistic apologists advocating for the moral argument, but the approach clearly excludes the individual from the set of defining factors for moral values and as a result, this approach is theocratic, at least in the moral sense, rendering whatever is not respecting the dogmas of a book "immoral", due to violating their objective moral values. As a result, a 100% objective moral system is not necessarily desirable from the point of individuals and should only be implemented if there is 100% scientific surety about the correctness of the claimed basis of the moral system.
So, in order to accept an objective moral system as the basis of the legal realm one needs to prove that his/her set of objective moral values is founded on THE correct view,
so, if a Christian wants us to accept his/her objective moral system, then the existence of God, as well as the accuracy of the Bible must be proven.

iii.) Where does objectivity end and subjectivity start?
We, as individuals are subjectively choosing what we believe in and therefore the objective moral system of a religion is at least once subjectively evaluated.

However, this is not the main problem. The main problem is that assuming that God exists and he defined the objective moral values and duties, which are objective from our perspective, due to our lack of ability to do changes on it, from God's perspective the moral values are subjective, since the moral values and duties are fully dependent on God's subject.
As a result, even God-defined objective moral values and duties have a fair share of subjectivity, even if it's not human subjectivity.

Abraham was commanded to kill Isaac according to the Bible. Is this morally acceptable? If God wants to, it is morally acceptable according to the believers of this religion.
Was the Jewish extermination of the Canaanites righteous? Yes, because God says so.
Are our sins undone by Christ's sacrifice? Yes, because God says so.
Is it a moral obligation to help others? Yes, because God says so.
We can list many items and the only validator is that God says so.
As a result, due to the selfish goal of getting into Heaven, there is no fundamental difference between the Islamic or Christian approach from the perspective of their foundation, they are both accepting moral values and obligations because God/Allah defined them, but Christians happen to be more tolerant because of the actual content of the book they believe in.
If they are convinced theologically that waging crusades is a moral obligation, then we will see crusaders, who will not differ from the Mujahedeen by much.

iv.) Is God necessary for objective moral values and duties?
No, of course not.
If we replace the religious belief in God with a personal cult of a human dictator, then, instead of God that human can define objective moral values (like the interests of the proletariat, or the interests of the Übermensch, or whatever) and "good" and "bad" will be objective for people living under their dictatorship, while the definition of moral values and duties will be subjective from the dictators' point of view.
So, for example, the Socialist system of the Soviet Union has defined objective moral values and duties, which were accepted by some people, who lived by them, very similarly to the religious people living by the objective moral values and duties of the God they believe in.
Besides the personality cult example of Lenin, Hitler, Stalin & co., as defining factors of objective moral values and duties, there is another type of objective moral values and duties.
We can accept some values, which, from that point on will be objective from our perspective. For example, if we value scientific progress, then the scientific method can become a basis of some objective moral values and duties.
Also, if we value our environment, then environmentalism will be an objective moral system.
Both the adherence to the scientific method or the effects of actions on the environment can be objectively evaluated, hence these moral systems are also objective.

v.) Why is a (really really) objective moral system bad?
If you cannot be a defining factor, even in the slightest manner of morals, that means that you live in a dictatorship.
Let's suppose you live under Sharia laws. Is that good? No, because Islam is false.
What if we would live under a Christian theocracy? Would that be good? Only if Christianity is right. Otherwise it would be a pointless torture.
So, if we assume the existence of God scientifically and his exclusivity on the definition of any objective moral values, then we will end up with scientific mistakes and a bad society living under a theocracy, if God does not exist.
If we assume the nonexistence of God, then we will end up in scientific mistakes and possibly (but not necessarily) a bad Atheistic dictatorship, if God exists.
Scientifically the wisest is to avoid assuming the existence or lack of existence of God and stick to what we know, possibly developing theories about what we don't know, but leaving faith in the realm of religion, separated nicely from what we know scientifically.

" Unquote.

From Wiki:

Religion is not always positively associated with morality.
Philosopher David Hume stated that,

• "the greatest crimes have been found, in many instances, to be compatible with a superstitious piety and devotion; Hence it is justly regarded as unsafe to draw any inference in favor of a man's morals, from the fervor or strictness of his religious exercises, even though he himself believe them sincere."[63]

Religious value systems can diverge from commonly held contemporary moral positions, such as those on murder, mass atrocities, and slavery.

• For example, Simon Blackburn states that "apologists for Hinduism defend or explain away its involvement with the caste system,
  and apologists for Islam defend or explain away its harsh penal code or its attitude to women and infidels".[64]
  In regard to Christianity, he states that the "Bible can be read as giving us a carte blanche for harsh attitudes to children, the mentally handicapped, animals, the environment, the divorced, unbelievers, people with various sexual habits, and elderly women",[65] and notes morally suspect themes in the Bible's New Testament as well.[66][e]
  Christian apologists address Blackburn's viewpoints[67] and construe that Jewish laws in the Hebrew Bible showed the evolution of moral standards towards protecting the vulnerable, imposing a death penalty on those pursuing slavery and treating slaves as persons and not property.[68]
  
  Elizabeth Anderson holds that "the Bible contains both good and evil teachings", and it is "morally inconsistent".[69]

My Point;
From the above it justifies that,
The Theistic Morality Model is Pseudo-Morality and Bastardized Morality.

Phil Zuckerman's 2008 book, Society without God, based on studies conducted during a 14-month period in Scandinavia in 2005–2006, notes that Denmark and Sweden, "which are probably the least religious countries in the world, and possibly in the history of the world", enjoy "among the lowest violent crime rates in the world [and] the lowest levels of corruption in the world".[72][c]

In recent years there is a significant rise in high crimes in Denmark and Sweden in contract to previous years because the stupid acceptance of a high number of Muslims refugees. The doctrines of Islam condoned a superiority complex on Muslims to be more superior to non-Muslims thus the entitlement to commit evil on non-Muslims.

Since 2015 there has been an increase in the number of cases of lethal violence and the figure in 2017 was the highest in Sweden since 2002.

Note, especially, the red graph line - sex attacks;



The Theistic Morality Model is Pseudo-Morality and Bastardized Morality.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 28, 2020 8:55 am The theistic moral model is actually pseudo-morality or bastardized morality without any justified empirical evidence [God is illusory] and sound philosophical reasoning [based on faith].

The theists smuggled in the term 'morality' into their flimsy model of good or evil [morality] when god is illusory and the behaviors of theists are threatened with fear of hell if they do not comply with God's law [which is actually subjective].

The only Pure and Pristine Morality Model is an efficient secular Framework and System of Morality and Ethics which is GUIDED by secular objective absolute moral oughts [ideal] justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.

Views?

As a secularist you have restricted yourself to one level of being. You have yet to experience the relativity of being or its scale. Understanding the nature of Man requires opening to the experience from efforts to "know thyself"; that he is dual natured. As Plato described he has the lower animal parts of the collective human essence which reacts unconsciously to life's impressions. Man is unique on earth from having the higher parts capable of human consciousness of the human essence connected to the source of our existence. As a result the lower parts argue about what it cannot understand. It lacks human "consciousness" and restricted to dualistic animal consciousness and unconscious what is above the scale of being which eventually connects it to its source.

Secular morality only argues the point of view of the lower parts which lack objective meaning. As said in the beginning of Ecclesiastes it is all meaningless under the sun. Objective meaning and purpose begins once a person inwardly has opened to what is above Plato's divided line and what is above the level of reality or of being we call the "sun" This quality may be human conscious potential but living by animal morality we are guided by cosmic and natural influences which create the cycles of existence collective man and animal life on earth responds to.

Conscious Man is a potential. It is better to accept what we are. It is a more meaningful foundation in the human need for "meaning."

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Apr 03, 2020 8:52 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Mar 28, 2020 8:55 am The theistic moral model is actually pseudo-morality or bastardized morality without any justified empirical evidence [God is illusory] and sound philosophical reasoning [based on faith].

The theists smuggled in the term 'morality' into their flimsy model of good or evil [morality] when god is illusory and the behaviors of theists are threatened with fear of hell if they do not comply with God's law [which is actually subjective].

The only Pure and Pristine Morality Model is an efficient secular Framework and System of Morality and Ethics which is GUIDED by secular objective absolute moral oughts [ideal] justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning.

Views?

As a secularist you have restricted yourself to one level of being. You have yet to experience the relativity of being or its scale. Understanding the nature of Man requires opening to the experience from efforts to "know thyself"; that he is dual natured. As Plato described he has the lower animal parts of the collective human essence which reacts unconsciously to life's impressions. Man is unique on earth from having the higher parts capable of human consciousness of the human essence connected to the source of our existence. As a result the lower parts argue about what it cannot understand. It lacks human "consciousness" and restricted to dualistic animal consciousness and unconscious what is above the scale of being which eventually connects it to its source.

Secular morality only argues the point of view of the lower parts which lack objective meaning. As said in the beginning of Ecclesiastes it is all meaningless under the sun. Objective meaning and purpose begins once a person inwardly has opened to what is above Plato's divided line and what is above the level of reality or of being we call the "sun" This quality may be human conscious potential but living by animal morality we are guided by cosmic and natural influences which create the cycles of existence collective man and animal life on earth responds to.

Conscious Man is a potential. It is better to accept what we are. It is a more meaningful foundation in the human need for "meaning."

Btw, I was a theist for MANY years, so I know what is being a theist like and I know the difference between being theistic and non-theistic.

I can agree humans has dual elements within the brain in terms of the primal [lower animal] and the higher human neocortex and prefrontal cortex.
The latter has nothing to do with what Plato called the 'Sun'.

Actually it is the animal brain in Plato that has driven his "higher" neocortex to think of the Sun as the higher being or entity.
It is the animal brain that is tied up with the existential crisis that forces the immature part of the neocortex to rely on crude reasons to generate the idea of a higher being which is actually an illusion.

The secular morality model relies on the higher brain of the prefrontal cortex to manage and modulate the lower primal and animal brain that is generating the existential crisis.
For example when the natural instinct to kill is triggered in the individual trained in secular morality, his neural manager and modulator [inhibitors] will nip the impulse at the bud to ensure it does not get full blown into actual killing of another human.

The secular morality is guided by highly reasoned ideal moral ought/rules [not enforceable].
To drive individual towards the ideal moral, there is a need to develop natural efficient managers and modulator within the brain, else there will be no moral efficiency.
When these efficient mangers and modulator are developed in a foolproof manner, there will be progressive incremental moral competencies within the individual who will manifest morality spontaneously and not coerced by fears and threats like those of the theistic models.

Because the theistic moral models depend on fears and threats of hell from an illusory God, they are pseudo-morality models.

See the contrast?

Explain how the theistic pseudo moral model based on fear and threats of hell can be more moral than my proposed secular model which promotes spontaneous morality by the individual[s]?

You seem to limit yourelf to theistic morality and secular morality. But are they the only two choices a person is capable of?

What if there is universal morality or the natural conscious order of objective values which sustain our universe?

We agree on what has happened to much of theistic morality and disagree that secular morality can produce the hypocrisy other than what it already has

If you wanted to continue this discussion I will draw some ideas explained in Plato’s divided line necessary to distinguish noesis from secular dianoia. A person has to open to higher knowedge or direct apprenension to transcend both secular and theistic morality to experience what the depth of our being needs

http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/plato1.htm

• noesis (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles)
• dianoia (discursive thought)
• pistis (belief or confidence)
• eikasia (delusion or sheer conjecture)

If noesis is a reality as are its principles we can consciously experience rather than explain through discursive thought, the logical question of its source presents itself. Can we learn to distinguish noesis from self serving fantasy to satisfy the calling from the depths of our being?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Apr 04, 2020 7:36 pm You seem to limit yourelf to theistic morality and secular morality. But are they the only two choices a person is capable of?

What if there is universal morality or the natural conscious order of objective values which sustain our universe?

We agree on what has happened to much of theistic morality and disagree that secular morality can produce the hypocrisy other than what it already has

If you wanted to continue this discussion I will draw some ideas explained in Plato’s divided line necessary to distinguish noesis from secular dianoia. A person has to open to higher knowedge or direct apprenension to transcend both secular and theistic morality to experience what the depth of our being needs

http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/plato1.htm

• noesis (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles)
• dianoia (discursive thought)
• pistis (belief or confidence)
• eikasia (delusion or sheer conjecture)

If noesis is a reality as are its principles we can consciously experience rather than explain through discursive thought, the logical question of its source presents itself. Can we learn to distinguish noesis from self serving fantasy to satisfy the calling from the depths of our being?

Secular means non-theistic.
If your universal morality is non-theistic, then it has to be secular.

The question, how can you justify your 'secular' universal morality is justifiably good for the whole of humanity regardless of we are using noesis, dianoia or pistis in the same sense?

My proposal of a secular objective absolute moral ought[s] would include (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles) since at present we are not doing an experiment that involved testing with every human being.

V A

Secular means non-theistic.
If your universal morality is non-theistic, then it has to be secular.

I have a different definition of secularism and what is required for objective morality. For me secularism is the study of earthly values available to us through the senses. From this perspective a person can have secular politics, religion, eduction etc. They are all built upon our senses

Universalism in contrast accepts the value of the senses but introduces the concept of noesis. It enables us to “feel” from the conscious parts of ourselves objective values initiating from a higher perspective. Dianoia offers us facts for comparison while noesis offers us the experience of objective values

The question, how can you justify your 'secular' universal morality is justifiably good for the whole of humanity regardless of we are using noesis, dianoia or pistis in the same sense?

Noesis is proven by the experience of conscience. Einstein describes what I mean and the one law which verifies for ourselves the reality of universal morality above the many assertions of secular morality

1930
"Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself." -- Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 16.), conversation March 4, 1930

“Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law.” Have you ever thought what he meant by this “One Law”? If you do you will understand the difference between secularism and universlism and how they relate to objective morality.

My proposal of a secular objective absolute moral ought[s] would include (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles) since at present we are not doing an experiment that involved testing with every human being.

You are making the assumption that secular humanity is consciously able or even wants to distinguish between self serving imagination and objective conscience. That is why conscious experiences devolve so quickly into imagination. Only a small minority dedicated to the experience of truth are capable. The world doesn’t understand them. Water seeks its own level. Since we are as we are everything remains as it is.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Apr 10, 2020 9:09 pm V A

Secular means non-theistic.
If your universal morality is non-theistic, then it has to be secular.

I have a different definition of secularism and what is required for objective morality. For me secularism is the study of earthly values available to us through the senses. From this perspective a person can have secular politics, religion, eduction etc. They are all built upon our senses

Universalism in contrast accepts the value of the senses but introduces the concept of noesis. It enables us to “feel” from the conscious parts of ourselves objective values initiating from a higher perspective. Dianoia offers us facts for comparison while noesis offers us the experience of objective values

The question, how can you justify your 'secular' universal morality is justifiably good for the whole of humanity regardless of we are using noesis, dianoia or pistis in the same sense?

Noesis is proven by the experience of conscience. Einstein describes what I mean and the one law which verifies for ourselves the reality of universal morality above the many assertions of secular morality

1930
"Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself." -- Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 16.), conversation March 4, 1930

“Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law.” Have you ever thought what he meant by this “One Law”? If you do you will understand the difference between secularism and universlism and how they relate to objective morality.

My proposal of a secular objective absolute moral ought[s] would include (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles) since at present we are not doing an experiment that involved testing with every human being.

You are making the assumption that secular humanity is consciously able or even wants to distinguish between self serving imagination and objective conscience. That is why conscious experiences devolve so quickly into imagination. Only a small minority dedicated to the experience of truth are capable. The world doesn’t understand them. Water seeks its own level. Since we are as we are everything remains as it is.

Just as I agree with Einstein who stated,

• "Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution."

I agree also agree with Einstein's;

• "Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law."
  "Intuition is the father of new knowledge"

But what is critical is, whatever is new objective knowledge originating from 'imagination' and 'intuition' must be verified and confirmed with empirical evidence.
Einstein will definitely agree with this requirement.

Now what I proposed for secular moral objective laws [not enforceable] are the same with the above.
I start with intuition, i.e. the faculty of the morality within the brain and progress to verify and confirm its objectivity with empirical evidence.
So what is the problem with this?