Thoughts on this video anyone?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU
I'm down to listen and engage!
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
The structure and language of this video is the same exact language and structure used to teach.... language. This is Just trying to make Religious rules make sense.
All this video does is suggest that humans must use "God's" standard as a reference point in order to funtion properly as a society. An agreed upon way of thinking sounds great... For A Flock Of SHEEP.
God did not not create the benchmarks that this video advocates. People created these benchmarks, People put them on paper, and people made the video that this linked to this post.
Sorry if come off a bit brash, but I'm so tired of morality subjects can you guys post about something else for a change???
Thanks for saving me the time to check out this video. I have an interest in their arguments, but if its the same old circular reasoning they always use, like:
God is real, this book says so. This book is real and truth because it is the word of god!
And then the people that use this argument just stand their mute when you give them an example of another ridiculous circular argument, as a circular argument can "prove" anything including the flying spaghetti monster.
LogicforTW,
Thanks for your comment. This thread is not about the existence of God, though it will inevitably go there. Rather my main question to you and others is this:
DO YOU BELIEVE IN AN OBJECTIVE MORALITY?
If we can stick to that question first, I think it would be fruitful =] PS I think your profile picture is hilarious.
Thanks for the compliment on my profile picture.
I apologize, as I have not watched the video, and made an assumption.
A quick google search on objective morality, just so we can work from the same definition. (Feel free to correct the one I found.)
Here is what I found:
A proposition is objective if its truth value is independent of the person uttering it. A fact is objective in the same way. For morality to be objective, moral propositions such as "Killing is bad","Stealing is bad", etc... need to be true independently of the person who is stating them.
So if I read this correctly, do I believe that: morality can be independent of the person uttering it. I actually have not read too much debate or put too much thought into this.
Is this a sort of a "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody's around to see or hear it, did it fall?" sort of question?
So far to me, this objective morality idea smells of a word riddle that mixes the metaphysical with the physical in confusing ways, a tactic often times used by theist scholars in attempt to rationalize their ridiculous holy book content.
Tell me if I gone the wrong direction for this, but a subset of what you are asking could be:
If no one, (including a supposed god) says its wrong, is murder still wrong?
Well, a literal interpretation of that: no, ofcourse not, once the person doing the murdering moved on and the person died, and there is no one was around to say or think it's wrong, it's not wrong, the metaphysical idea ended. Wrong is a word, a metaphysical idea. A fragment of a thought process. The metaphysical word: "murder" itself does not exist for this physical event in time anymore, you need a person to bring the metaphysical word/idea back to the event.
In short, all thoughts and words are metaphysical, because they are metaphysical they do not exist outside of the time that person thinks that thought.
Getting away from the word games and metaphysical, is the much more simple and useful idea of: is the act of murdering someone wrong? Well I think we can all strongly agree that you would feel very wronged as you were getting murdered. Therefore murder (at least of yourself) is well agreed upon as very wrong we created a morality code that a vast majority of people agree with and will likely follow. It also, so happens fortunately, that a vast majority of people agree that any murder of another person for almost any reason is wrong. We don't need a god created morality to realize murder is wrong. We don't need word games to realize this, it is just common sense.
Thanks for your comments Secular! Not brash at all! Please be honest and brash if you must, it helps me grow and learn! Here is my reply.
COMMENT: "The structure and language of this video is the same exact language and structure used to teach.... language."
-REPLY:Though this may be true and I'm not an linguist so I do not know, that does not discredit the truth of the video if there is indeed truth in the video.
COMMENT: "This is Just trying to make Religious rules make sense."
-REPLY: If I'm not mistaken that was not the point of the video; rather, it was questioning our claim to objective morality without God. It's main question and I am also wondering, do you or anyone who responds believe that there is an objective morality?
"All this video does is suggest that humans must use "God's" standard as a reference point in order to function properly as a society"
-REPLY: This also was not the main point of the video. The very first 17 seconds isolate and clarify that this video is NOT about functioning well in society but rather ON WHAT BASIS DO THE MORALS that are used in society HAVE OBJECTIVITY. Which again makes me ask: do you believe in objective morality?
"An agreed upon way of thinking sounds great... For A Flock Of SHEEP. God did not not create the benchmarks that this video advocates. People created these benchmarks, People put them on paper, and people made the video that this linked to this post."
-REPLY: It is ironic that you state this; mainly because without God that is all we have: a subjective agreement on the definition of morality. Though, I'm happy to be a lamb in the flock of Jesus =]
-REPLY: Secondly, how do you know that God did not create benchmarks (I'm assuming you mean morality/rules)? That is a statement but where is the evidence for that statement. If you are following a presupposition that God does not exist then that statement makes sense (obviously this will take us to a debate on proof of God but before then can we stick to the morality question?).
Anyone left: please answer if you'd like "DO YOU BELIEVE IN OBJECTIVE MORALITY?"
Deleted Redundant Post
@whatistruth
1) Morality comes from society, not any god. I won't repeat the extensive proof of this fact as I have already done it a million times on this forum alone.
2) You have to prove your god, Then you have to prove that said god set the rules for morality.
3) This is about the millionth thread about this subject. every possibility has been exhausted.
4) The video isn't logical at all. It is set up for a predetermined conclusion like a push poll.
5) Asking this question "DO YOU BELIEVE IN OBJECTIVE MORALITY?" is intellectually dishonest because you ask it by defining what objective morality is. And you are wrong about what object morality is. It isn't anything to do with a god. Object morality is defined by the society which ever society structure that one resides in. That may be a church or a nation or a home or a county or a continent or a culture or any number of parameters!
If you are honest, if you want REAL and honest debate, you would not stoop to intellectual dishonesty. So this tells me that you came here because you want to feel superior even though all you did was prove that you are intellectually inferior. You proved a lack of integrity, in essence, you have been immoral. In essence you proved to be a hypocrite.
mykob4! Thanks for your thoughts. Sorry this has been a repeated subject. I hope there is some newness to this thread.
Your points 1,2,3, and 4 are not the immediate focus of this thread. At least not yet. I do agree that this discussion will eventually go there but I would like people to first answer the question. With a yes or no.
Before, you do I would like to respond to point 5.
YOUR COMMENT: 5) Asking this question "DO YOU BELIEVE IN OBJECTIVE MORALITY?" is intellectually dishonest because you ask it by defining what objective morality is.
REPLY: How is defining terms intellectually dishonest? If by intellectual dishonesty you mean the following definition listed here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty), then I'm not sure how defining terms is intellectually dishonest. I'm sorry if I gave that impression.
The only way this would be true is if I defined a term in an incorrect/misleading way. One way to do this would be to ruin the terms objective or morality which I have not done. The standard lexical definition for objective is found here (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/objective), and the standard lexical definition for morality is found here(http://www.dictionary.com/browse/moral). Therefore, from these sources I define objective morality to be as follows:
A set of universal principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior, which are independent from any subjective beliefs on an entity or group of entities.
Please prove how this definition is misleading or dishonest. I will not hold you tightly to this since I did not write out this definition until now.
Though I do not see my self as intellectually dishonest (at least not intentionally =), I hope that by my apology and clarification on point five you can also see that I am attempting to have an honest debate. Now to your definition:
---
YOUR COMMENT: Object morality is defined by the society which ever society structure that one resides in. That may be a church or a nation or a home or a county or a continent or a culture or any number of parameters!
REPLY: This fails to meet my definition (though I did not state it at first so thank you for keeping me sharp) and secondly this does not even meet the general definition of the word objective (i.e. independent of the observer). Instead your trying to redefine objective to mean "collective subjectivism". This actually is a misleading usage of terms. If this is your definition of Objective Morality then it is not a correct usage of words.
That is like me saying that the definition of perfect is almost perfect. I can state that but this doesn't make it so, nor is that being intellectually honest. As of right now the term perfect means without error and therefore shall remain as such and as of right now the definition of objective means a fact which is independent of the observer or feeling, etc. Therefore, now that I have clarified my definition of objective morality which does adhere to the standard definitions of the terms, do you or anyone else believe that there are any? YES/NO
Lastly on what basis can you call me immoral? How is integrity an objective moral virtue? If, right now, I get 3 people to say that integrity is not moral and being a hypocrite is (though I do not believe this) would you then agree (based on your majority rational) that at a 3:1 ratio hypocrisy is moral? And if indeed I have been a hypocrite as you state then should you then call me moral to correct your statement?
Oh also, as I am new to this and others are to, then redundant topics may not be such a bad thing. Though feel free to link those so I can read them. =]
Based on the definition you posted:
"A set of universal principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior, which are independent from any subjective beliefs on an entity or group of entities."
Do i believe that exist? No.
Principles, morality, or any ideas do not exist outside of the thoughts and language that created them.
I just thought of a crazy word in my head, it was really long and was gibberish, I have already forgotten the word. The word does not exist anymore. I did not write down the word or tell anyone. It is gone. The same is true of all ideas and words and words that form thoughts. Once no one is currently thinking of the thought or idea, the thought or idea no longer exist. It was destroyed, it can be recalled from memory later, but at the time no one thinking of it, it does not exist.
So obviously to say an idea, a thought, something that has no physical reality, to still exist after we stop thinking of it is silly. It is like expecting more ice cream after we ate all the ice cream available.
We make good use of this idea of morality, people following simple self preservation, and realize extending courtesy to others is mutually beneficial. Not everyone follows along that, but the morale system in place created by humans is quite beneficial. Not perfect, but their really is no room here to try and state god created morality.
Thank you for your answer!
In reply "Principles, morality, or any ideas do not exist outside of the thoughts and language that created them."
Then if we stop thinking of math then does the number 1 (concept of it) not exist. If man stopped existing and a monkey put one stick and another stick together does he no longer have two sticks since there are no men to say so?
Secondly then do you think that going after Hitler was a good thing? If in 100 years murdering a race of people is accepted as ok and you were transported to that time would you then change your views to fit that majority? And who is to say that being mutually beneficial is a good thing? On what objective basis can you say that being beneficial to humanity is a good thing other than subjectively? Would you say that you may be wrong? Wouldn't you have to if it isn't an objective statement?
Correct, the concept of number 1 no longer exist when we stop thinking about it. If we wrote down the number 1, the drawn line would exist on a piece of paper, but it is meaningless outside of the people that understand what it means, even with the line, the concept of number 1 does not exist outside of those who understand it and currently looking at the line.
Some monkeys have shown understanding of the concept of numbers and basic math and naming physical things. But that is beside the point I think you are trying to say. Would say an ant carrying two sticks that by random chance fit together to form what could be called a single stick? Would the ant no longer have two sticks w/o man being around? No. Even the concept of two, (let alone combining to one never existed.) Ants are not capable of concepts, you would need an intelligent being around for the concept to exist.
Even among humans, the concept, idea of 1+1 = 2 is an impossible concept for a 1 month old baby. They don't even have any language or advance thought that allow concepts yet. To the baby and every other non highly intelligent thing in that room the concept of one does not exist.
Ofcourse I do not think Hitler was a good thing. I personally think anyone that did think Hitler was a good thing is someone to be avoided. What a silly question, do you honestly expect a different answer?
There are people today and in the past that felt/feel murdering a race of people is/was okay. I do not agree with them, my personal morality code has not changed in the presence of these people. I also never said morality is based on the majority. No I would not change my views to fit the majority if I disagreed with the majority. Some of my morality views currently are in the minority.
Mutually beneficial by very word definition is a good thing. I suppose you can have your own definition of the word that says differntly, but I will be happy to pull up a generally accepted standardized definition of mutually beneficial. It is kind of like asking is: "is good a good thing?"
---"On what objective basis can you say that being beneficial to humanity is a good thing other than subjectively?"----We been over this already, it is impossible for a metaphysical thing like an idea or a concept to exist subjectively. It is gone as soon as the person or group of persons stop thinking of it.
I am always happy to say I might be wrong, give me real evidence I am wrong and I will be the first to admit I am wrong and be glad I learned something.
I do not have to do anything. Also their is no such thing as an objective statement. All ideas, concepts, language, description is metaphysical. I get this is a hard concept to understand. Usually theist have an easier time understanding this concept then atheist though. Since religion deals alot with the metaphysical.
A rock is a rock, it does not in any way effect the rock based on what we call it or what concept we attach to it.
If we do a physical action, not a concept or a name, to the rock like pick it up and smash it, that effects the rock, not our metaphysical concept of the rock.
Perhaps my usage of words is incorrect then. Perhaps it is the principle of numbers that I'm looking at. For example: lets say you have a weighted scale. On one side there are 5 stones of equal mass, weight, etc. and on the left there 2 of the same type of stones. With one man there, the meaning of 5 stones outweighs the weight of 3 stones. However, lets say that all men vanish from the earth in one second. The scale would not change because the principle/math of 5>3 would still exist though there are no people who exist to think about it. Unless you disagree you would have to state that the scale could possibly shift once people were gone because people weren't there to think about it. This example proves that the principle of math is objective in that it does not require man to think about it to be true and constant. There is more to your point but I shall return later to discuss it.
Math (an idea and a concept is not objective,) the idea and concept would be lost soon as people with that concept and idea were gone.
But yes a scale that had 5 rocks on one side and two on the other, the scale would still tip towards the side with more, even after people are gone.
Put it this way the physical, real attribute of more of the same type of matter make up (these rocks) gravity on earth will pull on them more than on the side that had less.
The reality of gravity is a great example of objectivity. The force of gravity is constant, whether there is a person around thinking about it or not. The word gravity, the thought process behind it,is of course not. You can feel gravity at any given moment (unless you are falling at maximum velocity or one of the lucky ones to make it to outer space away from earth's gravity pull.) A baby is effected by gravity (objective,) even though the baby has no concept or idea (subjective) what the word gravity is and what it means.
The rocks will be there, in their state, affected by earth's gravity, affecting the scale. More mass on one side of the scale will tip the scale. The human idea/construct/agreed upon language and idea of math is not there at all for the rock. Never has been, never was, our thought "this is 5 rocks, 5 rocks is greater than 2" never mattered to the rocks one bit. Math is not objective. It is a subjective thing, a metaphysical thing we use to describe subjective things.
This all boils down to the videos definition and not the true definition which is my point in the first place. It is a question with a predetermined outcome which makes it intellectually dishonest. If you can't see that fact then there is no need to proceed any further.
You have to understand that "morality" is subjective in the first place. What is moral to a set of individuals may not be moral to the next set. And the period in which someone views morality is also subjective. What was immoral in one period may be perfectly acceptable in another or vice versa.
So the is no such thing as objective morality only subjective morality. Example being, Sparta thought immoral to let a handicapped baby live so their mothers would cast them off of a cliff to their death. Now we in a modern society find that immoral. that is but one example.
I have exhausted this subject to death with theists and atheists. The fact is that morality is completely and always formed by the society however one focuses the size and scope of said society. I'm sure your idea of morality is dictated by YOUR society of god believers, but if you expand that society to include the world at large, which god, the presence, or belief in a god, has little to do with it. There is no finite moral code that is common among all societies. there is no moral code finite to all eras or ages, no finite moral code among all cultures. You can't say that all morality comes from your god, only YOUR moral code comes from your god, and that is debatable. Which is why I said that YOU have to PROVE your god FIRST!
I am not going to link the entire or even any fraction of past discussions of this subject. If you want to read them, feel free to do that WORK yourself.
Another thing. I have been on this forum for a while now. there has only been one theist that has the integrity to be intellectually honest in that time. That being John 6IX Breezy. Everyone else has failed miserably at that statute. There have been a plethora of drive-by post by theists. So you can continue down this path where you use a biased video to redefine terms or you can honestly debate the issue. Just posting what I already know doesn't count for anything. You didn't disprove anything that I stated in my first reply to your OP. I am just way ahead of you in the progression of this issue. I anticipate a highly biased revisionist history and redefining of terms coming. The biggest clue is how your little video has already done that. It forced a predetermined answer to fit its narrative.
You shouldn't have submitted the video. It isn't worthy of notice. I'm sure it is like pablum to you. But it doesn't pass muster or scrutiny. In a court of law, it would be thrown out as "leading the witness" or forced biased testimony.
I agree with you that God's existence has to eventually be proved in this argument to state that objective morality exists. But in order to state that morality is subjective you have to prove that he doesn't exist either. Since many atheists state that God cannot be proved in the affirmative or negative (though I'd disagree) then shouldn't you actually have a neutral stance?
i.e. God may or may not exist, therefore objective morals may or may not exist.
What good is it to state that it is wrong to have a predetermined stance (this is your position if I'm understanding you) and then turn around and have one?
There is much more in your statement which must be replied to.. but it is almost midnight. I shall return to this. thanks for your thoughts. I'll think about them. However, I would like to state that the definition of morality found in Websters dictionary does not contain any nuances (as far as I know) that conclusively prove that ALL morality is subjective.
Lastly, if morality is subjective then on what basis did we have to stop Hitler? Was it good? if you say yes an a Nazi German says no then wouldn't you have to state that you both are right?
No, I don't have to disprove a god. I never made up a god. The onus is yours and to base morality as given by said god it is your responsibility to prove such god.
As I stated before that morality is confined or expanded to the extent of a society. In Nazi Germany, their practices were accepted as moral but the world at large did not accept them. Since Hitler decided to expand his sense of morality on the whole world the world imposed its collective sense morality on him. Sometimes right is based on the victor's idea of it.
I don't have a predetermined agenda. I only have logic and facts that dictate answers. That is the difference that exists between theists and atheists debating issues. Theists have to conform to a preset of ideas and alter facts to fit their narrative. Atheists don't.
This video had lots of bold claims and flawed arguments here's some rebuttals of them:
"If god does not exist, objective moral values do not exist."
-This is such a bold claim. Morality is relative to the individual or group. It mainly has to do with subjective experience. Other factors involve what we are and the process of how we came to be.You are most likely not going to have an atheist (That was an atheist all through their life span) kill babies for fun.
"God is good."
-"kill ... I wound ... I will make my arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh. -- Deuteronomy 32:39-42"
Can you count how much people he killed? Great because I can't.
Hello Sebastian
COMMENT: -This is such a bold claim. Morality is relative to the individual or group. It mainly has to do with subjective experience. Other factors involve what we are and the process of how we came to be.You are most likely not going to have an atheist (That was an atheist all through their life span) kill babies for fun.
REPLY: So then if morality is subject to the majority then were we correct in stopping Nazi Germany in its majority belief and action to kill Jews? Surely if you were alive during that time shouldn't you have said "No lets not go to war, Germany has decided that this action is moral and there are more of them in Germany than Jews so then it is a moral action."
Secondly thanks for your quote.. though you left out the context. Let's look at the whole passage for a moment then we'll bring it back to our main point.
Deuteronomy 32:39-42English Standard Version (ESV)
39
“‘See now that I, even I, am he,
and there is no god beside me;
I kill and I make alive;
I wound and I heal;
and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.
40
For I lift up my hand to heaven
and swear, As I live forever,
41
if I sharpen my flashing sword[a]
and my hand takes hold on judgment,
I will take vengeance on my adversaries
and will repay those who hate me.
42
I will make my arrows drunk with blood,
and my sword shall devour flesh—
with the blood of the slain and the captives,
from the long-haired heads of the enemy.’
This is a part of the Old Testament where God is giving his law to the Israelites. In this passage we are seeing that God is making a statement of his power: nothing is outside of my power or control. I give life and I take life, there are "none that can deliver out of my hand". That is the first point of the passage.
Next and importantly, he does take life and kill as you have selectively quoted. But lets again look at this in context.
I wound - Wounding can have two main purposes in scripture: to help/hurt. the Bible says "faithful are the wounds of a friend." We know that sometimes when our friends are on a bad path we may need to hurt their feelings (create a wound) in order to help. Surgeon hurt a patient by cutting into them in go to remove something potentially fatal. Therefore, if God is Goodness itself and if all of his actions are good, then even actions of wounding those who are for him are for their benefits as shown above.
I kill, I make my arrows drunk with blood" - As you have quoted it, it seems to suggest that you believe that all killing is bad - even with the rhetoric shown here. While murder (unjust killing) is bad, us going to war with Hitler (which involved a lot of killing) was not bad. Or at least I hope you would agree to this. and if you believe that an imperfect being such as Man can go to war against evil in order to squelch it, then certainly a perfect being has more cause to do so.
Deleted Comment Sorry guys I need to hit reply first not just add comment.
In principle, objective morality might be possible; but it practice it never seems to be objective.
I'd also guess that any objective morality offered would be ludicrous.
So one of the first questions of the video is ridiculous right out of the gate ("if there is no god, what basis remains for objective good or bad"). The answer is easy: none at all, since there is no basis for an objective morality, even if god is real.
To make morality objective (assuming a deity) would require:
Parts 2 and 3 are the major stumbling blocks that prevent morality from being objective, even if god exists.
Finally I would add: if you think you know the mind of god; shutdown your computer, stop what you are doing, and seek psychiatric care immediately; you are a danger to yourself and others.
-----------------------------------
/e And to bring it full circle: if you had a deity broadcasting identical messages about its opinions on all moral issues to everyone on the planet; that would be pretty darn good evidence for the existence of that deity. However that is exactly what does not happen, I wonder why? :)
Hello Nyarlothotep,
Thank you for your polite response! Here is my reply.
To make morality objective (assuming a deity) would require:
That we accept what god thinks on a subject is the basis we should use for morality (I'll grant this one, I just included it for completeness).
That everyone has access to what god thinks on any (morality) issue.
That what you determine god thinks on any given issue, everyone else agrees on (that we have objective access to what god thinks).
Actually, in order for something to be objective it simply needs to be a fact outside of the influence of external opinions. So a the tree outside my house for example is objectively there regardless of my opinion or acceptance of its existence (obviously there are philosophers who would spiral this out of control on materialism and other "does this reality actually exist" but that is going off topic. I'm just using this example, which has error to prove a point on the definition of objectivity). Therefore your point number one is assuming again that we are God in that “WE [must] accept what god thinks on a subject is the basis we should use for morality". The God of scripture's existance would not require the acceptance of any entity for His morality to be objective. There are many individuals who are sent to heaven or hell though some (those who do not go to heaven) may disagree.
On point number two, objective morality does not require knowledge just as you not seeing the tree outside my house does not mean that it no longer exists. It is objectively there.
on point three, this is the same as above. Nobody on this form has to agree or know that there is a tree outside my house if a tree outside my house actually exists. If it exists outside my house then it is objectively there regardless of outside opinion. This is the definition of objectivity.
It seems to meet that everyone on this thread is saying that objectivity is subjectivity (though of course, to be fair, everyone is only referring so far as I know to the case of morality).
If morality was the same as the word "opinion" I would see what some on this thread have said that morality is inherently subjective. The term opinion has that nuance embedded in it. However, the term morality doesn't. I would need to hear an argument that proves how ALL morality is subjective, when by definition it is a principle just as math is a principle which doesn't need acceptance to exist.
Again thanks for your comments. There is more to be said than what I have time for, but I hope this is sufficient to move forward in questioning.
I think you really put your finger on the heart of the matter right here. This is exactly what god (assuming he exists) does not provide. You do not know the mind of this god, and the people who claim to know disagree wildly. So long as that is the case, it can never be objective. Again, I'm not saying it is impossible for morality to be objective in principle; but it never seems to be in practice, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
So long as that is the case, it can never be objective.
This goes back to your earlier point: in order for it to be objective we require knowledge. I would again state no. You have not seen the tree outside my house yet it exists. Objectivity does not require knowledge. However, us knowing an objective truth requires knowledge. You can not know objectively that my tree exists without seeing it; however, if it exists it does so before you find out that it does. We are talking about the difference between True Objective Existence and Objective Knowledge. The first requires nothing to exist the second requires external observation.
Secondly, the existence of the God of the Bible puts forth a couple of rebuttals to your last point. One if scripture is God's words, and if God's words make claims of morality, then we can say that we do know the mind of God to a certain degree on the moral points stated within scripture. No we do not know God's mind exhaustively but we can know what is stated. Granted this paragraph skips a lot of if then statements to keep things efficient.
I didn't say that, that was your characterization of what I said. I didn't mention knowledge before this post. Please do not cite me as saying something I did not say. Knowledge is a good way to get an idea on how objective something is. For example: the length of a metal rod. The fact that we can each measure it and get the same result is a good indicator that it's length is objective. Even if we use different coordinate systems we can convert from one to the other to compare our results. Now try that with god. The people who claim to know god's will (or his morality rules) can't agree on them. For example is it morally wrong to wear clothing woven out of different kinds of fabric? The bible has something to say on the matter, but people still don't agree on what it means. There is no way this is objective.
I didn't say that, that was your characterization of what I said. I didn't mention knowledge before this post. Please do not cite me as saying something I did not say.
REPLY- A characterization has the nuance that I took what you said and blew it out of proportion. For example if you said I do not like blue, I quoted you as "I absolutely loath all shades of blue". That would be a characterization unless you have a different definition that doesn't match Webster's Dictionary. Now lets look at what you really did say instead of my summary.
This was your Exact quote:
"To make morality objective (assuming a deity) would require:
1. That we accept what god thinks on a subject is the basis we should use for morality (I'll grant this one, I just included it for completeness).
2. That everyone has access to what god thinks on any (morality) issue.
3. That what you determine god thinks on any given issue, everyone else agrees on (that we have objective access to what god thinks)."
"You do not know the mind of this god, and the people who claim to know disagree wildly. So long as that is the case, it can never be objective."
Therefore, according to your own words, in order for something to be objective then it requires:
"...That everyone has access to what god thinks..." and that we "know the mind of this god..."
If you say that we must have access in order for something to be objective then you are saying without access an idea cannot be objective. When you say access the implication is knowledge. And once you say we must know the mind of God that is also knowledge explicitly. However, for example if God wrote down on a piece of paper his objective moral prinicple of the good/badness of killing and it was on a mountain that we all knew existed and we knew exactly whwere the paper was but had no way of reaching it to "access" it, then it seems from your logic that it would therefore not be an objective principle. If a man were able to reach it and bring it back down but it was in a locked chess that he could not open, according to your logic it would still not be an objective principle. If he opened the chest but never read it, it would still be according to your logic not an objective principle though in theory now he has potential access to it. It seems from your logic and please correct me if I'm wrong that he would have to get it from the mountain open it and read it with understanding in order for it to be objective. This is a statement of knowledge as a necessary requirement for objective principles. That is why I made the summary interpretation of your earlier comments as knowledge is a requirement for objectivity. Again this is the difference between True Objective Existence of a principle and Knowledge ABOUT an Objective Principle. The second does require knowledge the first does not and the first is the one I am seeking to discuss.
The second "Objective Knowledge about a principle is what you are talking about here. Yes I agree "Knowledge is a good way to get an idea on how objective something is..." if you are discussing Knowledge ABOUT an Objective Principle. But it does not change the objectivity of that principle. It was objective before we knew about it and it will be objective (if it is an objective truth) long after we are gone.
SECONDLY AND MORE IMPORTANTLY.
"but people still don't agree on what it means. There is no way this is objective."
THIS STATEMENT AND OTHERS LIKE IT ON THIS THREAD FROM DIFFERENT PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO REDEFINE OBJECTIVITY TO BE SUBJECTIVITY. THIS IS NOT A PROPER WAY TO GO ABOUT LANGUAGE. I BELIEVE THAT IT SHOULD BE STATED THAT THERE IS NO WAY TO BE OBJECTIVE. IF YOUR DEFINITION OF OF OBJECTIVITY REQUIRES GROUP CONSENSUS THEN YOU ARE NOT DISCUSSING OBJECTIVITY; RATHER, YOU ARE DISCUSSING GROUP SUBJECTIVITY OR MAJORITY CONSENSUS, BUT THIS IS NOT OBJECTIVITY. In order to have a fruitful discussion we have to agree not to misuse language. Redefining a word to be its antithesis is a misuse of language. Rather it should be stated as such:
There is no way to have objective morality as I stated without God.
The closes that we can come to objective morality is group consensus.
Also, just because people disagree on something doesn't mean there isn't an objective truth there. For example the church and the world believed for a time the world to be flat. Only a few for a while believed otherwise. The world did not change from flat to round with the majority; rather, it was objectively round before the shift and it is still round today.
Lastly, the scripture is divided into two parts old and new testaments which have different purposes. the first (old testament) is like a father raising a son to be righteous. God gave his law to the Israelites in order for them to be a set apart people to bring forth the messiah. That was the purpose of the OT law which contains the woven clothing regulations. The new testament shows the era of the messiah which unveils God's final plan "to redeem all of humanity (John 3:16)" This era cancels the requirements of the law of the OT in order to obtain righteousness. That is simply the progression of the narrative. If you find disagreement then most likely in this case you might have confused the two purposes of the two parts of the book.
I didn't say that god couldn't create an objective moral principle; I'm saying you (or we) don't have any from him.
-------------------------------------------------------
Well sure there is. Anyone with more than 5 disagrees on the Atheist Republic is evil. That is a objective moral principle. All that is required for it to be objective is that it anyone applying the test will get the same result (even if they don't agree with the principle). Good luck with doing this with god's principles.
-------------------------------------------------------
People who capitalize the word "true" scare the fuck out of me.
-------------------------------------------------------
Also you didn't answer my question: is it morally wrong to wear clothing woven out of different kinds of fabric?
Whatistruth, what would life on earth look like if there was no objective morality, if the only morality was subjective?
Truett thanks for your question. To propose that I would have to entertain a possible existence without God which would undue existence itself and plunge us in to speculation but for sake of argument, I would (off of the top of my head) say that one possible reality would be one where no one could say that anything is wrong and therefore no one would have any justification to be upset about any thing nor would they have sufficient moral grounds to take actions to stop the action of another. This would include Hitler. There would have been no moral basis for us to take action against him. All reference for anything moral; especially, the terms good/bad, right or wrong would be lost. We could use them but they would be arbitrary. We would have to state that morality is simply mob mentality. Majority rule which can change at any time.
But I'm not arguing God for the sake of there not to be chaos. If there was no God then it doesn't matter what we want. But what I am trying to get at is that without God it is arbitrary as an Atheist to even use the terms good or bad and in such a case to be upset with Christians for coming on this thread =P since who is anyone to say that what I am doing is wrong (not that this is what you are saying).
You are playing fast an loose. You have conflated morality with objective morality. Your statement should probably read "there would have been no objective moral basis for us to take action against [Hitler]".
----------------------------------------------------
Right, what is right and wrong is somewhat arbitrary. Sucks, but that is the way it is.
I agree with your first point in how I stated it I should have typed it as you say!
Your second point is something I feel all atheists should attest to. "Right, what is right and wrong is somewhat arbitrary. Sucks, but that is the way it is."
This is what I would say everyone should agree to without God.
Pages