Objective morality

[1robin]

Originally Posted by Nakosis

Via the Prophet and the accuracy of the Prophet. Why do you think it is so important the claims of accuracy for the Bible?

In some cases via the prayer and fulfillment thereof.

You have really come alive here lately. That is two great posts. You make a better defender of Christianity than many Christians do. That makes the fact your are not even more troubleing.

[Nakosis]

Originally Posted by waitasec

can you please explain what you mean by that?
what reaction other than choosing to believe is there when it comes to faith, or a subjective experience?

People have what seems to them to be a supernatural or miraculous experience. If they accept such experiences as a part of reality then it alters what they believe to be true.

For example the Pentecostal speak in tongues. They also have interpreters. This is a real event that can be witnessed. Without the benefit of critical analysis, you have the reality of a real experience along with it being reported as a factual occurrence in the Bible. These are two things that are a reality which affects/determines what a person believes. Experiences that cause belief. Belief is not a choice, it is a result of experiences individuals have in life.

A person has to learn I suppose to question the reality of what they've experienced for themselves.

I think a mistake non-believers make is that religious folks chose to believe in a vacuum of experience. Maybe choosing to believe because it is what they were taught or it sounds good. The reward of heaven, being among God's chosen.

That maybe part of it but it is not the whole story. People have real experiences which support their belief. And the conclusion from that experience is not always something they want to believe. It's something the experience itself leads them to believe.

Many people become religious or spiritual as the result of an experience, not a choice.

[Nakosis]

Originally Posted by 1robin

You have really come alive here lately. That is two great posts. You make a better defender of Christianity than many Christians do. That makes the fact your are not even more troubleing.

It is easier to not be a Christian then accept the judgement according to the standards that some individuals would try to place on me if I claimed to be one.

The truth is my problem with Christianity is not with the authority claimed by Jesus but with the authority claimed by many of his followers. Often Christians I talk to don't see a difference between the two but there is a difference to me.

Not that I'm claiming to be a Christian in secret. However the reality of my own experiences lead me to believe that Jesus the Christ knew what he was talking about.

I asked you once the cause of your belief. I didn't question what you told me because I understood the reality of them.

All of that makes me nothing. No one of consequence, other than having some authority regarding the reality, apparent reality, of my own experiences.

[Mr. Skittles]

Originally Posted by 1robin

God cannot be seen that same way wind cannot be seen. However God can be known by his effects the same way wind can be known by it's effects. Since it is obvious truth wind exists and requires little choice the same can be said of God.

What is the difference between feeling joyful and the effect of God blessing you? For me, the former is an immediate effect of a tangible experience whereas the latter can be explained religiously as a cosmic event. However, tangible experiences are what they are and in now way prove the "effect of God."

[waitasec]

Originally Posted by 1robin

God cannot be seen that same way wind cannot be seen. However God can be known by his effects the same way wind can be known by it's effects. Since it is obvious truth wind exists and requires little choice the same can be said of God.

not at all..god is subjective..the wind isn't.

[Curious George]

Originally Posted by vepurusg

It's easiest to explain...
Eliminating the innate or selfish goals, we're left with the other side of the self/selfless dichotomy.

Selection of any arbitrary "selfless" goal would be selfish (based on personal preference)- e.g. we can not simply choose a goal out of the blue because that choice reflects selfish desires and innate tendency, which would make morality irrelevant (such arbitrary goals fall into the former category as opinions).

...

Revealed morality being out already, we have to narrow it down to the science of the matter.

Rather than consideration for one's self, it is consideration for something that is not.
The only thing that is not oneself that possesses a concept capable of being considered (an interest) is another intelligent adaptive information system.

...

e.g. We can't consider the non-interest of a rock to be painted purple as a moral goal, because no such interest exists in reality, so such an interest would be an arbitrary and self serving creation of our own imaginations (thus disqualified as having a selfish origin).

This point narrows things down massively- there are a finite number of real interests, and a virtually infinite number of unreal/imaginary interests.

We can only consider the interest of things that have interests; but in order to be non arbitrary, we must consider the interests of everything that has interests to the extent those things have said interests (anything else would be an inconsistent personal bias).

Moral relevance relative to the entity's consciousness/intelligence, in a sense- a pig has more acute and elaborate interests, and more capacity to hold them, than a house fly, for example. We have to look here hard at cognition. Adaptive neural networks in a computer simulation can be considered similarly, as can even physical evolutionary forces.

In the balance, one derives something not terribly unlike utilitarianism, but with regards to the interest of a being that can possess them as opposed to a measure of mere pleasure or pain- which may approximate those interests, but does not represent the totality of them (e.g. interests can extend beyond one's lifespan).

Interests have clear exchange rates in terms of sacrifice and willingness to experience pain to see them through; Nietzsche articulated this to some degree in his formulation of the "will to power", but the influences here are manifold, and complex enough that with our current knowledge of cognition we can only approximate them (though approximate them we should, as the greater good to ignoring them- e.g. striving closer to that goal of consideration than would be a less accurate model).
...

There is a gap in your reasoning, I am not sure if you are still around but I would love to discuss it with you if you are.

[ArtieE]

Originally Posted by 1robin

You have really come alive here lately. That is two great posts. You make a better defender of Christianity than many Christians do. That makes the fact your are not even more troubleing.

I think Nakosis was being sarcastic, right? The Prophet is a book by Kahlil Gibran and everybody knows that there's no way to provide reliable evidence for effects of prayer. Does Prayer Work

[ArtieE]

Originally Posted by Nakosis

People have what seems to them to be a supernatural or miraculous experience. If they accept such experiences as a part of reality then it alters what they believe to be true.

And if the people around them automatically assume that this "supernatural" experience comes from some deity instead of possibly temporal lobe epilepsy the person might not get proper treatment but get worshiped instead and lose touch with reality altogether.

For example the Pentecostal speak in tongues. They also have interpreters. This is a real event that can be witnessed. Without the benefit of critical analysis, you have the reality of a real experience along with it being reported as a factual occurrence in the Bible. These are two things that are a reality which affects/determines what a person believes. Experiences that cause belief. Belief is not a choice, it is a result of experiences individuals have in life.

I would say it's a result of jumping to conclusions and attributing perfectly natural experiences to something supernatural for simple lack of knowledge about the natural reasons. Speaking in tongues is also practiced in the Voodoo religion of Haiti and in Japan, the God Light Association used to practice glossolalia to cause adherents to recall past lives. Whatever floats your boat.

People have real experiences which support their belief.

People do have real experiences. If you believe in fairies your first conclusion when you can't find your keys is that the fairies took them. I think that the first thing that should spring to mind is that you simply mislaid them.

[camanintx]

Originally Posted by Nakosis

Via the Prophet and the accuracy of the Prophet. Why do you think it is so important the claims of accuracy for the Bible?

Didn't Jesus himself claim that his generation wouldn't pass before his return and the end of days?

In some cases via the prayer and fulfillment thereof.

Also not very reliable.

Can Science Prove that Prayer Works?

Besides, doesn't the efficacy of prayer conflict with the concept of an omniscient God?

[1robin]

Originally Posted by camanintx

Didn't Jesus himself claim that his generation wouldn't pass before his return and the end of days?

Nope

Also not very reliable.

Can Science Prove that Prayer Works?

Besides, doesn't the efficacy of prayer conflict with the concept of an omniscient God?

Natural law is impotent to judge the supernatural as well as many other things. I didn't understand what you are driving at with the last sentence.