Is one religion better than the other.. and if so....

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

BTW: Just out of curiosity, which Phoenix are you the Kelly of?

Not sure. There are so many from so many cultures to choose from ...

Well if God does not exist then there exists no objective goal for actions to correspond to.

I'm not convinced you understand what "objective" means. An objective reality would exist outside any particular entity.

It is that no objective purpose exists without God.

There is no objective purpose WITH God either. He could've made you just for laughs. Given His penchant for "I put you on this earth, I can take you off it" attitude prevalent in the bible, it's quite clear we aren't nearly as important as we like to imagine.

IOW is Hitler's, Stalin's, or Mother Theresa's purpose for morality the one we should take.

All of the above created suffering for their own ends. We can do long-term studies (not that it should be necessary if people have some common sense) to figure out the costs and benefits to certain behaviors.

1. God's morality does not flow from his commands but from his eternal nature.

And then ...

Please look up divine command theory. It will save you a lot of the confusion you seem to be having. Your preference determines the nature of nothing.

Does "divine command" theory refer to divine COMMANDS or NATURE?

Your a theist? Of which God, Pol Pot.

LOL, what?

Before your train gets too far away from the station of truth you might want to first demonstrate that the God I believe in and the one your describing are the same, then prove you made justified accusations.

I'd like evidence you've read more than a Chick Tract's worth of verses from the bible. We'll both probably be disappointed.

This is a carbon copy of your earlier identical statements.

Grow up. I only typed that post once. If you're seeing it twice, it's on the board, not me.

I did not say anything about whether God being powerful makes anything he demands true.

You are honestly saying that without God we can't have morality and that anything He commands is good.

That is why Jesus told Pilate that he himself was THE truth, not A truth.

I think Krishna said it too. And he's cuter.

4 were definitions that have existed for a thousand years or more and even if they required substantiation (which they do not) then a thousand years of use is as much substantiation as you could hope for, but I only wanted you to know what they were, not your agreement with them.

Being around for awhile doesn't make it an accurate picture of reality. With that logic, all religions that predate Christianity (including Judaism) must be more "right" because they've been around longer.

1. Every single theist claims that objective morality exists and so God exists.

Now you've met some theists who call your "logic" into question. Must seem weird.

So please tell me who's reason we are to use

Whose revelations are we to use and why should we?

 

[1robin]

Not sure. There are so many from so many cultures to choose from ...

The Phoenix is a bird from mythology, it does not have a culture unless you mean the one that dreamed it up.

I'm not convinced you understand what "objective" means. An objective reality would exist outside any particular entity.

Oh yes I do, in general it means a fact that is independent of opinion. In moral discussions it is a duty or command that is free of the opinions of it's adherents. You like many who do not understand are as far as I can see are making the Euthyphro dilemma objection, but it does not apply. The morals truth in the biblical God's case are a function of his nature not his will. His commands which are a function of his will find his nature as their source. They are not based on anyone's opinion, have never been untrue, will never be untrue, hold sovereignty over all of creation, are absolute and binding on everything and everyone, and remain true even if every form of life that ever existed did not agree that they are true. OBJECTIVE in every sense of the word and supersede every opinion anything ever had or will have. Objective does not come in degrees but if it did God's morality would be more objective than any possible concept or entity. You cannot even dream up anything with a greater claim to objectivity.

There is no objective purpose WITH God either. He could've made you just for laughs. Given His penchant for "I put you on this earth, I can take you off it" attitude prevalent in the bible, it's quite clear we aren't nearly as important as we like to imagine.

No he could not, and even if he had you have no way to know it. The God I believe in is a concept with certain givens that he comes with. The God I believe in did not make me for laughs, I do not believe in a God like you describe and so what you described is meaningless and irrelevant. In what way is a being that has sovereignty over everything obligated to you or anyone to not "take any of us out"?

All of the above created suffering for their own ends. We can do long-term studies (not that it should be necessary if people have some common sense) to figure out the costs and benefits to certain behaviors.

All humans who have ever lived have caused suffering, that is irrelevant and not the issue. I said which one of us imperfect humans are we going to use to form our moral codes and why. With God if we disagree at least there is an actually truth for one of us to be aligned with, without God then everyone's opinion is equally as valid and there is no objective moral truth for anyone's opinion to be aligned with. All opinions are equally valid and equally arbitrary. So again do we take Hitler or Billy Grahams goals for morality and how to meet those goals and how did you decide?

And then ...

Does "divine command" theory refer to divine COMMANDS or NATURE?

I take it that you did not look it up? Divine command theory is just the entry way into the nature of morality in a theological context, it is more simplistic than a study of Biblical meta-ethics. I suggested you read about it, as it is not a vast subject, it is merely a series of unequivocal arguments which show that whatever God commands is true. For example, even if as with Allah God commanded what I think are terrible things they would still be just as true. I might hate Allah, I might rebel against Allah, I might even try to kill him if that was possible, what I could not do is make his moral commands untrue. No more than your telling me your moral preference makes any difference to actual morality. It is like you bringing a Qtip to a nuclear war, it would have no effect on the truth or outcome. God's morality is simply a brute fact which is immune to what you wish to be true. You can deny God but your denial has no effect of God's existence nor the nature of morality if he exists.

LOL, what?

I was joking, because the God you describe is more evil than any God I am aware of (Pol Pot).

I'd like evidence you've read more than a Chick Tract's worth of verses from the bible. We'll both probably be disappointed.

well you would loose. I have read every scripture in the bible, having read the whole thing 2.5 times and having read core doctrine hundreds of times. BTW what form of evidence do you refer to? Also I do not know what a chick tract is.

Grow up. I only typed that post once. If you're seeing it twice, it's on the board, not me.

Is pointing out the last half of your posts was a mirror of the first a sign of immaturity? Go back and look at post#296. I do not know why that was, but it definitely was the case. I have over 10,000 posts I ought to know how to do it by now.

You are honestly saying that without God we can't have morality and that anything He commands is good.

No I said that without God no objective moral truths exist, as far as what God commands being good, it is less confusing to say that anything he commands is true and binding.

Being around for awhile doesn't make it an accurate picture of reality. With that logic, all religions that predate Christianity (including Judaism) must be more "right" because they've been around longer.

I did not make an argument about it being old therefor it exists. I said if it has always been true it is objective.

Now you've met some theists who call your "logic" into question. Must seem weird.

There is a difference between what a person says they are and what they actually are.

Whose revelations are we to use and why should we?

God's because only his actually true and binding on us all. We must either recognize that fact in life to our great satisfaction, or realize it when it is too late, to our infinite sorrow.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Yes, because if moral laws exist (and I think the evidence for their existence is far better than the evidence they do not) they are supernatural (transcend nature).

Thanks for the clarification.

Unless some reason exists to delineate it further then I mean the supernatural is the divine. Maybe once I see where your going I may be able to be more specific.

Okay, so we don't have to be referring to God here..

However for the point I made the only issue is whether biblical morality is better that a lack of objective moral facts. That is all that is necessary for my point to be true.

Thanks for the clarification.

With God the moral ideas that most of us live by has a foundation in moral fact, without God we lack any foundation to assert that any moral ideals anyone has correspond to a single objective moral truth. That does not mean we cannot act as if they did even if they don't, which I touched on previously. I made an ontological point to which you asked an epistemological question about.

Does there have to be a single objective moral truth? Why?

Also, my question was more a clarificatory question than anything else.

Because without God no moral absolutes exist or can exist.

But why God? Why not other supernatural beings?

Without God there is exists no objective moral truth to settle who's moral opinion is right (if any one of them are). So we would have 6 billion opinions (none of whom are "right" because there exists no "right" for them to be) and no objective standard by which to differentiate which one is true because none of them are. So we would merely have 6 billions opinions that are all equally wrong yet equally valid. If that is not ANARCHY, then we need to get rid of the word.

But why do we necessarily need to settle whose moral opinion is right (if any of them are)?

This is another subject. If you want to switch gears away from morality and instead discuss the evidence for which God or Gods has the greatest amount of evidence and argumentation for their existence that's fine, but I can't do both. I was not really making a point about any particular God beyond a broad category here but I can be far more specific as to why the Biblical God far outstrips any other concept of God in reasons to believe it exists compered to all others.

I'm not really switching gears. You appear to be advancing the claim that God is necessary for the things you are claiming. With all of my questions I am ultimately asking, but why God, rather than any other supernatural being or beings?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Again,
I Can understand what you are saying in terms of some behaviors might seem with lower "Morality"...Like the Hyna leaving it's prey to suffer and die slowly.
But the Hyna itself is far from being Lower than a leopard.
A lion BTW, eats it's own Cubs... So what? does that make him a lower form of a being???

Yes, it does. But I do not see how it can be proven, than ALL lions do this.
What we are and what we do with it, differ, so there is always room for moving forward.
So nothing is intrinsically inferior. Its just easier to move forward if one is a Leopard than a Hyena.

What about social spiders? they are far more advanced than almost any other animal in nature in terms of sociability...
So again,
Each animal, has its better sides and lesser sides of behavior.. that doesn't make it a lower being of life.
Which animal BTW (just out of curiosity) would you consider second to Humans?

The answer to that is aesthetically:

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I believe it has nothing to do with your karma. It is simply a physical impossibility for you to be a cockroach.

But the spirit is NOT physical,
by definition, it was never a physical claim.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I believe cats have brains and personalities based on that but that has nothing to do with spirits. It just means that you got two cats with similar brains.

Funny how you claim to know more about a cat that you have never even met.

 

[1robin]

Thanks for the clarification.

You bet, anytime.

Okay, so we don't have to be referring to God here..

Well, God (the father) would be the ultimate source of all truth, all material, all abstract facts, and of all reality, but God is not the only entity contained within a set of all divine things. That is kind of a hard thing to lay out unless you can tell me specifically what you asking.

Thanks for the clarification.

No problem.

Does there have to be a single objective moral truth? Why?

There are many objective moral truths, but there is only one source for them all. For example "you shall not murder" and "you shall not lie" are two objective moral truths, but God is the source of both.

Also, my question was more a clarificatory question than anything else.

I make claims about any possible universe or world view and I make claims about my own particular world view.

1. In any world view that contains objective moral facts there must be a divine source for those truths. That is as far as I go concerning possible world views.

2. However in my own world view.

A. There exists many objective moral facts.
B. However no objective moral fact contradicts another.
C. God the father is the ultimate source of those objective moral facts and truths.
D. However God the father is not the only entry in a set of all divine entities.

So, depending on what I am trying to show I must either give a bare minimum of facts about a general principle, or to give a much more specific set of claims describing my own world view.

But why God? Why not other supernatural beings?

I think this is a semantic distinction that makes no real difference. I use the generic god if I am in a hurry and being general, or I may explain the details of my own world view when required.

To generalize I might say the divine is the source of objective morality if getting more specific is not necessary, but if you want me to then show what that broad statement means within my own worldview I must get specific.

So for a quick and general response I say that the divine (or non-natural) is necessary for objective morality but if you want me to be more detailed then I will describe what the supernatural is and what roll parts of it have in Christianity then I must be more specific.

But why do we necessarily need to settle whose moral opinion is right (if any of them are)?

Because if we cannot potentially do this then to live consistently with our worldview we are forced to let evil thrive because Stalin's and Hitler's opinions about morality are just as valid as anyone's, or we can live inconsistently with our world view and stop Hitler and Stalin despite our not having any objective standard to prove they are wrong. Only if God exists can we have an objective moral law to compare our opinions to. Without God morality is nothing more than today's social fashion, because no objective law exists to violate in the first place. Not even an appeal to the epistemological can help here. No matter how hard it may be to determine what objective morality is, it is still better than not having any objective morality at all to strive for. Nature only tells us what "is", if that is all there is then there is no such thing as the way things "should be".

I'm not really switching gears. You appear to be advancing the claim that God is necessary for the things you are claiming. With all of my questions I am ultimately asking, but why God, rather than any other supernatural being or beings?

You switched from my claim that it requires the divine to have objective morality to how many God's exist. You changed from the nature of morality to comparative religion.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Well, God (the father) would be the ultimate source of all truth, all material, all abstract facts, and of all reality, but God is not the only entity contained within a set of all divine things. That is kind of a hard thing to lay out unless you can tell me specifically what you asking.

So, depending on what I am trying to show I must either give a bare minimum of facts about a general principle, or to give a much more specific set of claims describing my own world view.

I think this is a semantic distinction that makes no real difference. I use the generic god if I am in a hurry and being general, or I may explain the details of my own world view when required.

To generalize I might say the divine is the source of objective morality if getting more specific is not necessary, but if you want me to then show what that broad statement means within my own worldview I must get specific.

So for a quick and general response I say that the divine (or non-natural) is necessary for objective morality but if you want me to be more detailed then I will describe what the supernatural is and what roll parts of it have in Christianity then I must be more specific.

You switched from my claim that it requires the divine to have objective morality to how many God's exist. You changed from the nature of morality to comparative religion.

Thanks for the additional detail. So I think I misunderstood what claim you were making (if you were making only one). I have no issue with the claim that it requires the divine (as you have defined this) to have objective morality (I'd struggle to come up with much of a counter-argument). But you seemed also to be saying that it requires God (and a certain, Christian, notion of God) to have objective morality. And it is that that I am challenging (on the basis of what you have said thus far). If it was solely about the former, then that does look like a change of gear on my part. But if also about the latter, not so much.

So, if you haven't been making the latter claim thus far, let's hear it! Why your particular worldview?

Because if we cannot potentially do this then to live consistently with our worldview we are forced to let evil thrive because Stalin's and Hitler's opinions about morality are just as valid as anyone's, or we can live inconsistently with our world view and stop Hitler and Stalin despite our not having any objective standard to prove they are wrong. Only if God exists can we have an objective moral law to compare our opinions to. Without God morality is nothing more than today's social fashion, because no objective law exists to violate in the first place. Not even an appeal to the epistemological can help here. No matter how hard it may be to determine what objective morality is, it is still better than not having any objective morality at all to strive for.

Or we could just try to come to a consensus wrt different moralities (which might require making certain compromises, though might not, depending on what exactly the moralities/worldviews in question comprise) - a sort of common ground, shared understanding, laws etc., to the extent we need to interact with one another.

 

[loverofhumanity]

If we are talking about the major religions then I see them as complimentary to one another. Christ taught us about love, Buddha taught about the mind, detachment and meditation, Muhammad was about the organizing of a community and Baha'u'llah taught the oneness of religion and oneness of humanity.

Which class is better in our education kindergarten or university? Can we even reach university without learning our ABC's? So to me and us Baha'is there is no better religion, only that each religion has a relevant prescriptive medicine for its age.

We need all the virtues and attributes that all the Educators taught. But we do also need relevant teachings for each age. Today's needs are the oneness and acceptance of all humanity as a family regardless of race, religion or nationality.

 

[1robin]

Thanks for the additional detail. So I think I misunderstood what claim you were making (if you were making only one). I have no issue with the claim that it requires the divine (as you have defined this) to have objective morality (I'd struggle to come up with much of a counter-argument). But you seemed also to be saying that it requires God (and a certain, Christian, notion of God) to have objective morality. And it is that that I am challenging (on the basis of what you have said thus far). If it was solely about the former, then that does look like a change of gear on my part. But if also about the latter, not so much.

Well, everything is relative. I must decide on how much detail I must supply for any particular point I am trying to make. For example stating that the divine is required for morality is way over simplified. It is basically short hand. However if you really want to get detailed about what is necessary then much more explanation is required. I would argue that more than just the generalized notion of the divine is necessary to account for morality. For instance the divine must have within it the concept of a personal being. Only personal beings can put forth moral duties. If as in Pantheism I believe, the divine is simply the aggregate whole of what the rest of us would call nature. In the divine is simply all of nature then the divine in that case would lack any source of objective moral values and duties. Also as in deism God is not a relational being and does not require moral standards of us even if he is a moral being himself. So the level of explanation I give depends on the level of detail necessary to make my point.

Why don't you state what level of detail is necessary to draw out the issues we have discussed? I mean what specifically would you likely me to show? Once I have an objective or goal I can tailor my responses for you.

So, if you haven't been making the latter claim thus far, let's hear it! Why your particular worldview?

Well to have objective moral values and duties requires a certain type of theism. All of the competing systems we have left within that category then must be compared using arguments in many other categories. I think that Christian theism is by far the most likely form of theism to exist among those that can explain morality.

Or we could just try to come to a consensus wrt different moralities (which might require making certain compromises, though might not, depending on what exactly the moralities/worldviews in question comprise) - a sort of common ground, shared understanding, laws etc., to the extent we need to interact with one another.

There are many forms of theism (Islam, Hinduism, even paganism, etc...) that may allow for objective moral values. Of those I think Christian theism has far better evidence and argumentation for its existence than the rest. So I would use certain kinds of arguments to show that a certain set of religions are consistent and sufficiently explanatory to account for the existence of objective moral values. Then I would use several different types of arguments to show that of those competing religions Christianity is the most likely to be true. I can make either type of argument but it would be very hard to tackle them all simultaneously. So we can discuss what forms of religion would account for objective morality, or instead we can debate the arguments and evidence for which one of those competing forms of religion is most likely to be true.

It is completely up to you, I look forward to your response. I was in a big hurry when I posted this, I hope I was coherent.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Well, everything is relative. I must decide on how much detail I must supply for any particular point I am trying to make. For example stating that the divine is required for morality is way over simplified. It is basically short hand. However if you really want to get detailed about what is necessary then much more explanation is required. I would argue that more than just the generalized notion of the divine is necessary to account for morality. For instance the divine must have within it the concept of a personal being. Only personal beings can put forth moral duties. If as in Pantheism I believe, the divine is simply the aggregate whole of what the rest of us would call nature. In the divine is simply all of nature then the divine in that case would lack any source of objective moral values and duties. Also as in deism God is not a relational being and does not require moral standards of us even if he is a moral being himself. So the level of explanation I give depends on the level of detail necessary to make my point.

Why don't you state what level of detail is necessary to draw out the issues we have discussed? I mean what specifically would you likely me to show? Once I have an objective or goal I can tailor my responses for you.

Well to have objective moral values and duties requires a certain type of theism. All of the competing systems we have left within that category then must be compared using arguments in many other categories. I think that Christian theism is by far the most likely form of theism to exist among those that can explain morality.



There are many forms of theism (Islam, Hinduism, even paganism, etc...) that may allow for objective moral values. Of those I think Christian theism has far better evidence and argumentation for its existence than the rest. So I would use certain kinds of arguments to show that a certain set of religions are consistent and sufficiently explanatory to account for the existence of objective moral values. Then I would use several different types of arguments to show that of those competing religions Christianity is the most likely to be true. I can make either type of argument but it would be very hard to tackle them all simultaneously. So we can discuss what forms of religion would account for objective morality, or instead we can debate the arguments and evidence for which one of those competing forms of religion is most likely to be true.

It is completely up to you, I look forward to your response. I was in a big hurry when I posted this, I hope I was coherent.

Completely coherent! Thank you! Perhaps let's start with the former:

So we can discuss what forms of religion would account for objective morality

.

I'm not sure if this is the right place to do this, though. It is arguably in keeping with the OP, but if it's just a debate between me and you, perhaps worth having elsewhere (a one-on-one?)?

Well, everything is relative. I must decide on how much detail I must supply for any particular point I am trying to make. For example stating that the divine is required for morality is way over simplified. It is basically short hand. However if you really want to get detailed about what is necessary then much more explanation is required. I would argue that more than just the generalized notion of the divine is necessary to account for morality. For instance the divine must have within it the concept of a personal being. Only personal beings can put forth moral duties. If as in Pantheism I believe, the divine is simply the aggregate whole of what the rest of us would call nature. In the divine is simply all of nature then the divine in that case would lack any source of objective moral values and duties. Also as in deism God is not a relational being and does not require moral standards of us even if he is a moral being himself. So the level of explanation I give depends on the level of detail necessary to make my point.

Why don't you state what level of detail is necessary to draw out the issues we have discussed? I mean what specifically would you likely me to show? Once I have an objective or goal I can tailor my responses for you.

Well to have objective moral values and duties requires a certain type of theism. All of the competing systems we have left within that category then must be compared using arguments in many other categories. I think that Christian theism is by far the most likely form of theism to exist among those that can explain morality.



There are many forms of theism (Islam, Hinduism, even paganism, etc...) that may allow for objective moral values. Of those I think Christian theism has far better evidence and argumentation for its existence than the rest. So I would use certain kinds of arguments to show that a certain set of religions are consistent and sufficiently explanatory to account for the existence of objective moral values. Then I would use several different types of arguments to show that of those competing religions Christianity is the most likely to be true. I can make either type of argument but it would be very hard to tackle them all simultaneously. So we can discuss what forms of religion would account for objective morality, or instead we can debate the arguments and evidence for which one of those competing forms of religion is most likely to be true.

It is completely up to you, I look forward to your response. I was in a big hurry when I posted this, I hope I was coherent.

Completely coherent! Thank you! Perhaps let's start with the former:

So we can discuss what forms of religion would account for objective morality

.

I'm not sure if this is the right place to do this, though. It is arguably in keeping with the OP, but if it's just a debate between me and you, perhaps worth having elsewhere (a one-on-one?)?

Hi All,

Segev Moran, do you have a view on 1robin and I slugging it out here or elsewhere (this being your thread)?

 

[Muffled]

Funny how you claim to know more about a cat that you have never even met.

I believe I have had several cats as pets. We had a black cat named Bandit who had a lot of personality and was like having another person in the family. You may think your cat acts like a person but that is just brain work.

 

[Muffled]

But the spirit is NOT physical,
by definition, it was never a physical claim.

I believe if the spirit isn't physical then you couldn't be a cockroach. Cockroaches are physical are they not?

 

[1robin]

Completely coherent! Thank you! Perhaps let's start with the former:

I made a few different claims in my post. Am I to understand that by your saying "the former" you wish to start with my pointing out what types of theism, etc.... can account for objective morality? I do not want to launch off down the wrong road.

I'm not sure if this is the right place to do this, though. It is arguably in keeping with the OP, but if it's just a debate between me and you, perhaps worth having elsewhere (a one-on-one?)?

This is not my thread so I would not have any say in the matter but these threads seldom stay on topic. However if you want to set up a one on one that would be just fine.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

However if you want to set up a one on one that would be just fine.

Okay, I'll do that now.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

However if you want to set up a one on one that would be just fine.

Okay, done. Look forward to the conversation!

 

[1robin]

Okay, done. Look forward to the conversation!

Ok, sounds good. I have to leave in a few minutes but I will take a look tomorrow. Thanks.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I believe I have had several cats as pets. We had a black cat named Bandit who had a lot of personality and was like having another person in the family. You may think your cat acts like a person but that is just brain work.

You may think that your brain is something similar to a cat,
but that is just your dog-DNA deluding you into thinking you are not inferior.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

I believe if the spirit isn't physical then you couldn't be a cockroach. Cockroaches are physical are they not?

A spirit inhabits a physical body.
So 'be a cockroach' is just better worded as 'be as a cockroach'.
Only dead cockroaches are purely physical.
We can easily see the difference between a physical form inhabited by a spirit;
and one that lacks such. Though it may be that even some animate forms could be
mere automatons.

Tyrell: "Is this to be an empathy test? Capillary dilation, the so-called blush response? Fluctuation of the pupil... involuntary dilation of the iris?