1robin vs The_Fisher_King: What forms of religion would account for objective morality?

[1robin]

Well, your version of Christianity might, but I'm not sure every version does.



Let's pretend it is?



I quite agree, but then you can't go claiming that within Christianity there is no neutral position.



You recommended that I spend all available time investigating whether Christianity is true or not. I said I have done that.



Yup. So is Satan.



Your opinion. My view is that nothing can exist outside of God.



Billions?



Not all of Christianity does. A lot of Hindus believe in such a concept. As do Sikhs and many others.



I have met or known of many Muslims who have become much better people as a result of embracing Islaam.



Look back at the history of Christianity if you want to find (lots of) examples of people claiming to be followers of Jesus (pbuh) who behaved like seriously Godless thugs. Not to mention those who claim to be Christians today acting in unGodly ways.



Allaah is.



The map to Allaah. Allaah.



I wasn't talking about aliens. Moreover, you also claimed to know that I had probably never left my country.



Your opinion.



I quite agree. But you described my God as inept on the basis of Her not (yet) having dealt with Satan..



Doesn't mean to say it ain't the case. We just don't have the tools right now to find and show the evidence in scientific terms.



Show me.



You bolded some text in your original post responding to a post of mine which we are discussing.



Just because you don't, doesn't mean to say there isn't any.



Not it's not. We're talking about matters of faith, not the objective evidence of the sun's being hot.



Or you could try to, more patiently, explain it to me again, in a different way. As you would a child, perhaps.



I've created a new thread in this sub-forum (one on one debates) with our names in the title. I'm afraid I don't know how to link to it.

Ok, I will try to find it.

Since we are changing subjects I did not know if you wanted a response to your final post in this thread. Let me know if you do?

 

[1robin]

I haven't been in on the previous discussion(s) about this, and am not going to spend a great deal of time here other than follow the thread. However, I have a basic question. How can morality ever be objective when it depends upon a deity? To be truly objective, should it not be independent of any entity and always be true regardless of what a deity says/thinks? I mean, gods seem to change their minds all the time about what is right or wrong, so how can that be objective?

This has been a one on one discussion, however I do not mind at all if you participate.

That is a very good question, it is actually such a good question it was posed thousands of years ago by the Greeks (or at least that is the earliest record of it). It even has a title. It is called Euthyphro's dilemma. However, it has an answer every bit as good as the question. Let me reword your question into it's formal format before I answer it.

It is charged that morality (even if God exists) would still be subjective because God would have had only two options.

1. To either select what was good or evil from an external objective source. This would mean that God is actually subordinate to something greater than himself and therefor would not be God.

2. Or God could simply pick the values and behaviors he prefers and claim they are good and call those he does not prefer evil. Therefor morality would be subject to God's whim and subjective.

However there is a third option Plato did not consider.

That God's eternal nature is what determines what is right or wrong. For example murder did not become wrong when God gave Moses the ten commandments. Murder had always been wrong because God's nature is just, making all unjust acts inherently wrong.

If you change your mind and want to discuss this further we need to back up and start at the beginning. Let me define Objective and subjective morality so we don't get them confused.

A. Objective morality or Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.
Malum in se - Wikipedia
Malum in se - Wikipedia

The above can only exist if a God like Yahweh exists.

B. Subjective morality or Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.
Malum prohibitum - Wikipedia
Malum prohibitum - Wikipedia

This can exist without God but should be called ethics, legality, or preference instead of morality. Using the same term (morality) for two totally different things is unnecessarily confusing.

Do you believe in racial equality? If so in what way are all races equal?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Since we are changing subjects I did not know if you wanted a response to your final post in this thread. Let me know if you do?

Please do! Part of my reason for creating the other thread was so that we could continue (at least for a bit) this thread too without mixing the two topics up too much.

 

[Milton Platt]

This has been a one on one discussion, however I do not mind at all if you participate.

That is a very good question, it is actually such a good question it was posed thousands of years ago by the Greeks (or at least that is the earliest record of it). It even has a title. It is called Euthyphro's dilemma. However, it has an answer every bit as good as the question. Let me reword your question into it's formal format before I answer it.

It is charged that morality (even if God exists) would still be subjective because God would have had only two options.

1. To either select what was good or evil from an external objective source. This would mean that God is actually subordinate to something greater than himself and therefor would not be God.

2. Or God could simply pick the values and behaviors he prefers and claim they are good and call those he does not prefer evil. Therefor morality would be subject to God's whim and subjective.

However there is a third option Plato did not consider.

That God's eternal nature is what determines what is right or wrong. For example murder did not become wrong when God gave Moses the ten commandments. Murder had always been wrong because God's nature is just, making all unjust acts inherently wrong.

If you change your mind and want to discuss this further we need to back up and start at the beginning. Let me define Objective and subjective morality so we don't get them confused.

A. Objective morality or Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.
Malum in se - Wikipedia
Malum in se - Wikipedia

The above can only exist if a God like Yahweh exists.

B. Subjective morality or Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.
Malum prohibitum - Wikipedia
Malum prohibitum - Wikipedia

This can exist without God but should be called ethics, legality, or preference instead of morality. Using the same term (morality) for two totally different things is unnecessarily confusing.

Do you believe in racial equality? If so in what way are all races equal?

Thanks for the informative reply. I will cogitate on this for awhile.

In passing, it seems that saying that morality is part of a god's nature is the same as saying it is dependent upon the god. Presuming for the moment it is a version of the Christian god we are entertaining here....and it may not be....it is obvious from the Biblical stories that the morality of that god is fluid and changes over the centuries. I have also had believers postulate that their god is not bound by the morality he supposedly dictates to his followers as an explanation of why for instance he condemns killing while at other times orders genocide, infanticide, etc.

Again, I don't want to insert myself here if you wish to keep it one on one. I can follow along and be a fly on the wall.

 

[1robin]

Please do! Part of my reason for creating the other thread was so that we could continue (at least for a bit) this thread too without mixing the two topics up too much.

Ok

 

[1robin]

Well, your version of Christianity might, but I'm not sure every version does.

I am not referring to anything as subjective as Church creeds for example. I am talking about what Christ emphatically claimed. He specifically said that we must be born from above to enter the kingdom of God.

Let's pretend it is?

Ok, then you ought to understand the analogy in that case.

I quite agree, but then you can't go claiming that within Christianity there is no neutral position.

There isn't. There is heaven or hell waiting for us all in the end. Your either a Christian or your not.

You recommended that I spend all available time investigating whether Christianity is true or not. I said I have done that.

Actually that goal is impossible. No one can claim that any universal negative (as in there is no God) is provable or knowable. The goal I should have given is to study it long enough to have a level of certainty high enough to wager your eternal soul upon it. That is at least possible but I highly doubt you have done so.

Yup. So is Satan.

That is like claiming square circles or married bachelors exist. Your claim goes against the law of non-contradiction which has no known exception. All I can say is that you are about as wrong on this claim as wrong can possibly be.

Your opinion. My view is that nothing can exist outside of God.

Something being contingent on another does not make it unified with it.

Billions?

Yes, 3 billion would be a conservative estimate.

Not all of Christianity does. A lot of Hindus believe in such a concept. As do Sikhs and many others.

Nothing is true of all those claiming to be Christians. I am talking about mainstream Christian doctrine, not some heretical cult. Mainstream Hinduism only offers divine experience to a select enlightened few. I am talking about mainstream things again and you only want to talk about rare exceptions. Lets stick to mainstream revealed doctrines and stop talking about fringe heretical groups that defy them.

I have met or known of many Muslims who have become much better people as a result of embracing Islaam.

People you have met or my friends are not a common ground we share. However the huge public figures I mentioned are.

Look back at the history of Christianity if you want to find (lots of) examples of people claiming to be followers of Jesus (pbuh) who behaved like seriously Godless thugs. Not to mention those who claim to be Christians today acting in unGodly ways.

All mortal humans sin, Christians become Christians because we admit that fact and our need of a savior.

New International Version
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.

Members of every religion are sinners, but Christianity also contains more self sacrifice than any other similar group. Christian conservatives are the most generous demographic in human history.

Allaah is.

No he isn't. Quote the surah that lay out Allah's characteristics, and compare Yahweh's primary prophet (Jesus) and Allah's primary prophet/tyrant (Muhammad). The differences could be more extreme.

The map to Allaah. Allaah.

So you are a Muslim? Islam does not contain reincarnation. Again, I really do not think you hold to any particular positions with conviction.

I wasn't talking about aliens. Moreover, you also claimed to know that I had probably never left my country.

There is no argument in what you said.

Your opinion.

No, that one is an absolute fact. Ever heard of Renée Descartes?

I quite agree. But you described my God as inept on the basis of Her not (yet) having dealt with Satan..

No, on the basis of letting Satan prevail. My God promised to defeat Satan on behalf of all believers in Genesis and actually did so in the Gospels, and it is retroactive.

Doesn't mean to say it ain't the case. We just don't have the tools right now to find and show the evidence in scientific terms.

It does mean it holds zero persuasive power.

Show me.

Actually, my claim was sloppy. Let me clarify. There is virtually zero evidence for reincarnation but mountains of evidence for world views which are non compatible with reincarnation.

Just because you don't, doesn't mean to say there isn't any.

If I don't have any and you won't post any evidence for your claims they have zero ability to persuade.

Not it's not. We're talking about matters of faith, not the objective evidence of the sun's being hot.

No, I am saying you faith seems to contradict what appears to be objective fact.

Or you could try to, more patiently, explain it to me again, in a different way. As you would a child, perhaps.

We have enough on the plate at the moment.

 

[1robin]

Thanks for the informative reply. I will cogitate on this for awhile.

Cogitate away.

In passing, it seems that saying that morality is part of a god's nature is the same as saying it is dependent upon the god.

Yes, if you research divine command theory it will spell this out in minute detail. However I was not talking about which morals are the objective good or bad ones. My primary point was that God would make whichever moral values and duties were good and which were evil, an objective fact.

Presuming for the moment it is a version of the Christian god we are entertaining here....and it may not be....it is obvious from the Biblical stories that the morality of that god is fluid and changes over the centuries. I have also had believers postulate that their god is not bound by the morality he supposedly dictates to his followers as an explanation of why for instance he condemns killing while at other times orders genocide, infanticide, etc.

For the objectiveness of moral values and duties the God in question would only have to be a moral agent, eternal, and necessary. However I do believe in the Christian God.

The bible shows how morals are applied changes over time, not their core foundations. In the same way we have the same moral foundations though we give children different rules than adults, God has the same moral foundations but gave stone age men different rules than the space age men.

Again, I don't want to insert myself here if you wish to keep it one on one. I can follow along and be a fly on the wall.

It does not matter to me, the other debate I am having here is not that challenging or inspiring so watching it won't be that informative, but the guy is very polite so I have kept the discussion going. If you want to get more technical, targeted, or go deeper into the ontology of morality you may have to challenge me yourself.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Ok, then you ought to understand the analogy in that case.

I was being critical..

There isn't. There is heaven or hell waiting for us all in the end. Your either a Christian or your not.

What do you think of the notion of universal reconciliation/salvation?

The goal I should have given is to study it long enough to have a level of certainty high enough to wager your eternal soul upon it. That is at least possible but I highly doubt you have done so.

I'll wager my eternal soul that Christianity is not the true religion. Moreover, on your definition of Christianity, at least, I already have by rejecting Christianity, surely?

That is like claiming square circles or married bachelors exist. Your claim goes against the law of non-contradiction which has no known exception. All I can say is that you are about as wrong on this claim as wrong can possibly be.

No it doesn't. On your definition of who/what God is and who/what Satan is, maybe. But there are other definitions.

Something being contingent on another does not make it unified with it.

Agreed. But I am not saying that.

Yes, 3 billion would be a conservative estimate.

Whilst 3 billion is technically 'billions', most people would associate 'billions' with a fair few more than just 3 billion!

Also, do you have a quote for that figure?

Mainstream Hinduism only offers divine experience to a select enlightened few.

It might be worth you speaking to a 'mainstream' Hindu (whatever that is!).

Lets stick to mainstream revealed doctrines and stop talking about fringe heretical groups that defy them.

Okay, setting Hinduism aside, what about Sikh beliefs on union with the Divine?

but Christianity also contains more self sacrifice than any other similar group.

You talk like that is a good thing!

No he isn't.

Your opinion.

Quote the surah that lay out Allah's characteristics

I'm not really in the business of quoting scripture (my faith rests on my personal experience of God, not some book), but since you ask, try Surah 112.

So you are a Muslim?

Yup.

Islam does not contain reincarnation.

Mainstream Islaam doesn't. But there have always been Muslims who believe in reincarnation amongst the Sufis and some so-called heretical Shi'a groups.

Again, I really do not think you hold to any particular positions with conviction.

On what basis do you make this claim?

There is no argument in what you said.

Huh?

Ever heard of Renée Descartes?

Sure have.

No, on the basis of letting Satan prevail.

I never said that. I only said that Satan is winning for now.

My God promised to defeat Satan on behalf of all believers in Genesis and actually did so in the Gospels, and it is retroactive.

So your God has already defeated Satan?

It does mean it holds zero persuasive power.

[shrugs shoulders]

you won't post any evidence for your claims they have zero ability to persuade.

I have mountains of subjective evidence, but that won't obviously persuade you. But that matters not to me.

No, I am saying you faith seems to contradict what appears to be objective fact.

Your opinion, not objective fact.

We have enough on the plate at the moment.

Lol

 

[The_Fisher_King]

It does not matter to me, the other debate I am having here is not that challenging or inspiring so watching it won't be that informative, but the guy is very polite so I have kept the discussion going.

You should have said! Happy to end it here if you want to. I'm not going to launch any searing hot philosophical attacks on your claims. I'm not interested in playing that game.

My point is ultimately that your opinions are just that, opinions, and ones that not all Christians necessarily share, never mind non-Christians.

 

[1robin]

I was being critical..

How did you create 3 posts in 10 minutes?

I have no idea what your response means.

What do you think of the notion of universal reconciliation/salvation?

I deny it completely, if it did exist the God that facilitated it would be unjust.

I'll wager my eternal soul that Christianity is not the true religion. Moreover, on your definition of Christianity, at least, I already have by rejecting Christianity, surely?

Yes you are is my response to both points.

No it doesn't. On your definition of who/what God is and who/what Satan is, maybe. But there are other definitions.

No is doesn't what?

Agreed. But I am not saying that.

You have repeatedly said things that require that belief to justify. Both God's colocation with ourselves and universal redemption can only be relevant if our being related to a thing means we are in unity with it.

Whilst 3 billion is technically 'billions', most people would associate 'billions' with a fair few more than just 3 billion!

Not when it concerns human population.

Also, do you have a quote for that figure?

It isn't worth looking up since for example Luther's primary foundation for Protestantism is based on the born again experience, and Catholicism includes the belief but unjustly adds to it. I was a prayer councilor for years and saw about an 80% rate of those who claim to be Christian doing so based on being born again. So I usually use 50% of the current population of Christians and extrapolate that back 2000 years. So I am being very conservative. I actually have quoted studies in the past, you can look them up if you want but I don't have time currently.

It might be worth you speaking to a 'mainstream' Hindu (whatever that is!).

I have debated at least half a dozen. We usually spend our time talking about the caste system. However I almost always ask them if they could get one of their "enlightened" members to debate me. So far they have produced zero.

Okay, setting Hinduism aside, what about Sikh beliefs on union with the Divine?

I have never met nor debated a Sikh. There have been thousands of belief systems in the history of humanity, I could never hope to know them all. Why don't you post quotes from their holy texts on the subject?

You talk like that is a good thing!

Of course the sacrifice on one's comfort, money, or even their life in the service of others is a good thing. We build museums for, write books about, and give medals to individuals who put others needs ahead of their own. You are on the ragged edge of more subject areas than any human I have ever talked to and since I traveled the world while in the Navy and have over 13,000 debates that is quite a lot of people.

Your opinion.

A simplistic comparison between revealed texts.

I'm not really in the business of quoting scripture (my faith rests on my personal experience of God, not some book), but since you ask, try Surah 112.

Having an experience with God is not what the Quran says makes you a Muslim. To become a Muslim you must merely give consent to the propositions that God is one, and his Muhammad is his prophet. You then must adhere to a bunch of miscellaneous propitiations. You basically must earn your way to God.

Yup.

I have debated dozens upon dozens of Muslims, but your posts are unlike any of them. At least I now know what world view you are bound by.

Mainstream Islaam doesn't. But there have always been Muslims who believe in reincarnation amongst the Sufis and some so-called heretical Shi'a groups.

I have never denied that strange fringe groups (cults or heretics) exist within all religions.

1. So you can't defend re-incarnation within the texts of your own faith.
2. You can't show that it is even consistent with it's own stated purpose.
3. You couldn't show me any evidence for it's existence.

You still have 100% of your work left before you.

On what basis do you make this claim?

In this post you said you were a Muslim yet you have not posted any mainstream Islamic viewpoints you adhere to.

Huh?

What you posted was not a challenge to anything I have claimed.

Sure have.

Then you ought to be aware of the FACT that the only thing we know for a certainty is that we exist. Everything else has a varying degree of uncertainty depending on the claim.

I never said that. I only said that Satan is winning for now.

In my belief system (for those who trust in Christ) Satan is utterly defeated. In fact he has been defeated concerning everyone but God's total victory doesn't get applied without faith. So Yahweh is greater that Allah, therefor Allah can't be the greatest conceivable being, and therefor not God.

So your God has already defeated Satan?

Yes, but we have to accept that victory through Christ before it is applied.

I have mountains of subjective evidence, but that won't obviously persuade you. But that matters not to me.

Just because a claim is subjective doesn't mean it isn't persuasive. It depends on the claim, but a lack of even subjective evidence (what you have supplied) has zero persuasive capacity.

Your opinion, not objective fact.

It is my opinion but it may also be objective fact.

If you don't mind the question, where are you from (in general)?

 

[1robin]

You should have said! Happy to end it here if you want to. I'm not going to launch any searing hot philosophical attacks on your claims. I'm not interested in playing that game.

My point is ultimately that your opinions are just that, opinions, and ones that not all Christians necessarily share, never mind non-Christians.

Why are you telling me how I should have responded to someone else? I believe what I stated was appropriate and respectful. You seem to be kind of winging it, so anyone wanting to see a heavy hitting discussion on objective morality may want to seek it some other way.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

Why are you telling me how I should have responded to someone else? I believe what I stated was appropriate and respectful. You seem to be kind of winging it, so anyone wanting to see a heavy hitting discussion on objective morality may want to seek it some other way.

Sorry for the radio silence. Was on a bit of a downer.

I was not trying to tell you how you should have responded to someone else, only that if you were getting bored with our conversation, you should have said and I would have been happy to wind it down.

I am not winging it - I think perhaps you are struggling a bit with my views because they are so heterodox and do not fit easily into any particular box. Quoting this or that scripture is not important to me because I am not bound by any particular scripture (be it the Qur'aan or any other sacred text).

I am not sure we are getting anywhere with this discussion, and since you are not finding it particularly challenging, I suggest we wind it down. Thank you in any case for your time.

 

[1robin]

Sorry for the radio silence. Was on a bit of a downer.

Not a problem. What kind of downer?

I was not trying to tell you how you should have responded to someone else, only that if you were getting bored with our conversation, you should have said and I would have been happy to wind it down.

You read that into my response to him. No need to be insecure with me, if I find someone boring I will find a graceful way to get out of a debate without accusing a person of anything if they have been at least polite, which you have been.

I am not winging it - I think perhaps you are struggling a bit with my views because they are so heterodox and do not fit easily into any particular box. Quoting this or that scripture is not important to me because I am not bound by any particular scripture (be it the Qur'aan or any other sacred text).

By winging it I mean you cover wide ranging subjects to a shallow depth where as I tend to stick with a few points but to get deep.

I am not sure we are getting anywhere with this discussion, and since you are not finding it particularly challenging, I suggest we wind it down. Thank you in any case for your time.

Totally up to you.