Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
God can Ground Objective Morality

God can Ground Objective Morality
(04-02-2024, 11:48 AM)SteveII Wrote:
(04-01-2024, 10:28 PM)epronovost Wrote: That would make the entire discussion not a philosophical discussion because that would indeed be disingenuous, but a theological discussion since it assumes a specific deity in the first place.

Philosophy of religion is "the philosophical examination of the central themes and concepts involved in religious traditions".[1] Philosophical discussions on such topics date from ancient times, and appear in the earliest known texts concerning philosophy. The field is related to many other branches of philosophy, including metaphysics, epistemology, logic and ethics.[2]

The philosophy of religion differs from religious philosophy in that it seeks to discuss questions regarding the nature of religion as a whole, rather than examining the problems brought forth by a particular belief-system. It can be carried out dispassionately by those who identify as believers or non-believers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_religion

Obviosuly the wikipedia article writer has never visited AD.

Philosophy of religion doesn't require, from the onset, to accept the existence of deities let alone a particular deity though. One of the philosophical problem of any religious belief is the fact you basically have to accept the existence of a deity on faith alone.

We can discuss if God can ground objective morality to which the answer is obviously not since that would defeat the very meaning of objective morality as explained in detail earlier in the thread by several posters and since you can't demonstrate rationally the existence of any supernatural deity let alone yours, God cannot provide for moral universalism either. The very idea of a creature that defines and judges morality is a perfect example of subjective morality.
Reply

God can Ground Objective Morality
(04-02-2024, 11:48 AM)SteveII Wrote: Philosophy of religion is "the philosophical examination of the central themes and concepts involved in religious traditions".[1] Philosophical discussions on such topics date from ancient times, and appear in the earliest known texts concerning philosophy. The field is related to many other branches of philosophy, including metaphysics, epistemology, logic and ethics.[2]

The philosophy of religion differs from religious philosophy in that it seeks to discuss questions regarding the nature of religion as a whole, rather than examining the problems brought forth by a particular belief-system. It can be carried out dispassionately by those who identify as believers or non-believers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_religion

Obviosuly the wikipedia article writer has never visited AD.

Do I smell feelings of persecution? It's always easier to blame others than honestly look at your own behavior.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
Reply

God can Ground Objective Morality
(04-02-2024, 11:44 AM)SteveII Wrote:
(04-01-2024, 10:23 PM)Astreja Wrote: Then it's utterly pointless, not to mention disingenuous, for you to insert logic that is, um, contingent on the existence of a god. Big Grin

Many people (including yourself if I remember correctly) asked how would I ground morality in the last thread.  This thread is the answer to that question. I anticipated (based on significant experience) that some would reply with the usual "yeah, but you haven't proved God!" and wait for the 6 people who will inevitably 'like' their sophisticated response. Hence the intro to the discussion.

SteveII. You are one pretentious arsehole.
Reply

God can Ground Objective Morality
(04-02-2024, 11:48 AM)SteveII Wrote: Philosophy of religion is "the philosophical examination of the central themes and concepts involved in religious traditions".[1] Philosophical discussions on such topics date from ancient times, and appear in the earliest known texts concerning philosophy. The field is related to many other branches of philosophy, including metaphysics, epistemology, logic and ethics.[2]

The philosophy of religion differs from religious philosophy in that it seeks to discuss questions regarding the nature of religion as a whole, rather than examining the problems brought forth by a particular belief-system. It can be carried out dispassionately by those who identify as believers or non-believers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_religion

Obviosuly the wikipedia article writer has never visited AD.
The original complaint was that you like to force the discussion to presuppose the existence of a god.
The article you linked, the quote you provided, does not address this AT ALL.
Keep lying and evading, you paragon of christianity.
R.I.P. Hannes
The following 1 user Likes Deesse23's post:
  • Cavebear
Reply

God can Ground Objective Morality
(04-02-2024, 11:44 AM)SteveII Wrote: Many people (including yourself if I remember correctly) asked how would I ground morality in the last thread.  This thread is the answer to that question. I anticipated (based on significant experience) that some would reply with the usual "yeah, but you haven't proved God!" and wait for the 6 people who will inevitably 'like' their sophisticated response. Hence the intro to the discussion.
You couldnt identify morality if it bit you in the rear, as evidenced by you demonstrating ignorance of what objective morality is, and then, the icing on the cake, refusing to learn from your mistake and keep going on, pretending you never were wrong on this fundamental of ehics.

You are only here to hear yourself talk.
R.I.P. Hannes
The following 2 users Like Deesse23's post:
  • Szuchow, Cavebear
Reply

God can Ground Objective Morality
(04-02-2024, 11:44 AM)SteveII Wrote: Many people (including yourself if I remember correctly) asked how would I ground morality in the last thread.  This thread is the answer to that question.

It isn't an answer at all.  It's the philosophical equivalent of asserting "If my auntie had a dick and balls, she'd be my uncle."

As for me, I'm clearly on record as rejecting objective morality altogether - from my POV, it remains subjective no matter how many gods you throw at it.
The following 6 users Like Astreja's post:
  • Cavebear, pattylt, Deesse23, Inkubus, brewerb, mordant
Reply

God can Ground Objective Morality
From the point of view of cognitive moral theories the nature of gods or any other moral agent is an explicitly subjective grounding - regardless of how many gods there are, or whether gods are real or imagined. Asserting divine subjectivity as an accurate description of moral reality is not a rejection of moral subjectivity, thus objecting to that is not any objection to objective moral theories....nor would affirming moral subjectivity be disagreeing with steves metaethical proposition.

Christian dominionism and contemporary post modern relativism agree on the nature of moral reality. Cultural contamination at work.
The following 1 user Likes Rhythmcs's post:
  • brewerb
Reply

God can Ground Objective Morality
There is no 'gods moral authority' there are only people telling you what is and isn't gods moral authority. People = built in subjectivity.

(waiting for Steve to tell us that god speaks to him directly and not thru a book, history, other people.............)
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
The following 3 users Like brewerb's post:
  • airportkid, Alan V, pattylt
Reply

God can Ground Objective Morality
(04-03-2024, 06:51 PM)brewerb Wrote: There is no 'gods moral authority' there are only people telling you what is and isn't gods moral authority.

Right.  Every theist's insistence that some god wants or commands something or other always reduces to some person claiming to speak for the god, never the god speaking for itself.  And it's impossible to identify what some person says as being actually divine.  Achieving that would be Nobel Prize calibre in several scientific disciplines.  Nothing any theist has ever clodded up these threads with approaches that level of credibility.

Real knowledge is rarely easily obtained.  Almost everything we experience embodies explanation far deeper than its surface.  Consider that it has only been within the last hundred years that we've become able to describe what a sun actually is, despite being able to observe and study it firsthand every day for thousands of years.  Or that what we know about ourselves is still so superficial we're prepared to obliterate the biosphere to emphasize some trivial ideological viewpoint.

Putting something so absurd as a god at the center of a quest for serious knowledge only cripples the endeavor.
The following 4 users Like airportkid's post:
  • brewerb, Alan V, mordant, pattylt
Reply

God can Ground Objective Morality
(04-03-2024, 07:45 PM)airportkid Wrote:
(04-03-2024, 06:51 PM)brewerb Wrote: There is no 'gods moral authority' there are only people telling you what is and isn't gods moral authority.

Right.  Every theist's insistence that some god wants or commands something or other always reduces to some person claiming to speak for the god, never the god speaking for itself.  And it's impossible to identify what some person says as being actually divine.  Achieving that would be Nobel Prize calibre in several scientific disciplines.  Nothing any theist has ever clodded up these threads with approaches that level of credibility.

Yup. That's why Moses went up the mountain, conceivable believe-ability.

[Image: 6fe3b729e6b15aff2908285ff74c99aa01add1ee.gif]
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
The following 1 user Likes brewerb's post:
  • pattylt
Reply

God can Ground Objective Morality
(04-03-2024, 06:51 PM)brewerb Wrote: There is no 'gods moral authority' there are only people telling you what is and isn't gods moral authority. People = built in subjectivity.

(waiting for Steve to tell us that god speaks to him directly and not thru a book, history, other people.............)

Even if a god were speaking, and speaking directly to someone in particular, a someone who didn't misunderstand anything or add their own stuff in...we would still be talking about metaethical subjectivity.  

As far as subjective moral authority - that's easy enough..and with gods or with people it boils down to just one or two basic lanes.  That you agree with that other agent, or that you want what that other agent offers in return.  Transactional intersubjectivity.  In subjective moral grounding and subjective moral authority, no fact of any matter...matters.  The only moral making facts or authority making facts are facts of you (or, in the case of a god - it).
The following 1 user Likes Rhythmcs's post:
  • pattylt
Reply

God can Ground Objective Morality
(04-03-2024, 09:18 PM)Rhythmcs Wrote:
(04-03-2024, 06:51 PM)brewerb Wrote: There is no 'gods moral authority' there are only people telling you what is and isn't gods moral authority. People = built in subjectivity.

(waiting for Steve to tell us that god speaks to him directly and not thru a book, history, other people.............)

Even if a god were speaking, and speaking directly to someone in particular, a someone who didn't misunderstand anything or add their own stuff in...we would still be talking about metaethical subjectivity.  

As far as subjective moral authority - that's easy enough..and with gods or with people it boils down to just one or two basic lanes.  That you agree with that other agent, or that you want what that other agent offers in return.  Transactional intersubjectivity.  In subjective moral grounding and subjective moral authority, no fact of any matter...matters.  The only moral making facts or authority making facts are facts of you (or, in the case of a god - it).

Isn't that what I said but with less big words?
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
Reply

God can Ground Objective Morality
IDK, I may have misunderstood. I took the statement to imply that gods were absent and humans were present and this is why the proposition is metaethically subjective.

-but it isn't because human beings are present - or the ones making the claims (or because gods don't exist and aren't making the claims) that the proposition in question is metaethically subjective. It's metaethically subjective because it's explicitly premised on a subjective fact. This is not a fact that is ambiguous or arguable or incorrect or any of that business, it is literally a fact about a given subject. The disposition of it's nature in this case. Such that the bad-making property of any given x is not some fact about that object x, but a fact about a subject y - in this case a god.

(there are also any number of ways that the things gods say - or humans say god says - would evade accurate categorization as subjective without meeting the basic criteria for objectivity either, too)
Reply

God can Ground Objective Morality
(04-01-2024, 12:36 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(04-01-2024, 12:12 PM)polymath257 Wrote: I disagree. The whole concept of 'necessary existence' is incoherent.

if you want something that exists and is uncaused, the universe as a whole is the best candidate I can see. We know it exists and, since all causes are within the universe, it *cannot* be caused.

Then it seems you just believe the universe is a brute fact (a fact or state of affairs that exists or occurs without further explanation or justification). That just creates more questions and really isn't a defeater to the idea of necessity/contingency--just an assertion that it "is incoherent" with literally no way to show why.

Maybe it is simply more reasonable to think of the universe as the 'necessarily existing object' that to imagine a consciousness behind it.
Reply

God can Ground Objective Morality
(04-03-2024, 10:30 PM)Rhythmcs Wrote: IDK, I may have misunderstood.  I took the statement to imply that gods were absent and humans were present and this is why the proposition is metaethically subjective.

-but it isn't because human beings are present - or the ones making the claims (or because gods don't exist and aren't making the claims) that the proposition in question is metaethically subjective.  It's metaethically subjective because it's explicitly premised on a subjective fact.  This is not a fact that is ambiguous or arguable or incorrect or any of that business, it is literally a fact about a given subject.  The disposition of it's nature in this case.  Such that the bad-making property of any given x is not some fact about that object x, but a fact about a subject y - in this case a god.

(there are also any number of ways that the things gods say - or humans say god says - would evade accurate categorization as subjective without meeting the basic criteria for objectivity either, too)

Sorry, not into minutia, humans made god(s), end of story, at least for me.

If you want to discuss/debate I'm not your guy.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)