God can Ground Objective Morality

[airportkid]

Morality can't be divorced from humanity; its sheer existence is at the core of being human.  To suppose it could exist as an abstract ideal, unaffected by and unaffecting to human affairs misses the very reason for why we need it.

We do need it.  I think on that point agreement is universal.  But what morality actually is - agreement there is much more scattered.

We all need to eat.  But what constitutes the "ideal" diet is elusive, probably irreconcilably, complicated by an infinite variety of contexts.  Morality is likewise complicated by contexts.

We're a clever species; were morality able to be distilled to a common formula we'd've solved it aeons ago.  That it remains a problem doesn't indict our ability to solve problems, it indicates it's a problem inaccessible to solution by equation.

So-called "objective" morality, now declared by Steve to be only an abstract ideal, not something humanity can use, is a religious attempt to fix morality as an equation, with the equivalent of division by zero (an undefined "god") its integral coefficient.  It's worse than useless; it clogs the machinery of our attempts to adjudicate our perpetual conflicts of priority by spilling the least blood, and ends up hemorrhaging blood by rivers.

If we manage to limit bloodshed, misery, and disappointments by subjective moralities, that's really the name of the game, not that the particular moral tenets applied be "objective".

An "objective" morality would be heartless - the morality we actually apply is guided by heart.

[SYZ]

You can't "prove" God—whatever that means exactly—but in
light of that you claim to be a theist; a person who believes
in the existence of a god or gods.

How exactly does that work?    

   (My bold)

I can believe in God without being able to prove it to another person.

I believe there is a bunch of evidence that points to God, but have not offered any (nor even mentioned it) recently except to answer a series of posts about the nature of personal experience a few months ago. I think other topics are more interesting than the tired internet atheist apologetic responses and misconceptions of Christian doctrines.

I don't typically reply to you because that is all you want to argue about--and not in a particularly appealing way.

So you must also believe that unicorns may well have existed
in the past—as recorded visually in Egyptian hieroglyphics?
I could claim, armed with this evidence, that unicorns did in
fact exist in ancient times.  And if I did, then you'd be unable
to unequivocally prove they did not.

(I find it ironic that you claim I invariably respond to you in an
"unappealing" way, considering the number of insults you've
thrown around yourself.)

And I know that you've not supplied any of your own evidence
for "God", presumably because you have none.  Tsk, tsk.

But, if you care to, you may like to clarify what this "bunch of
evidence" is exactly.  

   But I'm guessing you'll choose—unsurprisingly—not to.

[Rhythmcs]

It's true, an objective morality may be unsatisfying to our "hearts". I am not always, personally, satisfied with what my moral sense tells me to do. Nevertheless, I find that it is indeed possible to do good things x thing for objective reason y....... that also satisfies same said heart. ...sometimes.

Good thing too! Imagine if I and others like me were only ever motivated by subjective gains. If you've got the money then I've got the time....

[Paleophyte]

Morality can't be divorced from humanity; its sheer existence is at the core of being human.  To suppose it could exist as an abstract ideal, unaffected by and unaffecting to human affairs misses the very reason for why we need it.

We do need it.  I think on that point agreement is universal.  But what morality actually is - agreement there is much more scattered.

We all need to eat.  But what constitutes the "ideal" diet is elusive, probably irreconcilably, complicated by an infinite variety of contexts.  Morality is likewise complicated by contexts.

We're a clever species; were morality able to be distilled to a common formula we'd've solved it aeons ago.  That it remains a problem doesn't indict our ability to solve problems, it indicates it's a problem inaccessible to solution by equation.

So-called "objective" morality, now declared by Steve to be only an abstract ideal, not something humanity can use, is a religious attempt to fix morality as an equation, with the equivalent of division by zero (an undefined "god") its integral coefficient.  It's worse than useless; it clogs the machinery of our attempts to adjudicate our perpetual conflicts of priority by spilling the least blood, and ends up hemorrhaging blood by rivers.

If we manage to limit bloodshed, misery, and disappointments by subjective moralities, that's really the name of the game, not that the particular moral tenets applied be "objective".

An "objective" morality would be heartless - the morality we actually apply is guided by heart.

Rules for a board game that has no Manufacturer, is just an empty box, and the players are all playing with themselves.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Have you ever watched a debate? I define the argument, state my assumptions or rationale or premises, and it is your job to show me where I go wrong. 

Is that what you are doing?  

Then never mind.

I quit engaging with him when I figured out he's incapable of really seeing an opposing viewpoint as viable. When your unable (or unwilling) to seriously consider an opposing viewpoint, all your arguments are just pissing in the wind no matter how often you wish to claim victory. Such "victories" are always hollow because you don't really learn from them.

[Alan V]

I quit engaging with him when I figured out he's incapable of really seeing an opposing viewpoint as viable. When your unable (or unwilling) to seriously consider an opposing viewpoint, all your arguments are just pissing in the wind no matter how often you wish to claim victory. Such "victories" are always hollow because you don't really learn from them.

It's not just opposing viewpoints, but the opposing evidence that Christians ignore IMO.  They seem to think the world could be perfect if only people "behaved better," and so ignore the problems which are built right into the very nature of the world.  They can't acknowledge that a "perfect God" could create the world as it actually is, and so unfairly blame people for its many problems.  Promoting "objective morality" therefore becomes a form of denialism.

So to me, Christianity is a denialist worldview.  Christians can't face the facts without abandoning their faith.

[Rhythmcs]

The basic premise of subjective metaethics is to deny any underlying moral reality, so, ofc. Insomuch as a gods morality is the right morality™ any moral reality would be wrong by default.

[Cavebear]

The basic premise of subjective metaethics is to deny any underlying moral reality, so, ofc.  Insomuch as a gods morality is the right morality™ any moral reality would be wrong by default.

If I understand what you are saying, morality is religious (and by default, ethics are human-based). If so, I agree.