IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 27th November 2012, 10:59 AM   #441
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
As I already explained:



So, with that in mind, if you'd like to justify your assertion that my characterization of morality would constitute subjective rather than objective morality, please do so.
my bloodpressure, SAT scores and orders to US soldiers are all subjective
The first depends on excercise I've done (troughout my life), how I've treated my heart during my life, what I've eaten (high salt vs low salt prior to measurement), temperature of the day etc etc.
SAT scores are even more subjective as they would not only include my learning bias, but also the many many biases of those writing the tests at the time.
Orders to soldiers are even more so, except for things like jump! run!. Go there and deal with insurgents is about as subjective as you can make it.


Both the OT, the NT, the torah, the koran and several other religions condone slavery.
Yet we don't anymore. Is humanity wrong in disobeying god there?

I, and many with me in my country feel abortion an euthanasia are perfectly moral things to allow within a certain framework. Literally. I have NO qualms about the current laws at all, not even a tinge of 'oh, well, deep down I know I'm doing an immoral thing by not attempting to stop this, but I'll ignore that'
Yet in the same country the advocates of various religions feel that this is a deeply immoral thing that should be prohibited.

How is that anything BUT subjective. Again, name me a single subject that ALL humans everywhere find immoral. Or moral.
A single one.

And please, do tell someday HOW you know morality is hardcoded into the universe and how it interacts with the physical world.
What genes get tickled by the underlying universal morality. What part of our brain gets activated by an outside force that is similar everywhere. And where is the cutoff? Can bacteria behave immoral? Mollusks? Fish? Snakes? Mice? Monkeys? Apes? Chimpanzees?
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 11:03 AM   #442
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by GeeMack View Post
"Objective", by your interpretation, as it applies to you, arbitrarily, is not definitively objective.
Yes, that's your assertion. I invited you to justify your assertion, not state it again.

Can you justify your assertion?

Let me give you a specific example:

Assume "God tells AvalonXQ to do X, and God tells GeeMack to do Y."

I claim that "AvalonXQ doing X is objectively good."

I claim that "AvalonXQ not doing X is objectively evil."

I claim that "GeeMack doing Y is objectively good."

I claim that "GeeMack not doing Y is objectively evil."

This is how I am calling morality "objective." Can you explain how I've misused the term in this example, if indeed you believe I have?
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 11:10 AM   #443
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
my bloodpressure, SAT scores and orders to US soldiers are all subjective
You claim that your SAT score is subjective? Really? So a college isn't going to be mad at me if I just claim a 2400 when applying, regardless of what the SAT score sheet actually said my score was? And if you claimed you got a 2340 and I state that, no, you got a 2240, there's no way to figure out who's right and who's wrong?

Sorry, but you're confusing "subjective" and "variable." Your SAT score is objective; it's a number on a piece of paper that can be confirmed and we can all agree on what that number is. It may be variable (it may depend on many factors and differ each time you take the test), and certainly it's not universal (each person's test result will be different based on how they individually performed) but the results are objective.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 11:19 AM   #444
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Yes, that's your assertion. I invited you to justify your assertion, not state it again.

Can you justify your assertion?

I justified my assertion, your apparent unwillingness to understand the simple English I used notwithstanding. It's clear that you're using the term "objective" incorrectly. Do note how I politely acknowledged that you can use any words you want and make up any meanings you like, but consider this helpful advice: Honest communication is done differently. The proper way to engage in honest communication is to use words the same way as those you are attempting to communicate with. When you make up your own meanings to suit your agenda, the failure belongs to you.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 11:21 AM   #445
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Yes, that's your assertion. I invited you to justify your assertion, not state it again.

Can you justify your assertion?
Have you justified your assertion that there is objective morality and it comes from your favorite brand of god(s) yet? Demonstrated it to be true? Given evidence of your favorite brand of god(s)? Right now, it's just you saying so.

Let's see if your sentences still work with some changes:
Quote:
Assume "God tells AvalonXQ Hitler to do X, and God tells GeeMack Saudi terrorists to do Y."

I claim that "AvalonXQ Hitler doing X is objectively good."

I claim that "AvalonXQ Hitler not doing X is objectively evil."

I claim that "GeeMack Saudi terrorists doing Y is objectively good."

I claim that "GeeMack Saudi terrorists not doing Y is objectively evil."

This is how I am calling morality "objective." Can you explain how I've misused the term in this example, if indeed you believe I have?
Do the sentences still work for you, Avalon?
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 11:33 AM   #446
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,669
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
I am not at all saying that there is no objective morality without God. Quite the contrary; what I am saying from the Christian perspective is that there is objective morality, fundamental to the way the universe and particularly humans operate and not dependent on God any more than the rules of basketball are dependent on the referee.
So, exactly what is the Christian perspective, without God?
Quote:
However, just as the player's rule-abiding conduct will depend on the instructions of the referee because the rules give the referee authority over the player, so a human's mortal conduct will depend on the instructions given by God because it is objectively moral to obey God and immoral to disobey God.
Ah, right, so "without God" doesn't actually mean "without God", then?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 11:42 AM   #447
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
You claim that your SAT score is subjective? Really? So a college isn't going to be mad at me if I just claim a 2400 when applying, regardless of what the SAT score sheet actually said my score was? And if you claimed you got a 2340 and I state that, no, you got a 2240, there's no way to figure out who's right and who's wrong?

Sorry, but you're confusing "subjective" and "variable." Your SAT score is objective; it's a number on a piece of paper that can be confirmed and we can all agree on what that number is. It may be variable (it may depend on many factors and differ each time you take the test), and certainly it's not universal (each person's test result will be different based on how they individually performed) but the results are objective.
So, every time you take your SAT test, at any point in your life, whatever SAT test you take you will get the exact same number?
If so, I will consider it an objective description of a person.
If not, then yes, it is a subjective test that will vary depeding on who wrote the test you're taking and your personal experiences.

A simple comparison. When I tested for chemistry in highschool to apply for college I scored an 80% or so. When I do the same tests now, after working as a postdoctoral researcher for 10 years and now teaching chemistry I now score about a 99%.
I'd say that this makes the test subjective, as if it were objective it would say something about me independent of when tested.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 12:00 PM   #448
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
So, every time you take your SAT test, at any point in your life, whatever SAT test you take you will get the exact same number?
You really are misusing the terms here. The fact that your score can change means that your score is variable, not that it's subjective. Each time you take the test, you will get one very specific score, and we can all agree on what that score is.

When a roll a d6, my result is variable; in fact it's an arbitrary number between 1 and 6. But it's still objective. Everybody at the casino can and should agree on what numbers came up on the dice. So "arbitrary" and "variable" aren't the same as "subjective," and however arbitary or variable your SAT score is, it's still an objective fact.

Quote:
A simple comparison. When I tested for chemistry in highschool to apply for college I scored an 80% or so. When I do the same tests now, after working as a postdoctoral researcher for 10 years and now teaching chemistry I now score about a 99%.
I'd say that this makes the test subjective, as if it were objective it would say something about me independent of when tested.
No, the test may be entirely objective. The fact that your score on the test changes over time doesn't make the test in any way subjective.

Can I ask you what you believe "objective" and "subjective" mean?
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 12:05 PM   #449
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
I should note, people can make subjective claims about tests and about blood pressure. Whether a certain question should be on a test may be subjective; whether a certain score on a test should be required for college admissions may be subjective. Whether a certain blood pressure is within "a healthy range" may be subjective. But the fact that you scored an 80% or your blood pressure was 120/80 isn't subjective -- it's an objective fact.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 12:35 PM   #450
zeggman
Graduate Poster
 
zeggman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,911
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
I am not at all saying that there is no objective morality without God. Quite the contrary; what I am saying from the Christian perspective is that there is objective morality, fundamental to the way the universe and particularly humans operate and not dependent on God any more than the rules of basketball are dependent on the referee.

However, just as the player's rule-abiding conduct will depend on the instructions of the referee because the rules give the referee authority over the player, so a human's mortal conduct will depend on the instructions given by God because it is objectively moral to obey God and immoral to disobey God.
Okay, thanks for the explanation.

It sounds like you view God as more of an enforcer of a morality which exists independently of its enforcement. Which, if I believed in any gods, would probably be the sort of God I'd prefer.

Since my quarrel is really with those who claim that God provides an objective morality, I'll go back to lurking and hope one shows up.
zeggman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 12:58 PM   #451
Last of the Fraggles
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,986
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Yes, that's your assertion. I invited you to justify your assertion, not state it again.

Can you justify your assertion?

Let me give you a specific example:

Assume "God tells AvalonXQ to do X, and God tells GeeMack to do Y."

I claim that "AvalonXQ doing X is objectively good."

I claim that "AvalonXQ not doing X is objectively evil."

I claim that "GeeMack doing Y is objectively good."

I claim that "GeeMack not doing Y is objectively evil."

This is how I am calling morality "objective." Can you explain how I've misused the term in this example, if indeed you believe I have?
God does not 'objectively' talk to people, the meaning of his communications are subjective and there is no objective reason to believe they actually come from any God. Therefore your assumption cannot lead to objective morality.

Even if it did, you have simply assumed that God is moral and his instructions are moral. That's not really an objective morality either as some people may disagree with God's instructions and find them immoral.

Furthermore, in my experience most people don't actually claim to have interacted with God so you then have a subjective layer of deciding which of God's intermediaries you feel fit your needs best.
Last of the Fraggles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 02:17 PM   #452
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
You really are misusing the terms here. The fact that your score can change means that your score is variable, not that it's subjective. Each time you take the test, you will get one very specific score, and we can all agree on what that score is.

When a roll a d6, my result is variable; in fact it's an arbitrary number between 1 and 6. But it's still objective. Everybody at the casino can and should agree on what numbers came up on the dice. So "arbitrary" and "variable" aren't the same as "subjective," and however arbitary or variable your SAT score is, it's still an objective fact.



No, the test may be entirely objective. The fact that your score on the test changes over time doesn't make the test in any way subjective.

Can I ask you what you believe "objective" and "subjective" mean?
I could ask the same of course

But with regards to this particular discussion
An objective test would be a test that gives the same result regardless of who does the testing.
If you, I or anyone else drops the same gram of lead down a vacuum tube at sea level for 1 meter it will accellerate to a certain speed. This will happen wether we do it once, ten times or a million times.

A subjective test gives a different outcome depending on who does the testing and how often. Taking the same SAT test 10 times will alter the outcome. You or me taking the same SAT test at the same time will give different outcomes.

To get back to the discussion, an to have an objective morality, one that is ingrained in the very nature of the universe, this morality would out of very definition have to be the same for everyone everywhere.
I'll leave out everywhen due to the 'god can change his mind' bit.

My personal view is that if this objective morality can be different for everyone depeding on how they either interpret the morality or because god gives an objective morality that differs per person it is indistinguishable from a subjective, purely man-made reality.
In that case I see no reason to add the complexity of a 'maybe god did it, maybe he didn't' to something as already controversial as morality.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 02:24 PM   #453
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
I should note, people can make subjective claims about tests and about blood pressure. Whether a certain question should be on a test may be subjective; whether a certain score on a test should be required for college admissions may be subjective. Whether a certain blood pressure is within "a healthy range" may be subjective. But the fact that you scored an 80% or your blood pressure was 120/80 isn't subjective -- it's an objective fact.
To clarify my position. your examples are objective facts for me at a certain moment
An objective test would not need the underlined qualifier. It gives the same result at any given moment at any given time.
And for neither my bloodpressure, nor an SAT test could that ever be said.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 03:33 PM   #454
AvalonXQ
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
I could ask the same of course

But with regards to this particular discussion
An objective test would be a test that gives the same result regardless of who does the testing.
If you, I or anyone else drops the same gram of lead down a vacuum tube at sea level for 1 meter it will accellerate to a certain speed. This will happen wether we do it once, ten times or a million times.

A subjective test gives a different outcome depending on who does the testing and how often. Taking the same SAT test 10 times will alter the outcome. You or me taking the same SAT test at the same time will give different outcomes.

To get back to the discussion, an to have an objective morality, one that is ingrained in the very nature of the universe, this morality would out of very definition have to be the same for everyone everywhere.
I'll leave out everywhen due to the 'god can change his mind' bit.

My personal view is that if this objective morality can be different for everyone depeding on how they either interpret the morality or because god gives an objective morality that differs per person it is indistinguishable from a subjective, purely man-made reality.
In that case I see no reason to add the complexity of a 'maybe god did it, maybe he didn't' to something as already controversial as morality.
So, by your definition of "subjective", gravity is subjective because different objects weigh different amounts?
I agree that if you just use the word "subjective" to mean "variable" so that basically everything in the universe, including purely mechanical and physical phenomena, are considered "subjective," then morality under that definition may also be considered "subjective." I just don't agree that it's a reasonable use of the word.
AvalonXQ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 04:35 PM   #455
Pup
Philosopher
 
Pup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,679
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Let me give you a specific example:

Assume "God tells AvalonXQ to do X, and God tells GeeMack to do Y."

I claim that "AvalonXQ doing X is objectively good."

I claim that "AvalonXQ not doing X is objectively evil."

I claim that "GeeMack doing Y is objectively good."

I claim that "GeeMack not doing Y is objectively evil."

This is how I am calling morality "objective." Can you explain how I've misused the term in this example, if indeed you believe I have?
I get that. But what I don't get, as I think maybe I mentioned earlier in the thread, is how one can believe that a creature which does horrible things is good.

Apparently, in the worldview above, there's only one thing that's wrong for humans to do: disobey God. But God himself apparently has no moral code. He can cause the death of innocent people, require bizarre laws, test people's obedience with horrible practical jokes (Abraham and Isaac), and do any number of things, and even if we know they're wrong for us to do, we're supposed to believe a creature who does them is good. Why? How?
Pup is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 04:53 PM   #456
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
So, by your definition of "subjective", gravity is subjective because different objects weigh different amounts?
I agree that if you just use the word "subjective" to mean "variable" so that basically everything in the universe, including purely mechanical and physical phenomena, are considered "subjective," then morality under that definition may also be considered "subjective." I just don't agree that it's a reasonable use of the word.

Your attempt to evade responsibility for your failure is noted, as is your continued misunderstanding of the concepts of objective and subjective. Does making up nonsense arguments like that come naturally, like an instinctive response to desperation, or do you have to work at it?

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
Sorry, but you're confusing "subjective" and "variable." Your SAT score is objective; it's a number on a piece of paper that can be confirmed and we can all agree on what that number is. It may be variable (it may depend on many factors and differ each time you take the test), and certainly it's not universal (each person's test result will be different based on how they individually performed) but the results are objective.

Sorry, but you're confusing "objective" and "subjective." Your sense of morality is not objective. It's your interpretation of some rules you read on a piece of paper, heard from your parents, and/or heard from some religious leaders. Those rules cannot be confirmed and we cannot all agree on what they are. Indeed you may take them to be unambiguous and absolute, but the fact that nobody, least of all you, can explain them in a way that "we can all agree on" means they are not objective. Your claim that they are is untrue.

If you ever do take an interest in having an honest dialog and in understanding the meaning of objective and subjective, just let us know. But you'll have to set aside your resistance to understanding and stop substituting your own made up meanings. That strategy is has only resulted in you pushing a pretty foolish argument.
GeeMack is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 06:34 PM   #457
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,800
Originally Posted by Pup View Post
He can cause the death of innocent people, require bizarre laws, test people's obedience with horrible practical jokes (Abraham and Isaac), and do any number of things, and even if we know they're wrong for us to do, we're supposed to believe a creature who does them is good. Why? How?
Because Da Rules say so. They also say that you're supposed to ask "Thank you sir, may I have another?" after each good smiting.

Now put on this dress. God wills it.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 07:24 PM   #458
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla Sama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
Still waiting for a explanation of why Christians don't act morally when they have Jesus in their hearts. The "higher authority" thing ain't workin'.

And please, keep the No True Christian nonsense.
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse.
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid.
Gawdzilla Sama is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 09:47 PM   #459
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
Originally Posted by AvalonXQ View Post
So, by your definition of "subjective", gravity is subjective because different objects weigh different amounts?
I agree that if you just use the word "subjective" to mean "variable" so that basically everything in the universe, including purely mechanical and physical phenomena, are considered "subjective," then morality under that definition may also be considered "subjective." I just don't agree that it's a reasonable use of the word.
How exactly do you reach that conclusion?
I said exactly the opposite.
Different objects may weigh different amounts, but each individual object weighs exactly the same amount regardless of who does the measurement at what time.
While the force exerted by gravity can indeed vary depeding on where you do the test, it does so in a tester independent manner, hence it is objective

Your bloodpressure/sat scores on the other hand vary in a manner that is always dependend on who is being tested. Hence they are subjective.

What test for morality do you use that does NOT depend on the person being tested?
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 10:11 PM   #460
DOC
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
What, still this example?
If it was objectively immoral to commit the holocaust, why then did anyone even go along with it?
While a single sociopath or two is to be expected, a whole nation more or less just going along with it for that many years? Only possible if they did not find things morally objective, and that is only possible in your world if your god condoned the holocaust (at least in that area of the world).
Why did your god allow that?...
Free will-- to not to have allowed it is to void free will and thus make humans robots.
DOC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 10:18 PM   #461
DOC
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
Originally Posted by DOC
So if the Nazis had won the war, which they could have very easily done if they got the atomic bomb first, then you would complain to them "Guys its just wrong to put us in the gas houses, that's just the way it is, can't you guys see that."
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
Whereas if I were to say, "I say, chaps, God says you mustn't do this", they would stop at once?
Depends on their belief in God, but at least they would think about it more than if was just your opinion against their opinion.

Last edited by DOC; 27th November 2012 at 10:22 PM.
DOC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 10:32 PM   #462
DOC
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Seriously, DOC? You're still trying to use this argument after all the times people have told you that THE JESUS THAT EHRMAN SAYS EXISTED IS NOT THE SAME AS THE JESUS THAT YOU CLAIM EXISTED?
All I said is Bart Ehrman believes Jesus (the historical person known as Jesus in the bible) certainly existed and he also said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Jesus. And I pointed out in another post that Ehrman says he is an agnostic leaning more to Jesus wasn't divine. But the bottom line is Ehrman believes Jesus {the historical person who got crucified) "certainly existed". That is a very different belief from many skeptics who still aren't even sure Jesus existed.

Last edited by DOC; 27th November 2012 at 10:36 PM.
DOC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 10:39 PM   #463
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Free will-- to not to have allowed it is to void free will and thus make humans robots.
But its not free will. After all, god changed the morality for germans in that part of time so they did not feel they were doing immoral things.
After the war he reset german morality to get in line with the rest of the world and suddenly a lot of the people involved felt remorse.
Had god not played with morality, the holocaust would not have happened, and thus there would have been no need to feel remorse.

Using that line of reasoning the holocaust is not the cumulation of a series of human pettyness and subjectivenes, but rather a cruel experiment to see what happens to humans if you set morality to 'nazi'
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 10:51 PM   #464
DOC
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
But its not free will. After all, god changed the morality for germans in that part of time so they did not feel they were doing immoral things...
So you believe wrongs occur because God changes morality? And thus if I believe it is OK to steal something, God must have changed his mind about stealing.

Last edited by DOC; 27th November 2012 at 11:01 PM.
DOC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 10:58 PM   #465
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
So you believe wrongs occur because because God changes morality? And thus if I believe it is OK to steal something, God must have changed his mind about stealing.
No, I believe wrong things occur because there IS no god given morality, its something that humans make up themselves as they go along. No external input except that given by other humans.
And since humans are capable of disagreeing with each other, its capable to have groups of humans do things that the rest of humanity finds repugnant.

You on the other hand claim there is a god-given morality that is independent of humanity, we can only act on what is given to us, and going against that feels wrong.
Yet a lot of things considered wrong are considered right by those commiting the acts. In your world that can only happen if god tells them its right, otherwise they would not even be capable of conceiving the idea that they are doing something right. So its you, not me, that would have to believe that all atrocities in human history happened because at that time god made those people feel they were doing the right thing.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th November 2012, 11:28 PM   #466
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,669
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
All I said is Bart Ehrman believes Jesus (the historical person known as Jesus in the bible) certainly existed and he also said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Jesus. And I pointed out in another post that Ehrman says he is an agnostic leaning more to Jesus wasn't divine. But the bottom line is Ehrman believes Jesus {the historical person who got crucified) "certainly existed". That is a very different belief from many skeptics who still aren't even sure Jesus existed.
No, DOC, that wasn't all you said. To remind you:

Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Bart Ehrman believes Jesus certainly existed, so Christians (who believe morality comes from Jesus) can claim morality does not come from an imaginary being (imaginary being was the wording mentioned in the quote I responded to.)
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell
Zooterkin is correct Darat
Nerd! Hokulele
Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232
Ezekiel 23:20
zooterkin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 12:10 AM   #467
Last of the Fraggles
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,986
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
How exactly do you reach that conclusion?
I said exactly the opposite.
Different objects may weigh different amounts, but each individual object weighs exactly the same amount regardless of who does the measurement at what time.
While the force exerted by gravity can indeed vary depeding on where you do the test, it does so in a tester independent manner, hence it is objective

Your bloodpressure/sat scores on the other hand vary in a manner that is always dependend on who is being tested. Hence they are subjective.

What test for morality do you use that does NOT depend on the person being tested?
Sorry this doesn't make sense. You've switched something round half way through.

The subject of a blood pressure test or SAT test is the person taking it, the subject of a weighing experiment is the object being weighed.

None of these 3 things depend on the tester but only on the subject.

You seem to be suggesting that a person's weight is objective but their blood pressure is subjective...which makes no sense at all.

The point of SATs is that if the same person takes the same test on the same day they will get the same score (within error bounds) regardless of whether they take it in Ohio or Oregon or Osaka. That's an objective measure.

Now the problem for Avalon is that, even if you accept the faulty premise that God is the source of objective morality, people's experiences of God and God's instructions are subjective and so they cannot provide an objective morality. This seems quite clear to me, and I can't understand why it's not obvious.
Last of the Fraggles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 02:42 AM   #468
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 5,265
Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles View Post
Sorry this doesn't make sense. You've switched something round half way through.

The subject of a blood pressure test or SAT test is the person taking it, the subject of a weighing experiment is the object being weighed.

None of these 3 things depend on the tester but only on the subject.

You seem to be suggesting that a person's weight is objective but their blood pressure is subjective...which makes no sense at all.

The point of SATs is that if the same person takes the same test on the same day they will get the same score (within error bounds) regardless of whether they take it in Ohio or Oregon or Osaka. That's an objective measure.

Now the problem for Avalon is that, even if you accept the faulty premise that God is the source of objective morality, people's experiences of God and God's instructions are subjective and so they cannot provide an objective morality. This seems quite clear to me, and I can't understand why it's not obvious.
I can see where the confusion arises.

I'll concede that an SAT test is objective for a single person on a single day, but I stand by my point that taking the same SAT test several days in a row will alter the results, as will taking the same SAT test on a later date, whereas doing the same test for gravity will not have that variation.
I'm not saying a person's weight is objective, but the way gravity interacts with someone's mass is.

The same with the blood pressure analogy. Having the same person take a test at the same time will give an objective measurement of bloodpressure at that moment , but measuring the bloodpressure a week later can easily give a completely different result.

If morality truly were to arise from an external source that can impose it on the universe as a whole, then there should be a way to verify this as everyone everywhere should have the exact same moral codes at the same time. Nothing in history or sociology seems to point in this direction though.
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 05:51 AM   #469
Last of the Fraggles
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,986
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
I can see where the confusion arises.

I'll concede that an SAT test is objective for a single person on a single day, but I stand by my point that taking the same SAT test several days in a row will alter the results, as will taking the same SAT test on a later date, whereas doing the same test for gravity will not have that variation.
I'm not saying a person's weight is objective, but the way gravity interacts with someone's mass is.

The same with the blood pressure analogy. Having the same person take a test at the same time will give an objective measurement of bloodpressure at that moment , but measuring the bloodpressure a week later can easily give a completely different result.

If morality truly were to arise from an external source that can impose it on the universe as a whole, then there should be a way to verify this as everyone everywhere should have the exact same moral codes at the same time. Nothing in history or sociology seems to point in this direction though.
An SAT test is an objective measure of your ability to answer the SAT questions at the time you take the test. It doesn't become subjective if you take it a year later and get a different score.

I'm not sure whethere I agree with the last bit either. Temperature is a real thing, with a physical cause and we can verify its existence but not everywhere in the universe is the same temperature. I guess morality could vary and still be a real thing....the problem is that its impossible to point to a physical cause of good or bad...because it isn't a real physical thing, its a subjective judgment made by humans based on the information they have available.
Last of the Fraggles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 06:13 AM   #470
Pup
Philosopher
 
Pup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,679
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
Depends on their belief in God, but at least they would think about it more than if was just your opinion against their opinion.
But that just moves the problem back one step, making it your opinion about what god to believe in against their opinion about what god to believe in.
Pup is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 06:27 AM   #471
Pup
Philosopher
 
Pup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,679
Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser View Post
I can see where the confusion arises.

I'll concede that an SAT test is objective for a single person on a single day, but I stand by my point that taking the same SAT test several days in a row will alter the results, as will taking the same SAT test on a later date, whereas doing the same test for gravity will not have that variation.
I'm not saying a person's weight is objective, but the way gravity interacts with someone's mass is.

The same with the blood pressure analogy. Having the same person take a test at the same time will give an objective measurement of bloodpressure at that moment , but measuring the bloodpressure a week later can easily give a completely different result.

If morality truly were to arise from an external source that can impose it on the universe as a whole, then there should be a way to verify this as everyone everywhere should have the exact same moral codes at the same time. Nothing in history or sociology seems to point in this direction though.
I just don't think the analogy is working. One can still have objective measures of things that are different, or things that vary. Each person has a different blood pressure, and it will also vary over time, but there's a parameter it's always going to be between or else a person couldn't live.

I think that one actually could identify an objective moral code the same way, but it doesn't mean the code comes from outside humans. There's a parameter of behaviors, outside of which human society can't be sustained, so by definition, one won't find a human society that lives for very long by a moral code outside that parameter, any more than one will find a person living with blood pressure of 800/400 or 20/20 for long. Like, for example, a moral code that says one must never provide care for a newborn baby.

That doesn't mean our morals come from some external source, it just means that the broad cluster of behaviors we call moral have to be successful to get passed on.
Pup is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 06:40 AM   #472
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
Originally Posted by DOC View Post
All I said is Bart Ehrman believes Jesus (the historical person known as Jesus in the bible) certainly existed and he also said there are solid reasons to believe Judas betrayed Jesus. And I pointed out in another post that Ehrman says he is an agnostic leaning more to Jesus wasn't divine. But the bottom line is Ehrman believes Jesus {the historical person who got crucified) "certainly existed". That is a very different belief from many skeptics who still aren't even sure Jesus existed.
You didn't answer the question (again), DOC: Is it absolutely immoral or absolutely moral to murder millions?

As a bonus question, is it absolutely immoral or absolutely moral to own another person in servitude?

Kudos to you for agreeing with Bart Ehrman about the existence and nature of a mortal itinerant preacher named Jesus.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 07:41 AM   #473
The Norseman
Meandering fecklessly
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 8,428
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Kudos to you for agreeing with Bart Ehrman about the existence and nature of a mortal itinerant preacher named Jesus.
The only reason he's hitching his wagon to this particular atheist horse is that he thinks it's still going in the direction he wants to go. There's still no compelling evidence that it's the right () direction.
__________________
A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned.
-Shepard Book
The Norseman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th November 2012, 08:07 PM   #474
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Do the sentences still work for you, Avalon?
If one postulates that how good an action is is dependent on a particular action (even assuming that context matters, which tends to be a safe assumption) and not the person, I don't see any reason why a terrorist can't also do things that are good.

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles View Post
God does not 'objectively' talk to people, the meaning of his communications are subjective and there is no objective reason to believe they actually come from any God. Therefore your assumption cannot lead to objective morality.

Even if it did, you have simply assumed that God is moral and his instructions are moral. That's not really an objective morality either as some people may disagree with God's instructions and find them immoral.

Furthermore, in my experience most people don't actually claim to have interacted with God so you then have a subjective layer of deciding which of God's intermediaries you feel fit your needs best.

Originally Posted by Last of the Fraggles View Post
An SAT test is an objective measure of your ability to answer the SAT questions at the time you take the test. It doesn't become subjective if you take it a year later and get a different score.

I'm not sure whethere I agree with the last bit either. Temperature is a real thing, with a physical cause and we can verify its existence but not everywhere in the universe is the same temperature. I guess morality could vary and still be a real thing....the problem is that its impossible to point to a physical cause of good or bad...because it isn't a real physical thing, its a subjective judgment made by humans based on the information they have available.
I'm going to agree with Last of the Fraggles on both of these posts. The variability of morality, assuming objective morality, though, would be likely context, though, which certainly can allow many nuances that may well not be as simple as many would prefer.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 05:12 AM   #475
Gawdzilla Sama
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
 
Gawdzilla Sama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
All moral authority comes from God.
God created Lucifer.
God is omniscient and omnipotent.
Therefore God knew the trouble Lucifer would cause.
Therefore God is to blame for the evils in the world.

This is your moral authority?
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse.
World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources
Hyperwar, WWII Military History
Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid.
Gawdzilla Sama is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 06:57 AM   #476
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
If one postulates that how good an action is is dependent on a particular action (even assuming that context matters, which tends to be a safe assumption) and not the person, I don't see any reason why a terrorist can't also do things that are good.
Of course they can. They can marry and raise families and donate to the poor and kill thousands by obeying their god. Those not emotionally invested in that same god would call that last one "bad". If it's a matter of perspective, good from the terrorist viewpoint but bad from others, it isn't objective or universal.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 08:33 AM   #477
Pup
Philosopher
 
Pup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,679
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
Of course they can. They can marry and raise families and donate to the poor and kill thousands by obeying their god. Those not emotionally invested in that same god would call that last one "bad". If it's a matter of perspective, good from the terrorist viewpoint but bad from others, it isn't objective or universal.
Playing devil's advocate (um, not sure that's the best term in this case, but you know what I mean ), I think Avalon has a pretty air-tight logical argument for why morals can be objective and universal under those circumstances.

If obeying God's specific instructions is the only definition of what's good, then if God instructs a person to kill thousands, it's good for that person to kill thousands. If the only instruction from God to non-believers is to believe, then they're only good if they switch to believing (and then follow further instructions) and are only bad if they disbelieve.

It's objective and universal--if one sets aside the common sense notion that killing thousands under most circumstances is bad, as is ordering them to be killed.
Pup is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 08:50 AM   #478
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Pup View Post

It's objective and universal--if one sets aside the common sense notion that killing thousands under most circumstances is bad, as is ordering them to be killed.
You've hit the nail on the head. Religion has nothing to do with common sense.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 08:51 AM   #479
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Pup View Post
Playing devil's advocate (um, not sure that's the best term in this case, but you know what I mean ), I think Avalon has a pretty air-tight logical argument for why morals can be objective and universal under those circumstances.

If obeying God's specific instructions is the only definition of what's good, then if God instructs a person to kill thousands, it's good for that person to kill thousands. If the only instruction from God to non-believers is to believe, then they're only good if they switch to believing (and then follow further instructions) and are only bad if they disbelieve.

It's objective and universal--if one sets aside the common sense notion that killing thousands under most circumstances is bad, as is ordering them to be killed.
If god can order thousands killed on his whim, how is that objective?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th November 2012, 09:05 AM   #480
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
Originally Posted by Pup View Post
Playing devil's advocate (um, not sure that's the best term in this case, but you know what I mean ), I think Avalon has a pretty air-tight logical argument for why morals can be objective and universal under those circumstances.

If obeying God's specific instructions is the only definition of what's good, then if God instructs a person to kill thousands, it's good for that person to kill thousands. If the only instruction from God to non-believers is to believe, then they're only good if they switch to believing (and then follow further instructions) and are only bad if they disbelieve.

It's objective and universal--if one sets aside the common sense notion that killing thousands under most circumstances is bad, as is ordering them to be killed.
From his perspective it's logical because he accepts his own premise. He has simply asserted that obeying his god is univerally good. Since I don't accept his premise, then his conclusions don't logically follow for me. The question wasn't, "Can I make a logically consistent argument if I assert the conclusion as my premise" though. The question was, "Does there need to be a higher power to define good/evil/right wrong/moral/immoral?" Avalon says Yes and goes on to prove it by saying that obeying his god is good and disobeying it is bad. It renders the definitions of good and bad meaningless since actions themselves are now neither good nor bad. He could just as easily have substituted "Magic 8-ball" for "God".

Since I lack belief in his god, I have no concern about obedience to it being good or bad. I have real-life concern about actions being good or bad.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:05 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.