Muslims the least educated in the world?

[1robin]

A good example is Christians in the secular countries of the west such as England, USA, ect vs the Christians in less than developed nations where crime is rampant. They have even higher rates of religious followers than we do yet the "morality" of the society seems to be inversely related.

That is a good example but a problematic one. Everyone including Christians are influenced by poverty and hunger. Even in a predominate Christian nation that is poor and desperate crime will outweigh some nations that are secular (which few nations in the world truly are) but have less poverty and desperation. Stats like this are very hard to use because there are probably thousands of factors that have a correlation but are irrelevant to our use of them.

The witch trials happened over a thousand years after the first apostles.

What? You asked about the first born again person. How are witches or trials relevant?

I am a critic. I believe there is objective morality without god.

Then your a critic with a world view that has no foundation.

Are they still "true christians"?

Of course.

I would like evidence humanism is a biproduct of Christianity. By all accounts it was despite of. It was developed first in the renaissance during the backlash against religion in an attempt to go back to classical styles of learning and education that was found in pre-christian societies such as Greece and Rome.

Let me clarify. It was not the product of Christianity but was by and large the Christians.

Check the opening line in this PDF.http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198012_primack.pdf

There is an entire branch of Humanism called Christian humanism.

Maybe you mean only secular humanism but that is one type among almost a dozen. Even it uses Christian truths which are only true if God exists. It assumes a priority value for humans which is not true unless God exists as a basis for most of it's rational.

Because the bible stated that false Christians will do terrible things in the name of god makes it acceptable?

What did I or the bible say that produces this response?

True but we can site what they source it as. For example killing of witches was done IN THE NAME OF GOD. The reason behind it isn't unknown. But we can look at the data for societies that did go through massive changes that lowered crime ect. And what we see is advancements in education and quality of life.

I don't find this category of source claims as valid. They have nothing beyond intellectual agreement and no experiential confirmation and even true are probably wrong. For example lets say Stalin hated 20 million people. He said he was getting rid of them because they were detrimental to over all soviet health. He may even believe that behind all that is a prior belief that human lives have lack inherent sanctity and value. Hitler's actions were justified by social Darwinism by Hitler. Stalin's actions were justified by the primary protocol of Communism that denied all faith and all deity in doctrine.


I actually have the better claim in this department because it is impossible for a book that prohibited murder to cause it. I was trying to avoid splitting hairs and accept all Jewish and Christian caused deaths to make a point. If you want to split hairs maybe the numbers will drop but the ration will remain in tact. Maybe even more lopsided.

 

[1robin]

No, arguments from faith are worthless. :slap:

Another declaration without a hint of justification. Goof grief man. You might as well start posting random countries where your world view happens to be and claim it got there without the sword by the dozen.

 

[1robin]

No. Mine are factually based on education and knowledge taught in major universities.

No they are not. There is not an accredited school on earth that teaches Christian spiritual experience in invalid, nor even if there was would it mean the slightest thing.

And you don't have a clue what access I may or may not have.

I know for an absolute fact you have no access whatever to the spiritual experience of another single human being who ever lived.

It is just more unsubstantiated rhetoric you posit.

Against an inexperienced Muslim you are not so bad, against a knowledgeable Christian you become one giant unjustified assumption. I am getting bored with this. Start included arguments with your preference based assumptions or I can't justify this.

 

[icehorse]

I am a critic. I believe there is objective morality without god.

Then your [sic] a critic with a world view that has no foundation

I also believe (as my tagline says ), that there is an objective morality without god.

Let me ask anyone who thinks morality lies with God, how God transmitted his morality? Via scripture? Some other way?

If via scripture, then explain the massive amounts of cherry-picking required to derive moral teachings out of ANY scripture. By what means do you do this cherry-picking? It seems to me that in order to derive morals from scripture, you need to have morals going in, and those previously-acquired morals allow you to find the few bits here and there that you agree with.

 

[1robin]

I also believe (as my tagline says ), that there is an objective morality without god.

I notice neither one of you provided this alternative objective source. No one can. Sam Harris a brilliant specialist on the brain when pressed by an even more brilliant philosopher admitted he merely assumed it and it cannot be shown.

Let me ask anyone who thinks morality lies with God, how God transmitted his morality? Via scripture? Some other way?

This is irrelevant. It never ever fails. I make an ontological point and I get an epistemological response. I used to head them off or try to by pointing out the difference but since that could not even stop it I quit trying.

If via scripture, then explain the massive amounts of cherry-picking required to derive moral teachings out of ANY scripture. By what means do you do this cherry-picking? It seems to me that in order to derive morals from scripture, you need to have morals going in, and those previously-acquired morals allow you to find the few bits here and there that you agree with.

This has to do with the perception of a thing or the transmission of a thing NOT the nature of a thing. This is a whole other subject.

 

[idav]

I notice neither one of you provided this alternative objective source.

The objective source is truth and knowledge which science has plenty of.

 

[1robin]

The objective source is truth and knowledge which science has plenty of.

What does that even mean? How does an abstract quality like truth create moral facts of any kind? Truth is not a creative agent.


For example prove by truth and knowledge (do not assume it and call it true) that without God my killing every form of life on earth is actually wrong. You do not even have to show it is, just create a reasonable theory under which it would be without a God like foundation. Or/and show truth ever created anything.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

That is a good example but a problematic one. Everyone including Christians are influenced by poverty and hunger. Even in a predominate Christian nation that is poor and desperate crime will outweigh some nations that are secular (which few nations in the world truly are) but have less poverty and desperation. Stats like this are very hard to use because there are probably thousands of factors that have a correlation but are irrelevant to our use of them.

Actually we can in fact determine what factors are more important. Whats not at the top of the scale is religion. In fact we can see that religion plays next to no role. If it does then it would be inversely so.

What? You asked about the first born again person. How are witches or trials relevant?

You said that you couldn't think of a single thing done after the frist born again. I asked you who would it be and you said the apostles. I then stated the witch trials were after the apostles as your original objection was that they were somehow before some major event.

Then your a critic with a world view that has no foundation.

Actually the development of morality from empathy is well understood. And it has evidence behind it. There is, however, no evidence that morality only comes from god. The fact we have different degrees of morality would alone throw that out the window.

. It was not the product of Christianity but was by and large the Christians.

Check the opening line in this PDF.http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198012_primack.pdf

There is an entire branch of Humanism called Christian humanism.

Maybe you mean only secular humanism but that is one type among almost a dozen. Even it uses Christian truths which are only true if God exists. It assumes a priority value for humans which is not true unless God exists as a basis for most of it's rational.

I did say secular humanists. And I still don't think religion had any major role in the development of it. Much as I don't think Christianity is the root of our current culture's morality. No more than the morality of West Africa right now.

What did I or the bible say that produces this response?

You stated the bible says that there will be people to do evil things in the name of Jesus and this somehow provides and excuse for all of the evil done in the name of Christianity.

I don't find this category of source claims as valid. They have nothing beyond intellectual agreement and no experiential confirmation and even true are probably wrong. For example lets say Stalin hated 20 million people. He said he was getting rid of them because they were detrimental to over all soviet health. He may even believe that behind all that is a prior belief that human lives have lack inherent sanctity and value. Hitler's actions were justified by social Darwinism by Hitler. Stalin's actions were justified by the primary protocol of Communism that denied all faith and all deity in doctrine.


I actually have the better claim in this department because it is impossible for a book that prohibited murder to cause it. I was trying to avoid splitting hairs and accept all Jewish and Christian caused deaths to make a point. If you want to split hairs maybe the numbers will drop but the ration will remain in tact. Maybe even more lopsided.

You misunderstand. Christianity is not a book. Christianity is the collective actions of its followers. I don't really care what the book says (and btw it says "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" Mistranslated granted but still in the English today).

 

[idav]

What does that even mean? How does an abstract quality like truth create moral facts of any kind? Truth is not a creative agent.


For example prove by truth and knowledge (do not assume it and call it true) that without God my killing every form of life on earth is actually wrong. You do not even have to show it is, just create a reasonable theory under which it would be without a God like foundation. Or/and show truth ever created anything.

Once we have knowledge of how things should be to work correctly we can very easily see what ought to be.

A good example is doctors taking an oath to use their knowledge for good. That is a very good example and truth and knowledge allowing for an ought. I argue that life has inherent value so the fact that we ought to keep ourselves healthy to prevent suffering is a no brainer and we know how to objectively achieve that. We know how to prevent suffering on our own more and bringing in religion isn't very helpful. Ask everyone if we ought to prevent their suffering and I would bet it's pretty universally agreed upon. Thats what I figured would be gods objective, jesus sums it up as love and I tend to agree. Love is the wanting the best for everyone and every thing. That system of morality is a no brainer as well, "do unto others as you have them do unto you". It's common sense and doesn't require us to check in with god every second, jesus was saying to use some common sense and gave clear guides that would work in every single situation we ever encounter.

 

[1robin]

Actually we can in fact determine what factors are more important. Whats not at the top of the scale is religion. In fact we can see that religion plays next to no role. If it does then it would be inversely so.

I do not agree. Christ is the most influential moral influence in human history. Let me dig up a quote.

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine.
No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes. He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.

Scottish Theologian James Stuart

You said that you couldn't think of a single thing done after the frist born again. I asked you who would it be and you said the apostles. I then stated the witch trials were after the apostles as your original objection was that they were somehow before some major event.

You asked who was first.
I said the apostles. That event occurred in the event called the upper room (tongues of fire and stuff).
I have no recollection of saying more but whatever it was witches were not relevant. Unless you can show they were, it is lost on me.

Actually the development of morality from empathy is well understood. And it has evidence behind it. There is, however, no evidence that morality only comes from god. The fact we have different degrees of morality would alone throw that out the window.

But it does not even work. What is empathetic is just an opinion. Hitler sincerely thought his actions were empathetic concerning man kind as a whole, and on Social Darwinism they are not that far off. I can justify terrible atrocities by having an opinion about empathy. It is not an equation with a known result.

I did say secular humanists. And I still don't think religion had any major role in the development of it. Much as I don't think Christianity is the root of our current culture's morality. No more than the morality of West Africa right now.

Well that was a side bar anyway.

You stated the bible says that there will be people to do evil things in the name of Jesus and this somehow provides and excuse for all of the evil done in the name of Christianity.

I never said it provides an excuse or if I did I need to be far more careful. I said it provides a prediction. What post was your claim that I did so in?

You misunderstand. Christianity is not a book. Christianity is the collective actions of its followers. I don't really care what the book says (and btw it says "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" Mistranslated granted but still in the English today).

No, Christianity is a set of doctrines that are derived from a book that strongly suggests God is their source. Christianity is what Christ claimed, not my pathetic reflection of him. BTW witches are in laws given to a special society with a special function fulfilled 20000 years ago. They have no application to Christianity and those laws were written long before a single Christian ever lived and ended before they did as well.

 

[1robin]

Once we have knowledge of how things should be to work correctly we can very easily see what ought to be.

We have never built a single government that has ever stood or will, a single building either, or can have a single moral with complete agreement. What is it that we have built correctly from truth. Not that truth could build anything even with our assistance in any moral category. The only perfect moral being in history said you are perfectly wrong.

A good example is doctors taking an oath to use their knowledge for good.

I doubt a single doctors has kept it perfectly but this is a pledge not a product.

That is a very good example and truth and knowledge allowing for an ought. I argue that life has inherent value so the fact that we ought to keep ourselves healthy to prevent suffering is a no brainer and we know how to objectively achieve that. We know how to prevent suffering on our own more and bringing in religion isn't very helpful. Ask everyone if we ought to prevent their suffering and I would bet it's pretty universally agreed upon. Thats what I figured would be gods objective, jesus sums it up as love and I tend to agree. Love is the wanting the best for everyone and every thing. That system of morality is a no brainer as well, "do unto others as you have them do unto you". It's common sense and doesn't require us to check in with god every second, jesus was saying to use some common sense and gave clear guides that would work in every single situation we ever encounter.

I honestly can't see anything relevant to morality here. Sorry.

 

[idav]

We have never built a single government that has ever stood or will, a single building either, or can have a single moral with complete agreement. What is it that we have built correctly from truth. Not that truth could build anything even with our assistance in any moral category. The only perfect moral being in history said you are perfectly wrong.

I doubt a single doctors has kept it perfectly but this is a pledge not a product.







I honestly can't see anything relevant to morality here. Sorry.

Jesus was teaching morality by use of common sense. How do you not get that? Love sums up the law, do unto others. Even god would have a reason, a motivation for something being required, it has to come from logic. If god says eating earth worms is bad then there should be a dern good reason for it. Is god saying that just good enough just cause its god, there needs to be reasons. Jesus says the reason is love, do unto others like you want them treating you.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I do not agree. Christ is the most influential moral influence in human history. Let me dig up a quote.

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine.
No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes. He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.

Scottish Theologian James Stuart

That is great. We also have a great deal of influence from other sources as well. However did they impact the measurable moral integrity of the culture? There was more rape and murder during the Dark ages where the Church supposedly spawned by Jesus himself was in power than during times of Rome or Ancient Greece.

Look at the different cultures that have developed with Christianity and see that there is varying levels of moral integrity. Varied crime rates ect. We can see that the countries of Christian origin are no better off in these same categories than countries that do not have a large Christian influence. Japan for example has less than 1% of the population as Christians. However they have less crime than America. Less crime than England or any other nation with heavy Christian influence. And some of the worst countries in the world are almost 100% Christian.

So you cannot say that Christianity is the root of our morals. Especially since many of our morals today stand in contrast to biblical passages.

But it does not even work. What is empathetic is just an opinion. Hitler sincerely thought his actions were empathetic concerning man kind as a whole, and on Social Darwinism they are not that far off. I can justify terrible atrocities by having an opinion about empathy. It is not an equation with a known result.

Empathy is not an opinion. This is just factually false. The conclusions about what we can draw from Empathy are opinions. However the majority of us have evolved with social empathy that gives us these morals.

No, Christianity is a set of doctrines that are derived from a book that strongly suggests God is their source. Christianity is what Christ claimed, not my pathetic reflection of him. BTW witches are in laws given to a special society with a special function fulfilled 20000 years ago. They have no application to Christianity and those laws were written long before a single Christian ever lived and ended before they did as well.

I disagree. Because there is no meaning in defining it as a set of doctrines rather than the implication of those doctrines. Or at least the distinction needs to be made.

 

[1robin]

That is great. We also have a great deal of influence from other sources as well. However did they impact the measurable moral integrity of the culture? There was more rape and murder during the Dark ages where the Church supposedly spawned by Jesus himself was in power than during times of Rome or Ancient Greece.

Of course others have had a moral influence. A person who lives any time at all can't help but be. However it is likely that the total moral influence of everyone including those that came before Christ (which is less than 8% of the whole) added together do not compare to Christ. If the bible is true that is exactly (in general) what I expect to find.

Look at the different cultures that have developed with Christianity and see that there is varying levels of moral integrity. Varied crime rates ect. We can see that the countries of Christian origin are no better off in these same categories than countries that do not have a large Christian influence. Japan for example has less than 1% of the population as Christians. However they have less crime than America. Less crime than England or any other nation with heavy Christian influence. And some of the worst countries in the world are almost 100% Christian.

This is a moral epistemological issue not an ontological one. Even if every mortal Christian who ever lived was evil that would not affect any of my primary claims.

So you cannot say that Christianity is the root of our morals. Especially since many of our morals today stand in contrast to biblical passages.

Nope, God is the root of our moral truths (truths not opinions). All kinds of stuff has been morally influential on us from Christianity to atheist philosophy but if even one of those influences was true then God is the reason it is true.

Empathy is not an opinion. This is just factually false. The conclusions about what we can draw from Empathy are opinions. However the majority of us have evolved with social empathy that gives us these morals.

Empathy is an idea. How it is applied and what the empathetic result of those applications are is an opinion. Like I said Hitler thought he was being empathetic towards mankind as a whole in making it stronger by eliminating the weak. It is an opinion whether he actually was or not. However with God it is a fact he was morally wrong.

I disagree. Because there is no meaning in defining it as a set of doctrines rather than the implication of those doctrines. Or at least the distinction needs to be made.

What I am saying about moral ontology has nothing to do with doctrines. Doctrines are an epistemological issue. Whether murder is actually wrong or is just a human contrivance based on empathy does not depend on how I came to believe murder is wrong. It is in essence a genetic fallacy. I may have learned that 1 + 1 = 2 from a cereal box but whether it is true has no relevance to where I learned it.

Your a smart guy but I have to believe you do not understand the word objective in a moral sense or the two distinctions I made above. Forgive me if I am wrong.

1. Epistemology is a word describing how humans perceive things. Like how do we come to know murder is wrong.
2. Ontology is a word describing the actual nature of a thing. Like if any moral is objective fact then God must be it's source.
3. Objective morality is a moral fact which even if no one believe it was, it is still true. That can only take place if God exists.

IOW even if Hitler had won and actually improved mankind in the long run in spite of by killing off anyone who disagreed with him. He would still be wrong. An objective moral truth cannot be created by a human mind. It is impossible.

 

[icehorse]

1robin:

IOW even if Hitler had won and actually improved mankind in the long run in spite of by killing off anyone who disagreed with him. He would still be wrong. An objective moral truth cannot be created by a human mind. It is impossible.

I agree with your condemnation of Hitler. I do not agree with the rest...

Perhaps it's just a matter of semantics, but let me ask you for instance do you agree that the following claims can be true:?

- He is, objectively, the best brain surgeon in the country.
- This screwdriver is, objectively, not as good as that screwdriver.

I believe that those can be valid claims. In other words objectivity doesn't have to be perfect. So if you're demanding that "objectivity" be reserved for cases of 100% perfection, then I'd have to agree. But if objectivity can be defined as something like: "conclusions experts arrive at consistently", then I would argue that we CAN have human created, objective morality.

 

[1robin]

Jesus was teaching morality by use of common sense. How do you not get that? Love sums up the law, do unto others. Even god would have a reason, a motivation for something being required, it has to come from logic. If god says eating earth worms is bad then there should be a dern good reason for it. Is god saying that just good enough just cause its god, there needs to be reasons. Jesus says the reason is love, do unto others like you want them treating you.

Jesus did not invent a new morality. He taught OT morality which did contradict with many common sense deductions but he made it even more extreme. He said that yes it was true we should not commit adultery but then went on to add that to even look at a women with lust is adultery to God. That is not a deduction from common sense, that is either a brute fact or a lie. He did not teach anything new. He took what already existed and illuminated it by adding extreme facets or applications for it. These do not come from common sense. Common sense dictates I should kill everyone who competes with me for resources but does not help my clan. Thank God we do not use man's morally insane common sense for morality. Hitler used common sense, so did Stalin. No thanks.

 

[1robin]

1robin:

I agree with your condemnation of Hitler. I do not agree with the rest...

Ok lets see what we got.

Perhaps it's just a matter of semantics, but let me ask you for instance do you agree that the following claims can be true:?

Ok

- He is, objectively, the best brain surgeon in the country.

Once you establish in what way you mean better then yes there is an objective best. For example if best means the one that has caused the least collateral damage there is one. If you mean the one that has advanced the since the most regardless of damage there is one as well. Keep in mind it does not matter if we know which one is best, it is still a fact that there is a best one.

- This screwdriver is, objectively, not as good as that screwdriver.

For what purpose. Once you state what purpose then everything above would apply here as well.

I believe that those can be valid claims. In other words objectivity doesn't have to be perfect. So if you're demanding that "objectivity" be reserved for cases of 100% perfection, then I'd have to agree. But if objectivity can be defined as something like: "conclusions experts arrive at consistently", then I would argue that we CAN have human created, objective morality.

Perfect is a quality determination. I am talking about whether morality is true or not, not about whether anyone perfectly applies it.

I get what you are trying to say. You are saying that one moral is objectively the best even if it is imperfect. As I showed above you would have to pick a best in what way category. However in this case no matter what you picked it would only show what moral is best for that purpose it would not show what moral is objectively true. IOW I can show that laws against abortion produce human well being but that would not mean that abortion is actually wrong. You are making an argument about what is best when what is best is a subjective opinion in an argument that attempts to make it objective. That will not work. While a moral may be an objective best for a subjective purpose that would not make it objectively true.

Lets say my purpose is my tribe or nations health. That would mean that the law to destroy anyone who competes with my tribe for resources might be the objective best way to go about my subjective purpose but that would not make that law objectively true in regards to a moral fact. God if he exists would tell me my purpose produced a moral law that was untrue. It is in fact not good to kill other tribes and I am wrong.

 

[icehorse]

1robin - Awesome discussion! Hooray!

Sam Harris has proposed a path to objective, universal moral expertise. His proposition is that all we have to agree to is the well being of conscious creatures (WBCC). More specifically, the *best known* moral answers are those that support WBCC for as many creatures as possible for as many generations as possible.

So, in your opinion, could we answer your cross-tribal question using WBCC?

 

[1robin]

1robin - Awesome discussion! Hooray!

I am pleased you find it so agreeable.

Sam Harris has proposed a path to objective, universal moral expertise. His proposition is that all we have to agree to is the well being of conscious creatures (WBCC). More specifically, the *best known* moral answers are those that support WBCC for as many creatures as possible for as many generations as possible.

I saw a debate between Harris and the philosophical machine named William Craig. If anyone's position has a flaw, Craig will find it, but Harris's flaw is glaring. Harris is one of the few atheist scholars that will claim that both objective morality exists and God does not. That is such a horrific conclusion that very few atheists hold it. I kept waiting for Craig to tear it apart but it was only perhaps 30% of the way into the debate when he pounced. He kept asking Harris what the source of his objective morality was and he would not answer, but Craig is relentless, Harris gave up and said he assumed it, the audience laughter shows how weak assumptions are. I highly recommend the Craig Harris debate on U-tube.

So, in your opinion, could we answer your cross-tribal question using WBCC?

It appears you claim WBCC is an objective source but I am afraid it is not. It is a subjective purpose/methodology. It is a purpose just as subjective as what is the best brain surgeon is. It is not one that we even adopt consistently. Cows are conscious, chickens are conscious, pigs are conscious yet Harris, me, you, and almost everyone else eats them after farmers keep them in fences and cages without their permission and eventually slaughters them. Without God this is speciesm, not the WBCC.

However we can pretend that WBCC is something we have all adopted and practice. That does not make it true. Not even my God suggests that general human well being is the primary directive here. It is our relationship to him. He has wiped out cultures and groups that rebelled against him in extreme ways and he has placed humans above animals. So if my God exists, it is not in fact true that WBCC is a prime directive objective purpose for morality. He is the basis for morality. He is the locus of any possible objective moral fact that is a foundation. Humans can perceive moral facts we have no power to create them. Even the definition demonstrates this.

Moral objectivity in short means: moral facts that are true regardless of whether anyone believes they are.

There are countless problems with your claims but I don't want to over whelm you so I will leave it here for now.

 

[icehorse]

1robin -

We should probably leave WLC out of this discussion I agree that he's a masterful debater. I disagree that he actually has good points, another thread for WLC?

Back to WBCC. Harris offers it as a goal, not at all as something we've solved. He compares it to healthcare. We can all agree that healthcare has improved over time AND that it is far from perfect. And I would agree that the way humans treat the animals they eat is most definitely NOT in the spirit of WBCC.

My first question to you is this: How did you derive morality from scripture?

Having read a fair bit of scripture myself, I can only conclude that a religious person - if she's honest - MUST come to the scripture with a good sense of morality. Then she must cherry-pick those passages that confirm her previous morality, and ignore those passages that deny her, already-known, morality.