The argument that God provides a basis for objective moral values is bad

[Ouroboros]

Thankyou, this was just a lovely message. It really captures how I feel about it.

To be honest, I'm not using the term God as much as I used to. I'll still use it when asked explicitly for my views on God, or when talking to people of Christian and Muslim backgrounds, but I'm coming to use the term Self, or existence, more commonly among the irreligious, or Hindu terms like Shiva and Brahman. But it's all just about different feelings for it

Exactly. Same here. I don't use it much, mostly because it causes too much confusion.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You're certainly entitled to your own opinion. but certainly, if there is a God, he is absolute, and so are his laws and teachings

I believe in many deities and none of them are absolute. You don't know if the god you're referring to is absolute or not, you just believe it is. I don't think that any of the gods that humans are in contact with are absolute or universal, but are local to the planet and are interested in humans for whatever reasons. Regardless, I reserve my right to strenuously disagree with the morality and laws of some deity.

 

[Kirran]

I believe in many deities and none of them are absolute. You don't know if the god you're referring to is absolute or not, you just believe it is. I don't think that any of the gods that humans are in contact with are absolute or universal, but are local to the planet and are interested in humans for whatever reasons. Regardless, I reserve my right to strenuously disagree with the morality and laws of some deity.

Out of curiosity, why do you feel the term deity is appropriate for such beings?

 

[Cephus]

Out of curiosity, why do you feel the term deity is appropriate for such beings?

I don't know, how do you feel the term "God" is appropriate for reality?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Out of curiosity, why do you feel the term deity is appropriate for such beings?

There's different categories of deities, as I see it. There's deities are actual beings who are not bound by form, time or space and who interact with this plane of reality. Then there's deities which are really the underlying sacred reality of so-called "mundane" aspects of life (such as the Sun, moon, the Earth and abstract concepts such as virtue, love, wisdom, etc.). A deity that is a personal being is a being that has reached the summit of spiritual evolution. But in its broadest definition, a deity is that which you desire to offer worship. So it's defined subjectively, ultimately.

 

[Nakosis]

I assume religious would sue for their morals being absolute, being dictated by a deity.

Personally I don't believe in absolute morals, nor do I believe in true objective morals. There is always some kind of bias involved.

However nothing wrong with trying to be as unbiased as possible with your morals. I suppose if you're totally unbiased/objective, you can't have morals at all. So whatever people can accept as a reasonable limit of objectivity.

 

[Kirran]

I don't know, how do you feel the term "God" is appropriate for reality?

Was my previous explanation lacking? How can I clarify it for you?

I wasn't telling SF that they shouldn't call what they call a deity a deity. I was just asking a question.

There's different categories of deities, as I see it. There's deities are actual beings who are not bound by form, time or space and who interact with this plane of reality. Then there's deities which are really the underlying sacred reality of so-called "mundane" aspects of life (such as the Sun, moon, the Earth and abstract concepts such as virtue, love, wisdom, etc.). A deity that is a personal being is a being that has reached the summit of spiritual evolution. But in its broadest definition, a deity is that which you desire to offer worship. So it's defined subjectively, ultimately.

Well that's really interesting, I haven't really talked to you about your worldviews before. Really fascinating.

What do you think of the prospects of an individual such as you, me or the family cat advancing to a state where you'd describe them as a deity, in the 'lower' form of deity you describe here?

 

[Cephus]

Was my previous explanation lacking? How can I clarify it for you?

I wasn't telling SF that they shouldn't call what they call a deity a deity. I was just asking a question.

To a certain degree, yes. As I said, we already have a perfectly good word for reality. It's reality. Why do you feel the need to apply any other word to something that we already have a perfectly good word for?

 

[Kirran]

To a certain degree, yes. As I said, we already have a perfectly good word for reality. It's reality. Why do you feel the need to apply any other word to something that we already have a perfectly good word for?

Why do we need the word 'home'? Why not just say 'my house'?

 

[Cephus]

Why do we need the word 'home'? Why not just say 'my house'?

Because "home" is a recognized word with a specific meaning. You could also say "my house", it means the same thing. "God" and "reality" do not have the same meaning.

 

[Kirran]

Because "home" is a recognized word with a specific meaning. You could also say "my house", it means the same thing. "God" and "reality" do not have the same meaning.

No, they don't.

I don't get why you have such hostility against me referring to God as such, when I believe God to be monistic and impersonal.

 

[Cephus]

No, they don't.

Sure they do.

House definition: a building for human habitation, especially one that is lived in by a family or small group of people. Specifically when referring to "my" house, it is identical to the following:

Home definition: the place where one lives permanently, especially as a member of a family or household.[/quote]

I don't get why you have such hostility against me referring to God as such, when I believe God to be monistic and impersonal.

There's no anger, it was a question. You have failed to provide an answer that, at least in my opinion, justifies your use.

 

[Kirran]

Sure they do.

House definition: a building for human habitation, especially one that is lived in by a family or small group of people. Specifically when referring to "my" house, it is identical to the following:

Home definition: the place where one lives permanently, especially as a member of a family or household.

[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I was unclear. I was agreeing with you that reality and God aren't synonyms.

There's no anger, it was a question. You have failed to provide an answer that, at least in my opinion, justifies your use.

Fair enough.

But I've given my answer, and if it's not enough for you, then that's that, and I'm sorry we couldn't come to an understanding.

 

[Cephus]

Sorry, I was unclear. I was agreeing with you that reality and God aren't synonyms.

No worries then.

But I've given my answer, and if it's not enough for you, then that's that, and I'm sorry we couldn't come to an understanding.

But this isn't about coming to an understanding, we're in a DEBATE forum, it's about justifying your position and arguing to see who has the better ideas.

 

[Kirran]

But this isn't about coming to an understanding, we're in a DEBATE forum, it's about justifying your position and arguing to see who has the better ideas.

Then I concede the debate. You win.

 

[bmk2416]

I've been watching a lot of religious debates recently, and often times people like William Lane Craig and Frank Turek will argue that without God there are no moral "oughts"; they claim that objective moral values do not exist without God because death is final and everyone ends up in the same place. They assume that without God you can't say whether anything is right or wrong--its just particles in motion.

But this argument is awful for several reasons. For starters, this argument pretends that people aren't choosing a morality and that it is absolutely determined by what Christopher Hitchens would call a celestial dictatorship. But that just depends on your society, culture, interpretation, mood, etc. You select the God and interpretation that aligns with your moral values and so its really no different than an atheist selecting their moral values to work best in society. So you can't say whether anything is right or wrong either because you would have an entirely different morality in bronze age Palestine, or if you grew up in North Korea. If morality is relative anyways, then the concept of moral oughts are ultimately fallacious; its all a matter of perspective and interpretation regardless if you believe or dont which really means the difference is moot.

As WLC would ask, "How do you know rape is wrong?"

I would say its wrong because a society of empowered, free women is much more effective and pleasant, and rape is a sinister attack on that. WLC would reply, but how do you know that's wrong? You're just responding to societal pressures and laws as well as evolutionary changes. I would then rebuttal him by saying that he's also just responding to social pressures because if you lived in bronze age Palestine then its very possible you would think rape is okay since you'd fallaciously believe women are inferior. Morality is relative whether you believe in religion or not in conclusion, and therefore means objective morality doesn't exist. All that exists is a secular, utilitarian analysis of society that tells us how to create the most effective, pleasant society as possible. Most religious people adopt secular standards anyways because you certainly wouldn't want to take morals from Leviticus, or the old testament, and or exodus.

While those are good points the problem is that both WLC and Turek will later address this very issue and make the case for the Christian God thereby removing relativism, these arguments at this stage are simply used to bring someone to the point where they have enough info detached from the Bible to see that a deity is possible.

And to your point about someone in the bronze age their later arguments show that that person would be in error in their thinking

 

[bmk2416]

Well that's just an additional reason. Actually its a scientific based explanation that leads us to a different utilitarian calculation. So in many ways our morality should be based on scientific explanations in conjuction with thoughtful reasoning about how to live the best/ most pleasant we can.

So when the nazis scientifically decided that Jews were inferior and shouldn't live they were right?

 

[jchristopher]

What religion inherently isn't

Many practices many religions practice aren't inherently good.

 

[serp777]

So when the nazis scientifically decided that Jews were inferior and shouldn't live they were right?

No, this kind of statement reflects a profound strawman.
It also shows a misunderstanding of science as well as a misunderstanding of what I said.

First and foremost, you can't scientifically decide something. You can make decisions based on something in science, but science is a process that determines things for itself based on evidence and reason. The decisions the nazis made were anti scientific because the genetics shows that human beings are all pretty much the same with a few minor genetic differences. There was no scientific basis for the inferiority of jews to make such a decision anyways. The Nazis had faith that they were the superior race. If anything this is closer to religion. And you can't decide that something is right or wrong with science so you can't scientifically decide that jews shouldn't live.

Let me ask you a similar question: is it right that all the first born children in Egypt were mercilessly slaughtered because Moses had a disagreement with the Pharaoh? Or is genocide against the Canaanites right because God demanded it? So neither religion nor science can claim a domain over objective morality. All you have is secular logic and utilitarianism based on a scientific analysis of what is best for society. That however isn't inherently good or bad. And the nazis certainly did not align with utilitarianism. In fact a fascist genocidal dictator ship is about the furthest thing from secular moral reasoning in a utilitarian framework.

 

[serp777]

While those are good points the problem is that both WLC and Turek will later address this very issue and make the case for the Christian God thereby removing relativism, these arguments at this stage are simply used to bring someone to the point where they have enough info detached from the Bible to see that a deity is possible.

And to your point about someone in the bronze age their later arguments show that that person would be in error in their thinking

So perhaps you can enlighten me how they show morals aren't relative? WLC talks about moral growth all the time--he claims that morals can improve. But the only basis for him claiming an improvement is his subjective interpretation and choice of God. WLC and Turek make the fallacy that once they decide a morality, that must mean God supports and aligns with their said morality. But Islam claims the same thing. So this isn't a good argument for claiming moral authority. The problem is that the bible is inherently ambiguous and so you can't postulate you know the mind of God.

"And to your point about someone in the bronze age their later arguments show that that person would be in error in their thinking"
But the only basis for that claim is that they know what morality is best, which means they have special knowledge or the ability to interpret something better than anyone else. This contradicts, also, with the fact that WLC knows what moral growth is. He says he knows what moral growth is and yet that would imply that he already knows what they best morals are in order to determine that morals are in fact growing instead of shrinking.