NationStates Jolt Archive

I have just started reading C.S.Lewis's "Mere Chrisitianity" and it is extremely good, and raises several questions to skeptics of Christiainity that I thought should be shared here. Now I've only read 3 chapters so far and it hasnt got on to discussing wether or not the God it is proving is indeed the Christian one, but it certianly makes an excellent series of points. The first 5 chapters are essentially conductiting a detailed examination and exploration of Kant's arguement for the existance of God (An arguement that Lewis seems to have come up with independely of Kant, as he doesnt seem to mention him at all) basicly Kant's logic works like this

1. Authoritive, objective moral law can be said to exist
2. Such moral law demands an author
3. The only reasonable author for such a law can be said to be God
4. Therefore God exists

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/

That website explains Kant's points much better. Lewis develops on this by refuting firstly the idea that morals can be said to be reletive to situations and cultures. Firstly to situations. If for example someone trips you up accidentally and you fall to the ground and hurt your knee then that is not immoral. However if someone attempts to trip you up, fails and you do not fall down that is immoral. Whether or not the person caused you harm is irrelevent to the situation, the law still stands. Further more he points out how the law exists somehow independently of human beings themselves. As some have suggested that moral law is somehow a natural agent and a result of evolution. However if that were the case (Morality simply being another instinct) then human beings would obey it all the time logically. However, you can look at the world today and see this is not the case. So we have a situation where humans are aware of the moral laws but do not always abide by them. If moral laws can be said to be an instinct, then there must be an instinct inside of us which can always be said to be "good" as in, apropriate for normal behaviour. However thats not the case, there is no instinct which the moral law may not tell us some time to supress. Instincts such as motherly love, patriotism, sex drive or self defence cannot be said to be always good or always bad. Patriotism being always good leads to Facisim, motherly love being always good leads to mollycoddling and overmothering, sex drive being always good leads to promiscuity which leads to sexual diseases and unfaithfulness between partners and the self defence instinct being always good leads to unessecary agression. The moral law tells us when these instincts need supressing. He goes on to demonstrate how moral laws can be seen to be independent of human instinct by giving an example. Say you see a man drowning. There are, in this situation, two instinctive reactions. You see the man drowning and your pack instinct (the one that is interested in others suvival) says you should attempt to save him. Your other instinct (your self presevation instinct) tells you that if you go to help him there is a good chance of you being in danger yourself and thus you shouldnt. Now there is a third influence on your thoughts at this point. An influence telling you it is "right" to do one thing and "wrong" to do the other. This influence cannot be said to actually 'be' one of the other two influences. The thing that tells you "your pack instinct is asleep, wake it up" cannot be itself your pack instinct. Also, if it just the two instincts in your head that are in conflict, then logicaly the stronger instinct should win. But the moral laws often seem to side with the weaker instinct. Self presevation instinct is often the strongest instinct but the moral law tells you to help the person. Some people would claim however that such moral laws are merely the result of education and upbringing and not natural things. However, a knowledge of mathamatics can be said to be a result of upbringing but mathamatics can be said to be universal. So is moral law a convention or a fundimental rule. Well it would seem to be a fundimental rule because it seems to be universal across the earth. While people think that moral diffences between cultures are great, they are not. Can you imgaine for instance a culture that encourgaes steeling or glorifies warriors that run away on the battlefield or encourges tratirous ideas. Furthermore, people often say that certian cultures, traditions and beliefs are not as moral as others eg honour killings in Pakistan. By saying that, it implies that there is some kind of standard which one society is closer to than another. If no one morality was better than any other then there is no sense in prefering civilised normality to a savage normality. Why have we developed into a more generally moral people if there was no benefit to it? He also points out how the moral laws cannot be said to be the same as physical laws. Physical laws are not so much laws but facts. The law of gravity is more accurately called the fact of gravity. For example, when a ball is droped it does not suddenly recall that it must fall to the ground as it is under orders by the law to do so. It does so because that is what it is physically cappable of doing. Physical laws are what always does happen where as moral laws are what always ought to happen. Lewis then concludes the third chapter by asking "Why be unselfish" and the most common answer is "for the benefit of society" however society simply means 'other people' and thus to say for the benefits of society means for the good of people. So you are basicly saying "you shouldnt be selfish because you shouldnt be selfish". I dont know about you but I find this a very substantial case for the existance of objective moral laws, and thus a good building block for Kants arguements.

EDIT: I am not saying this proves God's existance certianly, and I am not saying it proves the Christian God's existance but it does prove the existance of authoritive, objective moral laws

If you're interested, a critical examination of the book can be found here:

http://ebonmusings.org/atheism/books/merechristianity.html

Lewis is one of the great Christian apologists, this is a must-read book.

Lewis develops on this by refuting firstly the idea that morals can be said to be reletive to situations and cultures. Firstly to situations. If for example someone trips you up accidentally and you fall to the ground and hurt your knee then that is not immoral. However if someone attempts to trip you up, fails and you do not fall down that is immoral. Whether or not the person caused you harm is irrelevent to the situation, the law still stands.
What is this law you speak of?

The reason the second act is immoral is because it is wilful, and the first one was not.

EDIT: What the second act wills is deliberate intent to harm.

The reason the second act is immoral is because it is wilful, and the first one was not.

Lewis's point was that the morality is not merely defined as actions but also intentions. I would read the book itself, as my explinations are proberbly not up to scratch.

Lewis's point was that the morality is not merely defined as actions but also intentions. I would read the book itself, as my explinations are proberbly not up to scratch.
I could do that, but what is your understanding of what this law is?

You refer to some law, but it's not explained.

I could do that, but what is your understanding of what this law is?

You refer to some law, but it's not explained.

Its a moral law. We all have a set of idea's independent of us which demonstrate to us what is morally right and wrong. Now if you look at what I have written (and read the book too) you get an understanding of why said laws are not just insticntive and reletive to all situations.

If you're interested, a critical examination of the book can be found here:


You call that a critical examination? That's like sending someone who asks for the definition of socialism to an anarchist or libertarian and saying, they will tell you what socialism is... :rolleyes: You’re not only not going to get an impartial or completely forthcoming review, you’ll get a tainted and bad opinion and negative definition of it. It would be kind of like having ME describe the arguments against the protection of the traditional family marriage, I wouldn’t have very nice things to say about them.

Favorable Review:
http://www.wcg.org/lit/disc/reviews/lewis.htm

Small review, Book club questionnaire…
http://www.readinggroupguides.com/guides/mere_christianity.asp


‘A Real’ Critical Review (Catholic net review that decides C.S. Lewis’ book Mere Christianity might lead people away from the church)
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/May1999/delusion.html

Its a moral law. We all have a set of idea's independent of us which demonstrate to us what is morally right and wrong. Now if you look at what I have written (and read the book too) you get an understanding of why said laws are not just insticntive and reletive to all situations.
So, like... if intent to do harm is wrong in all cases, then it is a "law" of sorts?

But intent to do harm is not wrong in all cases...

As the song says, sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.

I think I read a chapter of Mere Christianity once for a Scripture class. It seemed simplistic and wholly abstract, with no conclusions that really held up to dedicated scrutiny. Of course, this could be said of pretty much any apologist book, but Lewis's work seemed less rational than others I have seen.

1. Authoritive, objective moral law can be said to exist
2. Such moral law demands an author
3. The only reasonable author for such a law can be said to be God
4. Therefore God exists



WTF LOL!

Kant is a 'tard.

I'm not even going to waste the time ripping his 'logic' to pieces. :rolleyes:

basicly Kant's logic works like this

1. Authoritive, objective moral law can be said to exist
2. Such moral law demands an author
3. The only reasonable author for such a law can be said to be God
4. Therefore God exists




It's possible to prove anything when your first premise is just an opinion stated as if it were a fact.

Look, I'll explain this again:
There is no proof for God.

I'm not sure if this is already a law, but it should be.

President Shrub's law: Any object, which, so far as we have experienced, permanently permeates the existence of the objects required to observe it, cannot be proven to exist.

Some examples...

Time:
We are always within time and have no way to escape. Can anyone prove that time exists? No. Yes, you could measure rates of change. For example, you throw a ball. A moment ago, the ball was in your hand. However, that relies upon the assumption that your memory is true. People can sometimes have false memories. For all we know, all of our current memories could be totally false.

Space:
We are always withim space and have no way of entering out of it. Can anyone prove that space exists? No. Yes, you could measure distance. But that relies upon the assumption that what you perceive with your eyes is true. People can sometimes have false perceptions. For all we know, all of our current perceptions could be totally false.

Light:
Scientifically-speaking, there is no such thing as "darkness," but merely more light and less light. Even within a room that has been closed off by any apparent light-source, there is the light that is stored within the matter, when it was previously under a light-source (which you can see with your eyes, with phosphorescent materials). Being that we are always within light, the light that we percieve (just as with space) rests upon the assumption that what we perceive is true. Furthermore, because of the fact that we perceive such incorrect, arbitrary divisions as "darkness," and "light," further adds to the fact that, for all we know, light does not exist.

Consciousness:
We are always within our own conscious minds and can only perceive consciousness through consciousness. So, consciousness's existence can only be defended by homonculus arguments, such as, "I think, therefore I am." You don't know that you are truly thinking. A computer may be designed to believe it thinks, but it actually isn't conscious. It could even be programmed to believe that it has a body and exists in a large world, even though it's merely a metal box. Therefore, the truth is, "I don't know if I think, therefore I might not be."

Logic:
The universe, as scientists claim, is dominated by logic. In rare cases where laws of logic are bent or broken, it is not assumed that they are illogical, but a more complex form of logic that we don't yet understand. So, being that the entire universe, including our very existence, is permeated with logic, then we cannot prove logic exists. For example, one might argue fallaciously, "Logic does exist, because it works!" However, your only basis for that logic works is logic. Logic's is unprovable because 'proof' can only be attained through logic (another homonculus argument-->proving logic's existence with logic).

And finally...

God:
Assuming you believe God is omnipresent, which most religions do, God can never be proven because of the same law stated above. The only way to prove God's existence would be to experience him. But there is no way of knowing if your experiences are correct. And the only way to prove God's existence false is to know if everyone's experiences of God are false. Being that we cannot objectively know if our own experiences are true or false, it is even more uncertain to know if the entire religious world's experiences are true or false.

However, please do not consider me a Nihilist. Because I, of course, believe that time, space, light, logic, and God all exist. The reason is because all logical arguments rely upon reasonable assumptions. It all depends on what you're trying to accomplish. But there is no such thing as "objective proof," just more or less subjective certainty.

And also, all of the past arguments for God's existence have been disproven, based upon poor logic or lack of knowledge of psychology.

It is perfectly true that objective moral law can be said to exist. It is equally true that purple and green striped unicorns can be said to exist. Of course this does mean that either actually do exist, just that it can be said they exist.

It is perfectly true that objective moral law can be said to exist. It is equally true that purple and green striped unicorns can be said to exist. Of course this does mean that either actually do exist, just that it can be said they exist.



If you aren't going to contribute, then kindly leave the thread.

If you aren't going to contribute, then kindly leave the thread.

His comment was spot on and one of the most relevent things said in this thread. Stating an opinion like it is a fact is the hallmark of muddy thinking.

His comment was spot on and one those most relevent things said in this thread. Stating an opinion like it is a fact is the hallmark of muddy thinking.


His comment was a quick jab with little substance. I'm getting sick of threads where individuals put a lot of thought into what they write then someone comes in, makes one or two sentences in opposition, and walks out. At least show some courtesy and put effort into your retorts, people!

His comment was a quick jab with little substance. I'm getting sick of threads where individuals put a lot of thought into what they write then someone comes in, makes one or two sentences in opposition, and walks out. At least show some courtesy and put effort into your retorts, people!

Another lost battle in the fight of quality vs. quantity.

His comment was a quick jab with little substance. I'm getting sick of threads where individuals put a lot of thought into what they write then someone comes in, makes one or two sentences in opposition, and walks out. At least show some courtesy and put effort into your retorts, people!
If one or two sentences is adequate to communicate the flaws in an argument then whatever is the purpose taking up bandwidth, not to mention other posters' time (reading the comments) with unnecessarily comments? The argument is a fallacy, just because something can be said to be true, that doesnt make it true, so any argument based on the material implication "what can be said to be true is true', whether the implication is explicity or implicit, is invalid. What further comment is needed? :confused:

If one or two sentences is adequate to communicate the flaws in an argument then whatever is the purpose taking up bandwidth, not to mention other posters' time (reading the comments) with unnecessarily comments? The argument is a fallacy, just because something can be said to be true, that doesnt make it true, so any argument based on the material implication "what can be said to be true is true', whether the implication is explicity or implicit, is invalid. What further comment is needed? :confused:

I hate to sound like a suck-up, but your "quick little jab" completely gutted the entire philosophical framework that had been set up. Nicely done.

Of course, when you destroy an elaborate house of cards with one light breath, some people get a little cranky. ;)

I hate to sound like a suck-up,
Oh no, now you are making me blush! :(
LOL, I totally know what you mean though,....it's so hard on the internet to not sound like either a suck up, insincere, or sarcastic....

President Shrub can I print out your argument?

I hate to sound like a suck-up, but your "quick little jab" completely gutted the entire philosophical framework that had been set up. Nicely done.

Of course, when you destroy an elaborate house of cards with one light breath, some people get a little cranky. ;)

Sorta, but not really. What really happened here was that the "quick little jab" destroyed the wrong target. Mikheilistan was unable to properly explain what the book actually says, and it was this bad explenation that was quickly destroyed. But the original intent of the post remains intact and no one has yet addressed what the book actually says because no one has even explained it properly yet. The original point remains instact, if religious debates interest you, this is a good book to take a look at.

The problem with Kant's reasoning is that he assumes that there is a moral objective right or wrong, which there isn't. His whole argument is based on the speculation that there is an omnipresent sense of 'right' and 'wrong' which there in no way is. Not even in Human society can we agree on right or wrong. The truth is, Kant is a quack, and only gains recognition in real philisophical circles because of a few random religious zealots.

i agree mostly with that president shrub about the topic, but not compleltely

i beleive everything is made out of smaller things, such as strings that make quarks, that make atoms which make nucleic acid, so on so forth, but at the center of it all must be some sort of energy or singularity, or they may not, it could be disected for eternities, who knows

but the question people should try to answer is, who found out there was a god? and why? we all know the scientist who discovered evolution and so forth, so the only way to find out who god is is by people telling us, but those scientist found out there way by themselves

so there ya go, i hope you see my point

And then, the man too lazy to read the rest of the topic, replies to the last post.

The last part is a bit bungled.

*snip*

I've been meaning to read that book for quite a while.

From your description thus far, it sounds like the beginning is the same as some of his radio addresses - titled "The Case for Christianity", I believe.

Lewis has some interesting viewpoints, especially considering that he was an atheist for a large part of his life. However, like all "proofs" for God, it can be logically picked apart, simply by accepting different axioms at the outset. In the end, you aren't going to find a "proof" for God, at least not in the mathematical or logical sense of the word. You will find rational reasons to believe, and you can certainly find faith - if you have it, but proof, by definition, really can't occur.

The problem with Kant's reasoning is that he assumes that there is a moral objective right or wrong, which there isn't.

One can neither disprove nor prove an objective right and wrong, anymore than one can prove or disprove the existence of a God. The view of a human being is subjective, and fallible - thus one cannot absolutely know either.

His whole argument is based on the speculation that there is an omnipresent sense of 'right' and 'wrong' which there in no way is. Not even in Human society can we agree on right or wrong.

Actually, there are quite a few moral views that stretch across nearly all societies, generally with only the outcasts disagreeing with them. Even in social animal species, there are sets of "right" and "wrong" that individual animals are outcast for breaking.

I've been meaning to read that book for quite a while.

From your description thus far, it sounds like the beginning is the same as some of his radio addresses - titled "The Case for Christianity", I believe.

Lewis has some interesting viewpoints, especially considering that he was an atheist for a large part of his life. However, like all "proofs" for God, it can be logically picked apart, simply by accepting different axioms at the outset. In the end, you aren't going to find a "proof" for God, at least not in the mathematical or logical sense of the word. You will find rational reasons to believe, and you can certainly find faith - if you have it, but proof, by definition, really can't occur.
The book was apparently adapted from radio talks that he gave, so it's quite likely you are right. (I cant claim to know, I think Wikipedia might have the specific radio talk titles on their page about Lewis.)

Actually, there are quite a few moral views that stretch across nearly all societies, generally with only the outcasts disagreeing with them. Even in social animal species, there are sets of "right" and "wrong" that individual animals are outcast for breaking.
Nearly all societies?
I'm not sure we can know that animals outcast other animals for breaking notions of 'right' or 'wong', since we cannot know that such concepts are common to other (non-human) animals.

To my knowledge the information about non-human animals taken in total, does not add support to the theory of a universal, objective moral-law.

The problem with Kant's reasoning is that he assumes that there is a moral objective right or wrong, which there isn't. His whole argument is based on the speculation that there is an omnipresent sense of 'right' and 'wrong' which there in no way is. Not even in Human society can we agree on right or wrong. The truth is, Kant is a quack, and only gains recognition in real philisophical circles because of a few random religious zealots.

Well haven't you been assuming just the opposite? You have been assuming that there isn't objective Right and Wrong....Can you prove that? What is the reason that has caused you to believe this?

Nearly all societies?

Yes. The exact outlook varies, but there are things that bridge all societies.

I'm not sure we can know that animals outcast other animals for breaking notions of 'right' or 'wong', since we cannot know that such concepts are common to other (non-human) animals.

We have observed animals being outcast for breaking the norm. Chimps, for instance, have a complicated social structure and a set of taboos that we can see through observation. Incest, for instance, is strictly taboo - and any that engage in it are outcast or at the least treated poorly by the rest of the group.

To my knowledge the information about non-human animals taken in total, does not add support to the theory of a universal, objective moral-law.

Universal? Perhaps not. However, something does not have to be universal across species to be objective. The moral law governing one species can be different from the moral law governing another - and both can still be objective.

This

His comment was a quick jab with little substance. I'm getting sick of threads where individuals put a lot of thought into what they write then someone comes in, makes one or two sentences in opposition, and walks out. At least show some courtesy and put effort into your retorts, people!

followed later by

:rolleyes:

equals irony. I love irony.

This



followed later by



equals irony. I love irony.



He made a lot of assertations followed by no evidence. For that, he got a :rolleyes:

He made a lot of assertations followed by no evidence. For that, he got a :rolleyes:

And you don't even feel a bit hypocritical do you?

Yes. The exact outlook varies, but there are things that bridge all societies.
Obviously my comment was overly ambiguous. What I meant was nearly is not all. The fact that something happens commonly does not tell us whether or not it is some kind of objective 'moral law', or even what is meant by a 'moral law'.



We have observed animals being outcast for breaking the norm.
'Breaking the norm' and 'breaking the rules about right and wrong' are not equivilent.

Chimps, for instance, have a complicated social structure and a set of taboos that we can see through observation. Incest, for instance, is strictly taboo - and any that engage in it are outcast or at the least treated poorly by the rest of the group.
None of which proves that they concieve 'right' and 'wrong' in the sense of moral laws.

Universal? Perhaps not. However, something does not have to be universal across species to be objective. The moral law governing one species can be different from the moral law governing another - and both can still be objective.
What exactly do you mean by 'moral law'?

Obviously my comment was overly ambiguous. What I meant was nearly is not all. The fact that something happens commonly does not tell us whether or not it is some kind of objective 'moral law', or even what is meant by a 'moral law'.

No, it doesn't, but it can be looked at in that way.

Meanwhile, having people who don't follow the rule doesn't mean that it isn't an objective right or wrong either.

The point is that we can neither prove nor disprove an objective moral law. You take the axiom one way or another and make your argument from there.

'Breaking the norm' and 'breaking the rules about right and wrong' are not equivilent.

They might be.

None of which proves that they concieve 'right' and 'wrong' in the sense of moral laws.

Well, that's not something we can really prove, now is it? Of course, it isn't something we can disprove either.

What exactly do you mean by 'moral law'?

An even better question! What does that mean?

No, it doesn't, but it can be looked at in that way.
Anything could be looked at in any number of ways, without ever proving or even making a likely case for case for something or provide any good reason for choosing to look at it that way as opposed to any other way.

Meanwhile, having people who don't follow the rule doesn't mean that it isn't an objective right or wrong either.
I have not claimed that it does mean as much. I have not suggested that there is not an objective right or wrong, nor that there is.

The point is that we can neither prove nor disprove an objective moral law. You take the axiom one way or another and make your argument from there.
Yes, that's what I was driving at.



They might be.



Well, that's not something we can really prove, now is it? Of course, it isn't something we can disprove either.
I have never suggested that it can be proved either way. My point is I know of no argument that proves such a thing does exist, ergo any argument that requires it to be necessarily true that such a thing exists, has not been proven sound, and therefore cannot be 'proof' of anything.

An even better question! What does that mean?
Different things to different folks, it appears to be somewhat subjective... ;)

If you aren't going to contribute, then kindly leave the thread.

Right back at ya', kiddo.

Zagat had a valid point. You either didn't understand it or didn't like it.

Zagat has contributed. You haven't.

Think about it.

It is perfectly true that objective moral law can be said to exist. It is equally true that purple and green striped unicorns can be said to exist. Of course this does mean that either actually do exist, just that it can be said they exist.
True ... despite what neo says you are right if you can no more prove objective morality then you can prove a deity

I am surprisingly disappointed in kent and CS ... in order for the existence of god to be prove (in their method) you have to prove that objective morality exists ... they have not done that

Nor have they made a definitive argument that the supreme author has to be a god ... simply objective morals could boil down to beneficial and non beneficial actions either in a group or as an individual (differing morals on differing situations but objective based on the natural or social situation)

Not saying that is what it is but you could describe it that way

Right back at ya', kiddo.

Zagat had a valid point. You either didn't understand it or didn't like it.

Zagat has contributed. You haven't.

Think about it.
Was thinking the same thing ... at that point neo had contributed a lot less

1. Authoritive, objective moral law can be said to exist
2. Such moral law demands an author
3. The only reasonable author for such a law can be said to be God
4. Therefore God exists

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/

That link hurt my head so much. All those hours spent in philosophy classes came rushing back, screaming in agony throughout my skull as my brain digested what was in front of me and my will to live slowly faded.

1. There is no evidence of 1.
2. There is nothing about moral law, if it were to exist, that requires an author. Unless you attempt to create a circular argument, the laws of physics are a set of laws that are encoded into the universe without an author, there is nothing to suggest moral law would be any different if such a thing did exist.
3. False, sufficiently advanced aliens fit the bill just as well.
4. Therefore religion needs a new argument.

What exactly do you mean by 'moral law'?
An even better question! What does that mean?
There is an important distinction between these questions, one of which looks at it subjectively (the former), where its meaning is relative, and the other that asks about it from an objective view. The difference, of course, is truth.

Truth "resides" or is relavant to the objective. When we talk about truth, the objective is the default; and conversely, when we ask about the authenticity or relevance of an objective thing, we are asking about truth. "What does moral law mean?" implies that it has a true, absolute meaning.

Yet you've indicated in prior posts that it is an interpretation, relative to the individual. So Zagat asked the better question, and was right in responding to yours and drawing it back to the subjective, to the individual.

No, it doesn't, but it can be looked at in that way.

Meanwhile, having people who don't follow the rule doesn't mean that it isn't an objective right or wrong either.
If only some people "see right and wrong that way," then it is, precisely, subjective. If it is objective, it is abolutely true, and everyone would see it the same way, even if they don't conform.

One can neither disprove nor prove an objective right and wrong, anymore than one can prove or disprove the existence of a God. The view of a human being is subjective, and fallible - thus one cannot absolutely know either.
Physical existence is not the "proof" of objectivity. Something is objective if it can apply externally to an individual, applying consistently and equally. The objectivity of right or wrong is it's correctness from an objective point of view. If right, or wrong, is not the same for everyone, or for every case of a "right" or "wrong" thing, then it is subjectively determined by individuals and cases. Then it is relative.

Now, it can be said that some people can look at a "right" or "wrong" thing as applying to everyone equally. That does not make it an objective thing, though; that is objectifying it, something an individual does in order to "apply it" to everyone (as opposed to "does it apply?"). If some people look at it differently, then we are all looking at it subjectively.

If only some people "see right and wrong that way," then it is, precisely, subjective. If it is objective, it is abolutely true, and everyone would see it the same way, even if they don't conform.

Maybe everyone once upon a time did, till they were corrupted by the world... or the world was corrupted by the devil

Maybe everyone once upon a time did, till they were corrupted by the world... or the world was corrupted by the devil
It has nothing to do with corruption, it has to do with the fact that we are individuals.

If you aren't going to contribute, then kindly leave the thread.
Actually, what he said made sense. I was going to say the same thing.

President Shrub can I print out your argument?
Yes.

i agree mostly with that president shrub about the topic, but not compleltely

i beleive everything is made out of smaller things, such as strings that make quarks, that make atoms which make nucleic acid, so on so forth, but at the center of it all must be some sort of energy or singularity, or they may not, it could be disected for eternities, who knows

but the question people should try to answer is, who found out there was a god? and why? we all know the scientist who discovered evolution and so forth, so the only way to find out who god is is by people telling us, but those scientist found out there way by themselves
Read Terence McKenna's theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence_mckenna#The_.22Stoned_Ape.22_theory_of_human_evolution). You could easily discredit him because of his wacko "Timewave Zero," theory, but his theories about how religion may have developed as a result of early humans taking psilocybin mushrooms seems fairly sound.

I mean, it's not very empirical, but so far, I haven't heard any better answer than that.

Nearly all societies?
I'm not sure we can know that animals outcast other animals for breaking notions of 'right' or 'wong', since we cannot know that such concepts are common to other (non-human) animals.

To my knowledge the information about non-human animals taken in total, does not add support to the theory of a universal, objective moral-law.
Scientists discredit it by fallaciously assuming that because people disgree on ethics that objective ethics do not exist.

For example, many of us disagree on how humans began. Some Jews, Christians, and Muslims will tell you that we were formed out of clay. Most scientists will tell you that we evolved from apes. Scientologists and many other cultists and conspiracy-theorists will tell you that we came from outer space.

Now, because there is disgreement on the matter, does that mean that an objective origin of mankind does not exist? No. Disagreement does not imply non-existence. But rather, different cultures valued certain things more than others, were willing to sacrifice a certain good for a certain purpose (often primitive), and often, it was based on poor logic, such as believing that drinking menstrual blood gives them "magic powers." As they say of philosophical ethics, morality is not of "what is," but "what should be." So, discrediting it with statistics is erroneous.

Objective morality is simply practicing, protecting, and promoting what we perceive as good. There are universal perceptions of good throughout mankind, which are love, sex, food, shelter, leisure, knowledge, strength, intelligence, determination, and generosity. In excess, some of those are sins. Objective morality is simply "the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people, but never achieved directly through evil." In one's personal life, it is a balance between applying the golden rule to individuals you meet every day and applying the golden rule to the entire world. All morality has come through reason, therefore, "objective," morality, in the only sense you can define it, is simply morality based upon the most objective and logical reason.

Scientists discredit it by fallaciously assuming that because people disgree on ethics that objective ethics do not exist.

For example, many of us disagree on how humans began. Some Jews, Christians, and Muslims will tell you that we were formed out of clay. Most scientists will tell you that we evolved from apes. Scientologists and many other cultists and conspiracy-theorists will tell you that we came from outer space.

Now, because there is disgreement on the matter, does that mean that an objective origin of mankind does not exist? No. Disagreement does not imply non-existence. But rather, different cultures valued certain things more than others, were willing to sacrifice a certain good for a certain purpose (often primitive), and often, it was based on poor logic, such as believing that drinking menstrual blood gives them "magic powers." As they say of philosophical ethics, morality is not of "what is," but "what should be." So, discrediting it with statistics is erroneous.

Objective morality is simply practicing, protecting, and promoting what we perceive as good. There are universal perceptions of good throughout mankind, which are love, sex, food, shelter, leisure, knowledge, strength, intelligence, determination, and generosity. In excess, some of those are sins. Objective morality is simply "the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people, but never achieved directly through evil." In one's personal life, it is a balance between applying the golden rule to individuals you meet every day and applying the golden rule to the entire world. All morality has come through reason, therefore, "objective," morality, in the only sense you can define it, is simply morality based upon the most objective and logical reason.
But if there is disagreement on "what should be," then its goodness is not universal at all. And what do statistics have to do with anything?

If objective morality is "the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people," then it is relative --relative to the group, because some are excluded from that group. If, on the other hand, it is the best reasoning that justifies existing standards of good, then it is objectively-stated reasons for morality (ethics), not objective morality.

If only some people "see right and wrong that way," then it is, precisely, subjective. If it is objective, it is abolutely true, and everyone would see it the same way, even if they don't conform.

First off, for something to be objectively true does not mean that everyone will see it that way. It is objectively true that I have never in my life worn contacts. However, I have met someone who insisted that I was wearing contacts, regardless of the truth. That didn't make it any less true.

Second of all, with the possible exception of socio- or psychopaths, who are missing features that all other humans have, we don't know for sure that someone doesn't see it the same way. They may say that they don't - but that could simply be them not conforming.

Something is objective if it can apply externally to an individual, applying consistently and equally. The objectivity of right or wrong is it's correctness from an objective point of view. If right, or wrong, is not the same for everyone, or for every case of a "right" or "wrong" thing, then it is subjectively determined by individuals and cases. Then it is relative.

Something being case-specific does not make it subjective. There is no reason to state that something objective must be broad. If you try to boil it down to: Killing a human being, right or wrong? and go with absolutes, you are going to fail at the outset. However, if you are clear on the circumstances, then you can state that the same circumstances always result in the same determination - thus objective.

Example:

Killing a human being, right or wrong? Some would say wrong right off the bat, but then you get into case-specifics.

Killing a human being simply because you want them out of your sight. The vast majority of people would say wrong. Chances are, if there is an objective moral law, that law would say wrong.

Killing a human being who is trying to murder hundreds of innocent people and the only way to stop those murders is to kill that human being. The vast majority of people would say that this is the right action.

Now, it can be said that some people can look at a "right" or "wrong" thing as applying to everyone equally. That does not make it an objective thing, though; that is objectifying it, something an individual does in order to "apply it" to everyone (as opposed to "does it apply?"). If some people look at it differently, then we are all looking at it subjectively.

"We are looking at it subjectively," does not equate to, "It is subjective."

Killing a human being who is trying to murder hundreds of innocent people and the only way to stop those murders is to kill that human being. The vast majority of people would say that this is the right action.


Most people would proberbly say that the killing is wrong, but it depends on the available options. Its not that the morality itself changes, most people would agree that its wrong to kill anyone, but if you cannot stop them without killing them then the best option is to kill them. That doesnt make it morally right, it just makes it the option closest to being right out of a series of options.

First off, for something to be objectively true does not mean that everyone will see it that way. It is objectively true that I have never in my life worn contacts. However, I have met someone who insisted that I was wearing contacts, regardless of the truth. That didn't make it any less true.
But we are not talking about the action of an individual in the physical world at one moment in their life. We are talking about morality, concepts of right and wrong being, supposedly, built into the psyche of all humans. If that is so, if that were objectively true, then everyone would see it that way.

"An objective morality" does not make sense in any other context.

Second of all, with the possible exception of socio- or psychopaths, who are missing features that all other humans have, we don't know for sure that someone doesn't see it the same way. They may say that they don't - but that could simply be them not conforming.
True. But no evidence is not evidence.

Something being case-specific does not make it subjective. There is no reason to state that something objective must be broad. If you try to boil it down to: Killing a human being, right or wrong? and go with absolutes, you are going to fail at the outset. However, if you are clear on the circumstances, then you can state that the same circumstances always result in the same determination - thus objective.

Example:

Killing a human being, right or wrong? Some would say wrong right off the bat, but then you get into case-specifics.

Killing a human being simply because you want them out of your sight. The vast majority of people would say wrong. Chances are, if there is an objective moral law, that law would say wrong.

Killing a human being who is trying to murder hundreds of innocent people and the only way to stop those murders is to kill that human being. The vast majority of people would say that this is the right action.
Well, I would dispute that there could ever be a case where the only way to stop the murders is to kill that one person, but that's beside the point. That too, is case-specific.

Things subjective are subjective to a person, a group, a thing, etc... some individual unit. When right and wrong is considered "on a case to case basis," then it is a subjective evalution, subjective to that case. It takes into consideration all the variables of that case, and makes a unique judgement.

"We are looking at it subjectively," does not equate to, "It is subjective."
It does more closely than objectivity. What I said was: "objectifying a thing" is not the same as "an objective thing", because the objective perspective is looking at a thing "as if" from a perspective not our own, and the objective thing is what we are looking at. However, the subjective perspective is the basis for all that is considered to be subjective. A subjective opinion is one given by an individual or group, from their perspective. A thought is subjective to the mind, because it is experienced only from the perspective of the mind.

We cannot turn that around and say, an objective opinion is one given as if for a whole group. There is no such thing as an objective opinion, only a consensus of opinion.

But we are not talking about the action of an individual in the physical world at one moment in their life. We are talking about morality, concepts of right and wrong being, supposedly, built into the psyche of all humans. If that is so, if that were objectively true, then everyone would see it that way.

I'm not talking about morality supposedly being built into the psyche of all humans. I am talking about an objective morality. Objectivity is not defined by being built into the psyche.

"An objective morality" does not make sense in any other context.

This is like saying, "To be objective, it has to be built into bacteria. If it isn't built into bacteria, it can't be objective."

Unless you think human beings are the absolute pinnacle of the universe - completely controlling it, then humans are not the end-all be-all, and something does not have to be "built in" to humans to be objective.

True. But no evidence is not evidence.

...which is exactly why I am and have been saying that objective morality can be neither proven nor disproven.

Well, I would dispute that there could ever be a case where the only way to stop the murders is to kill that one person, but that's beside the point. That too, is case-specific.

It's case-specificity, however, does not make it less objective. You seem to think that anything that requires a great deal of detail cannot be objective, because it requires detail. However, that is not the definition of objectivity.

Things subjective are subjective to a person, a group, a thing, etc... some individual unit. When right and wrong is considered "on a case to case basis," then it is a subjective evalution, subjective to that case. It takes into consideration all the variables of that case, and makes a unique judgement.

But, if all the variables in that case were repeated, the same judgement would be reached.

It does more closely than objectivity. What I said was: "objectifying a thing" is not the same as "an objective thing", because the objective perspective is looking at a thing "as if" from a perspective not our own, and the objective thing is what we are looking at. However, the subjective perspective is the basis for all that is considered to be subjective. A subjective opinion is one given by an individual or group, from their perspective. A thought is subjective to the mind, because it is experienced only from the perspective of the mind.

This doesn't answer at all to what I said, which was that "We view it subjectively," does not equate to "It is subjective."

If and only if we were the absolute pinnacle and rulers of the universe, we could say that anything we see subjectively is, in fact, subjective. However, I don't believe that we are - and nothing you have ever said would suggest that you are. Thus, human beings looking at something in a subjective manner does not make it actually subjective - as we are not the end-all be-all of existence.

There is no such thing as 'objective moral law'. All so called 'morals' are based on two things-

1) Instinct

2) Reasoning

For instance, pretty much every culture has laws against murder. Is it because murder is immoral? No, not really.

It works like this- humans don't like to feel pain, and have an instinct for self-preservation. We don't want to die. We reason that if we feel this way, other humans do, too. Furthermore, if we kill or injure enough people, they just might want to rise up and do the same to us (or maybe worse; revenge can be nasty). Therefore, we don't kill or hurt others out of reasoning and and instinct.

Right back at ya', kiddo.

Zagat had a valid point. You either didn't understand it or didn't like it.

Zagat has contributed. You haven't.

Think about it.



He hasn't contributed anything but the typical leftist negativity. I haven't read the book, so at least I have the courtesy to not state my opinion.

the first post here is to my mind nothing more than rhetorical nonsence. So called logical deductions start from the grossest of unfounded assumptions.

I'm not talking about morality supposedly being built into the psyche of all humans. I am talking about an objective morality. Objectivity is not defined by being built into the psyche.

This is like saying, "To be objective, it has to be built into bacteria. If it isn't built into bacteria, it can't be objective."
You are correct: objectivity is not defined by being built into the psyche. Good thing that's not what I said. ;) Morality is a concept, and therefore it has no physical existence. It exists only in the mind, as an idea, and therefore, if it is absolute, it is a part of the human psyche. Some things are; morality isn't one of them.

Unless you think human beings are the absolute pinnacle of the universe - completely controlling it, then humans are not the end-all be-all, and something does not have to be "built in" to humans to be objective.
I happen to think we're pretty special, but that's not any part of my arguments. If I say, "That is wrong," that is my opinion, and therefore it is subjective. If society says, "that is wrong," that is its concensus, and therefore is a subjective opinion. I cannot see where "right and wrong" can be objective. This is all I said. Objective things are true and absolute, which means they apply to all. If concepts are true and absolute, like truth itself, then they apply everywhere, everywhen, equally the same way.

Things subjective are subjective to a person, a group, a thing, etc... some individual unit. When right and wrong is considered "on a case to case basis," then it is a subjective evalution, subjective to that case. It takes into consideration all the variables of that case, and makes a unique judgement.
But, if all the variables in that case were repeated, the same judgement would be reached.
It is impossible, and actually undesireable, that all the variables in a case would be exactly repeated. The people vary, the times vary, the circumstances vary.

This doesn't answer at all to what I said, which was that "We view it subjectively," does not equate to "It is subjective."

If and only if we were the absolute pinnacle and rulers of the universe, we could say that anything we see subjectively is, in fact, subjective. However, I don't believe that we are - and nothing you have ever said would suggest that you are. Thus, human beings looking at something in a subjective manner does not make it actually subjective - as we are not the end-all be-all of existence.
Well, actually it does respond to what you said. If you read it, I said, the subjective perspective produces subjective things.

What does being a ruler of the universe have to do with having a subjective opinion? I don't think thing it has anything to do with it.

We have subjective perspective by virtue of being individuals. Everything from our perspective is subjectively viewed, and everything we pronounce from our perspective is subjective. "I am."

The subjective is what goes on from the point of view of the conscious mind.

You are correct: objectivity is not defined by being built into the psyche. Good thing that's not what I said. ;) Morality is a concept, and therefore it has no physical existence. It exists only in the mind, as an idea, and therefore, if it is absolute, it is a part of the human psyche. Some things are; morality isn't one of them.

So the only mind is human? Morality can only possibly exist to human beings?

I happen to think we're pretty special, but that's not any part of my arguments. If I say, "That is wrong," that is my opinion, and therefore it is subjective. If society says, "that is wrong," that is its concensus, and therefore is a subjective opinion. I cannot see where "right and wrong" can be objective.

That is because you are still restricting it only to hujman beings, as if we are all there is to the entire universe. If you say, "That is wrong," it is your opinion. If lots of people agree, it is a concensus. If there is an objective right and wrong - you may or may not know it. It has nothing at all to do with your opinions.

Objective things are true and absolute, which means they apply to all. If concepts are true and absolute, like truth itself, then they apply everywhere, everywhen, equally the same way.

Yup. But none of that says, "And human beings have to know it."

Well, actually it does respond to what you said. If you read it, I said, the subjective perspective produces subjective things.

Of course it does, but you are still making the assumption that only human beings could produce an objective morality.

What does being a ruler of the universe have to do with having a subjective opinion? I don't think thing it has anything to do with it.

If we are not in complete control of the universe, then a concept such as objective morality does not have to come from us. We can go on with our subjective views, producing subjective things. That does not in any way preclude an objective right and wrong that has come about from something other than human perception.

So the only mind is human? Morality can only possibly exist to human beings?
No but the only minds we have any reliable communication with (to the point of being able to illicit useful information with regards to concepts such as morals) are humans. It may not provide any reason to believe there are not morals, but there are plenty of things we dont have proof of the non-existence for. This is essentially why burden of proof is on the affirmitive. If we decreed true and existent everything we cannot disprove, we must necessary believe in invisible, silent, incorporeal, blue and pink stripped unicorns, since there is no evidence they do not exist.


That is because you are still restricting it only to hujman beings, as if we are all there is to the entire universe. If you say, "That is wrong," it is your opinion. If lots of people agree, it is a concensus. If there is an objective right and wrong - you may or may not know it. It has nothing at all to do with your opinions.
At this time the only available evidence is for the most part human orientated and human derived. Whether or not monkeys have a sense of morality, is much more difficult to find out than if a human being you share common language with does. It returns to the burden of proving existence being with the affirmitive. If there is an invisible, silent, incorporal unicorn, you may or may not know it. It has nothing at all to do with opinions, is not usually considered by reasonable people, to be any good reason to consider that such unicorns might exist, much less that they probably do.

Yup. But none of that says, "And human beings have to know it."
Nothing about the invisible unicorns says human would have to know of their existence, yet this still appears to not be a convincing reason for us all to consider their existence likely.

The fact is the reasons you give apply equally to invisible, silent, uncorporal unicorns, something that I can at least describe...

So the only mind is human? Morality can only possibly exist to human beings?
It is the only mind we can possibly know anything about, and speak intelligently on, unless you care to propose that other minds see things in exactly the same way. But that seems a bit arrogant, to me.

That is because you are still restricting it only to hujman beings, as if we are all there is to the entire universe. If you say, "That is wrong," it is your opinion. If lots of people agree, it is a concensus. If there is an objective right and wrong - you may or may not know it. It has nothing at all to do with your opinions.
If I don't know it, how can it be relevant to anything? My descriptions and explanations of what I understand must be based on what I understand, not on unknowns, or unknowables.

Yup. But none of that says, "And human beings have to know it."
See above. Human beings know truth, for example; we do know what it is. The concept of truth is very well defined in our language. (That is not to say other beings don't know truth.)

Of course it does, but you are still making the assumption that only human beings could produce an objective morality.
I am limiting myself to what I could possibly know, so as not to bring speculation into the picture. I know my subjective perspective, and the abstract nature of the objective perspective.

If we are not in complete control of the universe, then a concept such as objective morality does not have to come from us. We can go on with our subjective views, producing subjective things. That does not in any way preclude an objective right and wrong that has come about from something other than human perception.
If it is a concept, then it does, necessarily, have to come from us. Conceptual things exist only in the mind. If it is not conceptual, if it has some physical reality, then it can exist elsewhere. (Note, I do not believe in noncorporeal existence in the physical world, as that is unverifiable, an unknowable.)

We have a conciousness centered in the universe from the subjective perspective. That perspective, that fact that we have it, is responsible for the concept of duality, and the concept of free will. Us and them, me and it, me and not-me. Me and God. Me and the universe. We don't have to be ruler of the universe, because we rule ourselves. Morality is right and wrong as we see it. If we don't perceive it, it can be said to exist, but only said to exist. We consciously will things, do wilful things, from that perspective, asserting our will upon the world. This is self-control. If we are not in complete control of our mental/spiritual self, that conscious mind, then we are under the control (not influence, control) of some other mind, being or force. This eliminates free will, as free will says we are in control of ourselves.

When I say, "That is wrong," that is my opinion. I take responsibility for the judgement. It is a wilful judgement. When a jury makes a judgement of consensus, that is also a consensus of opinion. There is no "wong" that I would employ that is not opinion (unless you can give me some example).

I still don't know what "objective right and wrong" means.

No but the only minds we have any reliable communication with (to the point of being able to illicit useful information with regards to concepts such as morals) are humans. It may not provide any reason to believe there are not morals, but there are plenty of things we dont have proof of the non-existence for. This is essentially why burden of proof is on the affirmitive. If we decreed true and existent everything we cannot disprove, we must necessary believe in invisible, silent, incorporeal, blue and pink stripped unicorns, since there is no evidence they do not exist.

The burden of proof is on anyone who makes a definitive statement either way. If you say, "There are objective morals," and you are trying to convince other people, then the burden of proof is on you. Of course, it's not really something that can be proven, as human beings look at morals subjectively, whether objective morals exist or not. If you say, "There are no objective morals," and you are trying to convince other people, then the burden of proof is on you. Of course, it's not something that can be proven, as proving such a thing would require omniscience.

Thus, we come down to exactly what I first said - that objective morals, like the existence of God, can be neither proven nor disproven. It all comes down to what the individual believes to be true - the axiom they choose, for whatever reasons they have.