The Priest and the Atheist

[Byblos]

You are making an ontological claim, even if you don't see it. When you say that morality is relative, you are saying something about what reality IS.

I'm not even going to get into your misuse of "ontology" and "epistemology".

Wayne, I suspect Jac will not answer since he already said he was done here. So I wil answer on his behalf. Please don't take this the wrong way but you yourself are demonstrating a very basic knowledge, if any, of what ontology and epistemology are (now that's an ontological statement ). Seriously man, if you don't see what Jac is saying there really is no point in continuing the discussion.

As for your version of objective morality (i.e. the golden rule), first: where did you get that from, second: how do you make it a general societal rule (i.e. what happens when others disagree with it or you, as Zoe has been trying to tell you), and most importantly, third: who decides. These are rhetorical questions for you to ponder, no answer is really necessary.

[waynepii]

As for your version of objective morality (i.e. the golden rule), first: where did you get that from

My parents taught it to me, but it's mentioned in a number of ancient texts, yes, including The Bible.

second: how do you make it a general societal rule (i.e. what happens when others disagree with it or you, as Zoe has been trying to tell you)

It's a yardstick that determines an ideal - treat everyone the same. It is pretty much immune from the whims of a current society. For example, it would have told us that slavery was wrong even while slavery was being widely practiced. If no one pays attention to it, it still gives a consistent answer.

and most importantly, third: who decides.

Who decides what?

[Gman]

If you take away God, then basically everything becomes self generated. History becomes our invention, morality becomes our invention, knowledge becomes our invention. You just transfer your authority to your own knowledge, your own experiences, etc..

As for the accusation that the "golden rule" is in all the main religions and that it was man's idea, I don't see anything remotely compared to what Christianity has to offer, in that being the death of God for all humanity.. The ultimate sacrifice.. Nothing even comes close to that.

[Byblos]

As for your version of objective morality (i.e. the golden rule), first: where did you get that from

My parents taught it to me, but it's mentioned in a number of ancient texts, yes, including The Bible.

Well thank you for at least acknowledging that.

second: how do you make it a general societal rule (i.e. what happens when others disagree with it or you, as Zoe has been trying to tell you)

It's a yardstick that determines an ideal - treat everyone the same. It is pretty much immune from the whims of a current society. For example, it would have told us that slavery was wrong even while slavery was being widely practiced. If no one pays attention to it, it still gives a consistent answer.

Why would you say it's immune from the whims of society? (see question below: who decides?).

and most importantly, third: who decides.

Who decides what?

Who decides that it's immune? Why is your golden rule better than mine? Mine is a whole lot better for society and the nature of being as a whole as prescribed by mindless natural selection, i.e. survival of the fittest; that is my golden rule. Who made you judge, jury and executioner to make such a decision on all our behalf? My rule ensures an advantage for the continuity of the species, yours does not. Why do we need to keep the burden of caring for the sick and the elderly? What is the use of a 3rd child when a family discovers they can longer afford raising her? Why is rape not advantageous when used as a reproductive method? Please stop throwing your golden rule in my face, it is not binding on me.

Do you really not see the box atheism has painted itself in?

[waynepii]

As for your version of objective morality (i.e. the golden rule), first: where did you get that from

My parents taught it to me, but it's mentioned in a number of ancient texts, yes, including The Bible.

Well thank you for at least acknowledging that.

second: how do you make it a general societal rule (i.e. what happens when others disagree with it or you, as Zoe has been trying to tell you)

It's a yardstick that determines an ideal - treat everyone the same. It is pretty much immune from the whims of a current society. For example, it would have told us that slavery was wrong even while slavery was being widely practiced. If no one pays attention to it, it still gives a consistent answer.

Why would you say it's immune from the whims of society? (see question below: who decides?).

Because it always looks at the issue from the perspective of the other person.

Example:
Is slavery (for example) right or wrong?
Ask yourself "would I want to be a slave". If your answer is "no", then that's good evidence slavery is wrong. I claim it is immune from the whims of society because even if the test were to be performed by a 1850s slaveholder, his answer to "would you want to be a slave" would probably be "no". Would our hypothetical slaveholder be likely to be converted to an absolutionist by the result? Not likely. Would he be likely to even ask the question? I wouldn't think so. But IF he did, he would determine slavery is wrong. A compass always points "north", even if no one pays attention.

and most importantly, third: who decides.

Who decides what?

Who decides that it's immune? Why is your golden rule better than mine? Mine is a whole lot better for society and the nature of being as a whole as prescribed by mindless natural selction, i.e. survival of the fittest; that is my golden rule. Who made you judge, jury and executioner to make such a decision on all our behalf? My rule ensures an advantage for the continuity of the species, yours does not. Why do we need to keep the burden of caring for the sick and the elderly? What is the use of a 3rd child when a family discovers they can longer afford raising her? Why is rape not advantageous when used as a reproductive method? Please stop throwing your golden rule in my face, it is not binding on me.

First off, I never claimed it was better than yours. Even if I were inclined to make such a claim (I'm not), I would be unable to seeing as no one has so far answered my questions about your objective moral compass and how it works:

• What is your morality based on?
• How do you determine right from wrong under your morality?
• How are sure that the right/wrong decision is not biased by current societal norms?

I really don't understand and am trying to find out.

Do you really not see the box athsism has painted itself in?

I'm not sure what you mean, can you explain?

[Byblos]

Because it always looks at the issue from the perspective of the other person.

But who decided it ought to be looked at from the perspective of the other to begin with? You decided that? I certainly don't agree with it as it goes against my golden rule of natural selection and survival of the fittest. Who are you (or even society as a whole) to shove it down my throat?

Example:
Is slavery (for example) right or wrong?
Ask yourself "would I want to be a slave". If your answer is "no", then that's good evidence slavery is wrong. I claim it is immune from the whims of society because even if the test were to be performed by a 1850s slaveholder, his answer to "would you want to be a slave" would probably be "no". Would our hypothetical slaveholder be likely to be converted to an absolutionist by the result? Not likely. Would he be likely to even ask the question? I wouldn't think so. But IF he did, he would determine slavery is wrong. A compass always points "north", even if no one pays attention.

But I'm a slave owner and I see absolutely nothing wrong with slavery. Why do you want to impose your set of moral preferences on me when I have a totally different and contradictory set of moral preferences?

and most importantly, third: who decides.

Who decides what?

Who decides that it's immune? Why is your golden rule better than mine? Mine is a whole lot better for society and the nature of being as a whole as prescribed by mindless natural selction, i.e. survival of the fittest; that is my golden rule. Who made you judge, jury and executioner to make such a decision on all our behalf? My rule ensures an advantage for the continuity of the species, yours does not. Why do we need to keep the burden of caring for the sick and the elderly? What is the use of a 3rd child when a family discovers they can longer afford raising her? Why is rape not advantageous when used as a reproductive method? Please stop throwing your golden rule in my face, it is not binding on me.

First off, I never claimed it was better than yours.

Thank you. You are finally seeing the light that it is a matter of preference, nothing more. So let's not kid each other and call it objective.

Even if I were inclined to make such a claim (I'm not), I would be unable to seeing as no one has so far answered my questions about your objective moral compass and how it works:

• What is your morality based on?
• How do you determine right from wrong under your morality?
• How are sure that the right/wrong decision is not biased by current societal norms?

I really don't understand and am trying to find out.

What is your morality based on?

My morality is objective because its source is not you or me, it is our creator.

How do you determine right from wrong under your morality?

I determine right from wrong first based on the fact that I was created with that ability, and second based on the rules said creator has laid out for us.

How are sure that the right/wrong decision is not biased by current societal norms?

I can be sure for several reasons, one because I am sure the source transcends society, even time, so it is not man-made. Two, because scripture claims to be inspired by the source and it has been proven to be utterly reliable. And third, because it ties in with reason and intellectual honesty. I don't have to jump through hoops to make it look objective when it's not. It is inherently objective.

Do you really not see the box atheism has painted itself in?

I'm not sure what you mean, can you explain?

What I mean is that atheism is making hypocrites of its followers. They desperately want to cling to some kind of objective morality, not knowing it was given to them as a gift. More to the point though, atheism DEMANDS morality to be a preference but its followers are too weak in the knees to see it.

[zoegirl]

Amen!!

[waynepii]

Because it always looks at the issue from the perspective of the other person.

But who decided it ought to be looked at from the perspective of the other to begin with? You decided that? I certainly don't agree with it as it goes against my golden rule of natural selection and survival of the fittest. Who are you (or even society as a whole) to shove it down my throat?

What part of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" don't you understand?

Maybe I should rephrase ...

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." (In case you don't recognize it, see Matthew 7:12)

Seriously, the "Golden Rule" aka the ethic of reciprocity is quite well known and is part of many religions and ethical systems.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_r ... philosophy)

Example:
Is slavery (for example) right or wrong?
Ask yourself "would I want to be a slave". If your answer is "no", then that's good evidence slavery is wrong. I claim it is immune from the whims of society because even if the test were to be performed by a 1850s slaveholder, his answer to "would you want to be a slave" would probably be "no". Would our hypothetical slaveholder be likely to be converted to an absolutionist by the result? Not likely. Would he be likely to even ask the question? I wouldn't think so. But IF he did, he would determine slavery is wrong. A compass always points "north", even if no one pays attention.

But I'm a slave owner and I see absolutely nothing wrong with slavery. Why do you want to impose your set of moral preferences on me when I have a totally different and contradictory set of moral preferences?

Does the fact that some people ignore your moral compass make it any less valid?

and most importantly, third: who decides.

Who decides what?

Who decides that it's immune? Why is your golden rule better than mine? Mine is a whole lot better for society and the nature of being as a whole as prescribed by mindless natural selction, i.e. survival of the fittest; that is my golden rule. Who made you judge, jury and executioner to make such a decision on all our behalf? My rule ensures an advantage for the continuity of the species, yours does not. Why do we need to keep the burden of caring for the sick and the elderly? What is the use of a 3rd child when a family discovers they can longer afford raising her? Why is rape not advantageous when used as a reproductive method? Please stop throwing your golden rule in my face, it is not binding on me.

First off, I never claimed it was better than yours.

Thank you. You are finally seeing the light that it is a matter of preference, nothing more. So let's not kid each other and call it objective.

I see no such thing. By what interpretation of the my post you quoted did you arrive at that conclusion?

Even if I were inclined to make such a claim (I'm not), I would be unable to seeing as no one has so far answered my questions about your objective moral compass and how it works:

• What is your morality based on?
• How do you determine right from wrong under your morality?
• How are sure that the right/wrong decision is not biased by current societal norms?

I really don't understand and am trying to find out.

What is your morality based on?

My morality is objective because its source is not you or me, it is our creator.

OK

How do you determine right from wrong under your morality?

I determine right from wrong first based on the fact that I was created with that ability, ...

That part doesn't sound very "objective" to me. Wouldn't our hypothetical slave owner be likely to "know" slavery was "right and proper"? Nothing is likely to convince him otherwise, but what in the "ability" [he] was created with might indicate that it is not right?

... and second based on the rules said creator has laid out for us.

Which rule says slavery is "wrong"?

How are sure that the right/wrong decision is not biased by current societal norms?

I can be sure for several reasons, one because I am sure the source transcends society, even time, so it is not man-made.

OK

Two, because scripture claims to be inspired by the source and it has been proven to be utterly reliable.

"Scripture claims ... "?

If scripture is "utterly reliable", why is so much interpretation of it necessary?

And third, because it ties in with reason and intellectual honesty. I don't have to jump through hoops to make it look objective when it's not. It is inherently objective.

Again, this is reliant on your personal ethics, which are colored by the time in which you live. It isn't objective at all.

Do you really not see the box atheism has painted itself in?

I'm not sure what you mean, can you explain?

What I mean is that atheism is making hypocrites of its followers. They desperately want to cling to some kind of objective morality, not knowing it was given to them as a gift. More to the point though, atheism DEMANDS morality to be a preference but its followers are too weak in the knees to see it.[/quote]
You've tried on several occasions to prove the "Golden Rule" is not objective, but it still seems pretty solid to me.

[Byblos]

I can see why Jac decided to stop posting here. I'm getting to that point myself but one final attempt.

What part of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" don't you understand?

Maybe I should rephrase ...

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." (In case you don't recognize it, see Matthew 7:12)

Seriously, the "Golden Rule" aka the ethic of reciprocity is quite well known and is part of many religions and ethical systems.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_r ... philosophy)

So let me get this straight, you're quoting scripture at me to prove scripture is meaningless?

In any case, what I am saying to you is that the golden rule outside of the presence of God is nothing more than a feel-good, man-made rule societies try to adhere to because it makes them look civilized. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever anyone is obliged to stick to it. In fact natural selection and the survival of the fittest, the hallmarks of atheism, specifically preclude the golden rule precisely because it goes contrary to the survival of the fittest. It's as if natural selection has come up with its own antidote, makes no sense.

I see no such thing. By what interpretation of the my post you quoted did you arrive at that conclusion?

Well, I asked why your golden rule is better than mine and you replied that you never claimed it was better. I.e., if my rule could be better than yours then it's a matter of preference, isn't it?

... and second based on the rules said creator has laid out for us.

Which rule says slavery is "wrong"?

The rule that applies to EVERYONE without exception. It cannot be a man-made rule, otherwise it is preferential.

That part doesn't sound very "objective" to me. Wouldn't our hypothetical slave owner be likely to "know" slavery was "right and proper"? Nothing is likely to convince him otherwise, but what in the "ability" [he] was created with might indicate that it is not right?

Of course he ought to know, but he doesn't because his mind is made up as to the source of morality. If he can be convinced that the golden rule is not man-made (and therefore preferential and useless) he will most likely amend his views on slavery.

"Scripture claims ... "?

If scripture is "utterly reliable", why is so much interpretation of it necessary?

Ok, scripture emphatically states, is that better? Ah, well, you're talking to the wrong guy here (I subscribe to a single interpretive authority) but even at that, I assure you that fundamentally (at the core that is) there is no disagreement. But let's stick to one subject at a time, shall we?

Again, this is reliant on your personal ethics, which are colored by the time in which you live. It isn't objective at all.

Wayne, please, I beg you, you really need to learn the difference between ontology and epistemology. Once again, morality is objective because it is part of reality (ontological) not because I see it as such (epistemological). On the other hand, the way YOU are describing it is purely epistemological.

You've tried on several occasions to prove the "Golden Rule" is not objective, but it still seems pretty solid to me.

And I suspect I've wasted my breath yet again (I really had no delusions to the contrary).

Take care my friend.

[waynepii]

I can see why Jac decided to stop posting here. I'm getting to that point myself but one final attempt.

What part of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" don't you understand?

Maybe I should rephrase ...

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." (In case you don't recognize it, see Matthew 7:12)

Seriously, the "Golden Rule" aka the ethic of reciprocity is quite well known and is part of many religions and ethical systems.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_r ... philosophy)

So let me get this straight, you're quoting scripture at me to prove scripture is meaningless?

Not at all. Just trying to make a point that the "Golden Rule" is more than your post about it earlier in the thread ...

But who decided it ought to be looked at from the perspective of the other to begin with? You decided that? I certainly don't agree with it as it goes against my golden rule of natural selection and survival of the fittest. Who are you (or even society as a whole) to shove it down my throat?

... seemed to indicate you thought it was.

In any case, what I am saying to you is that the golden rule outside of the presence of God is nothing more than a feel-good, man-made rule societies try to adhere to because it makes them look civilized. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever anyone is obliged to stick to it.

In the presence of God, is anyone obliged to stick to any moral code? Doesn't free will let anyone do what they will in this life (transgressors will be punished at judgement, of course).

In fact natural selection and the survival of the fittest, the hallmarks of atheism, specifically preclude the golden rule precisely because it goes contrary to the survival of the fittest. It's as if natural selection has come up with its own antidote, makes no sense.

Natural selection and especially survival of the fittest have nothing to do with it. We are a social animal. Social animals benefit from belonging to and participating in a group. To participate in the group, each individual acts to benefit the group even though their actions may not be best for them personally. By benefiting the group, each individual benefits as well. We humans usually act in accordance with the norms of our group (aka "society"). Over thousands of years, the norms of society have changed markedly, sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the better.

There will be some individuals who are unable or unwilling to abide by the group's behavioral norms. Among other species, this usually results in punishment of the transgressor, followed by either eviction from the group, or death. With humans, the only difference is that we incarcerate transgressors rather than evict them.

The role of a moral compass is to show the way "north" with regards to societal norms. IMO (and that of many other individuals, religions, and ethical standards) equal treatment for all is "north". Perhaps you don't agree that equal treatment for all is a worthwhile goal. If not, I would be curious as to why not and/or what you think would be better.

I see no such thing. By what interpretation of the my post you quoted did you arrive at that conclusion?

Well, I asked why your golden rule is better than mine and you replied that you never claimed it was better. I.e., if my rule could be better than yours then it's a matter of preference, isn't it?

I thought your objective morality wasn't supposed to be a preference?

... and second based on the rules said creator has laid out for us.

Which rule says slavery is "wrong"?

The rule that applies to EVERYONE without exception. It cannot be a man-made rule, otherwise it is preferential.

Q: "Which rule ... "
A: "The rule that applies to EVERYONE without exception."
???

Can you be a bit more specific please?

That part doesn't sound very "objective" to me. Wouldn't our hypothetical slave owner be likely to "know" slavery was "right and proper"? Nothing is likely to convince him otherwise, but what in the "ability" [he] was created with might indicate that it is not right?

Of course he ought to know, but he doesn't because his mind is made up as to the source of morality. If he can be convinced that the golden rule is not man-made (and therefore preferential and useless) he will most likely amend his views on slavery.

But hasn't your objective morality always been in effect? Shouldn't IT have caused him to amend his views then?

"Scripture claims ... "?

If scripture is "utterly reliable", why is so much interpretation of it necessary?

Ok, scripture emphatically states, is that better? Ah, well, you're talking to the wrong guy here (I subscribe to a single interpretive authority) but even at that, I assure you that fundamentally (at the core that is) there is no disagreement. But let's stick to one subject at a time, shall we?

OK, consider "Two, because scripture claims to be inspired by the source and it has been proven to be utterly reliable." scratched from your reply.

Again, this is reliant on your personal ethics, which are colored by the time in which you live. It isn't objective at all.

Wayne, please, I beg you, you really need to learn the difference between ontology and epistemology. Once again, morality is objective because it is part of reality (ontological) not because I see it as such (epistemological). On the other hand, the way YOU are describing it is purely epistemological.

Funny thing, in all my philosophy courses I never came across this use of ontology and epistemology. (And yes, I do know what they mean and how they are used) The terms are really unrelated to the discussion at hand. You wouldn't be using them (and "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" as well) as a red herring, would you?

You've tried on several occasions to prove the "Golden Rule" is not objective, but it still seems pretty solid to me.

And I suspect I've wasted my breath yet again (I really had no delusions to the contrary).

Take care my friend.

And you.

[Byblos]

I will of course leave with the possibility that you are smarter than Nietzsche or Sartre who gave up on defining objective morality in the absence of God, or Richard Taylor (a renowned atheistic ethicist) who said (I believe in a recent book titled Ethics, Faith, and Reason):

The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well. … Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war … or the violation of human rights, are “morally wrong,” and they imagine that they have said something true and significant.

[jlay]

Ask yourself "would I want to be a slave". If your answer is "no", then that's good evidence slavery is wrong.

Not a good analogy.

Would I want to have open heart surgery? No. So, by your reasoning open heart surgery is wrong. You only prove Jacs point. Would I

WANT

. That is called PREFERENCE.

If we went back 3,000 years, and said, would you rather and your family die of starvation, or become a slave. What would the answer be?

Wayne, you only demonstrate your unwillingness to look at things reasonably. You are not open. I doubt your issue with slavery in the bible is even your objection. My guess is you read that objection somewhere, and adopted that as your own.

[zoegirl]

I will of course leave with the possibility that you are smarter than Nietzsche or Sartre who gave up on defining objective morality in the absence of God, or Richard Taylor (a renowned atheistic ethicist) who said (I believe in a recent book titled Ethics, Faith, and Reason):

The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well. … Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war … or the violation of human rights, are “morally wrong,” and they imagine that they have said something true and significant.

OUt of the mouths of atheists...awesome.

[waynepii]

Ask yourself "would I want to be a slave". If your answer is "no", then that's good evidence slavery is wrong.

Not a good analogy.

Not good choice of words perhaps, the analogy is valid. I'll reword it ...

"If your being enslaved would be 'wrong', enslaving others is also wrong"

Better?

Would I want to have open heart surgery? No. So, by your reasoning open heart surgery is wrong. You only prove Jacs point. Would I

WANT

. That is called PREFERENCE.

Now THAT is a poor analogy.

Would I want to have to have open heart surgery? No.
Would I want to have open heart surgery? No.
Would I want to have open heart surgery if I needed it to extend my life or improve my quality of life? Sure, wouldn't you?

You're right, all of those ARE preferences. But they have nothing to do with how we treat one another, which is what the Golden Rule addresses.

If we went back 3,000 years, and said, would you rather and your family die of starvation, or become a slave. What would the answer be?

So slavery was an employment opportunity?

[jlay]

Wayne, every time you speak you only further prove my point. What you state with the heart example is exactly MY point. Let's see my analogy is wrong because of conditions.

Now THAT is a poor analogy.

Duh, that is exactly what I was trying to convey. man, you really should steer clear of any analogies.

You want to hold fast to your "slavery is wrong." But, by the same reason your analogy is flawed. Why? Conditions. Context.

Slavery is wrong. Well, yes, under certain conditions. Under other conditions slavery could actually be the most humane alternative.

You see, this is what I talked about earlier. You build an unreasonable standard. You are saying that slavery in the bible is a reason you discard its claims of divinity. But your position is one you have built in your own mind and not based on the actual conditions and context.

So slavery was an employment opportunity?

In trying to be cute, you are only further demonstrating your willful ignorance of the facts. All other discussions with you are futile. One thing has been proven on this thread. You are not open.

Sad, because you have so much value to the God who created you. It is very troubling to see someone so decieve themselves. Listen to your conscience. You know that you are at enmity with God.