Objective Morality?

General discussions about Christianity including salvation, heaven and hell, Christian history and so on.
Proinsias
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:09 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Scotland

Re: Objective Morality?

Post by Proinsias »

B.W:
Do you love God or deny him?
I find the ideas of God, of many varieties, fascinating. I can't answer your question in a pick A or B fashion. I can't say I really truly love God as I'm not really sure what God is and by the same token I don't deny God.

I don't see why you view that it is so improbable, to the point of objective fact, that humans could not have come up with Christianity as they did other religions. I also don't see the distinction between all other religions and Christianity on the basis of deeds. You argue for an objective moral judge whilst at the same time arguing our deeds are not what determines the judgment of the trial. The objective moral judge who discards deeds and bases judgment on love of the judge and acceptance that the judge's son, who is also the judge, at the time of death. That we are the prisoner of our deeds until we realise the truth is not exclusive to Christianity, it's prevalent in Buddhism. Has it occurred to you that Christianity may come across as rather deeds based to a Buddhist looking to enforce his opinion that Buddhism is the only non-deeds based religion? For a non-deeds based religion Christianity on the whole isn't shy about what is and what is not an acceptable deed.

Could you define what you mean by a deed? Perhaps elucidating on why loving God through belief in Jesus Christ is not a deed.

In short I think your religion is heavily based upon deeds. Whereas others are not. Your Christianity requires belief in certain deeds being done at certain points. Others don't, if Siddhārtha Gautama never existed or if Krishna didn't make that speech on the battlefield it doesn't really matter.
Your lens allows you to rely heavily upon deeds whilst not being bound by your own deeds.
That you can escape your own conception of ideal justice upon your life and swap it for eternal bliss seems like it could easily be a human creation but that may be the salesman in me talking.

Much of what you rely heavily upon appears rather ontological, and thus a little thin, to me. If we love and we can imagine the greatest love of all, then it exists, if we find ourselves in a moral dilemma then we can imagine moral perfection and thus it exists.
The fact that we can make choices demonstrates.....
The only thing it demonstrates is that for everything you have done you are of the opinion you could have done something that wasn't the thing you did.
User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3551
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: Objective Morality?

Post by neo-x »

Sorry to jump in like this.

Pro, Every religion has some deeds to follow, you say Buddhism is no-deed religion, well if they follow their code of conduct, it is a deed. Christianity says we are not judged on our deeds but on our faith, but in faith we are told to keep to the teaching of the Bible. I wouldn't use this as a statement to defeat the very thing I am holding up to. Deeds do not redeem us but they are there so we can follow them, we are not saved on the value of deeds but on the love in which we carry them out. So the statement that Christianity is not deed based in derived not from the idea that we are told to do nothing rather that what we do, we are told to do in the spirit of Christ's love. So deeds without faith and love become meaning less, read 1 Corinthians chapter 13 about love. it makes clear what we mean when we say we are not deed based.
If we love and we can imagine the greatest love of all, then it exists, if we find ourselves in a moral dilemma then we can imagine moral perfection and thus it exists.
I am not a George Orwell fan but I will advise you to read his novel 1984 and then reflect on your position. two quotes below are from 1984. Here is your dilemma and the paradox that lies with in.
Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
you may say these are out of the left side, well they aren't. Just because you think of something, even if it is to be philosophical in nature, does not in itself make it any better or greater. Since the need to imagine the greatest love of all, you have to assume an objective motive, but the method you apply to materialize that objectivity is your subjective mind. Yet the need is objective as long as you agree that love exists but you endorse it. vice versa would be that there is no such thing as love as if you think like it, you can just produce love out of no where. But even if you produce a love in yourself that doesn't mean that love doesn't exists elsewhere than your mind. It just means you produced it, but you couldn't have done it if you had never really heard about it or knew what it was. so in your mind or from others or by revelation, anyway around it, love would have to exist, even if it is a thought before you invent it. but even if you invent it by accident there would be a climbing need for you to try to invent something in the fist place. As i quoted above, you have to be conscious to do something that is not expected of you. If you are not conscious and accidentally do it, then it just shows that you were not aware of it in the first place yet the underlying principle that you found existed before you.

You may, of course choose to believe and practice whatever you think is best, but there are flaws in there as well. So I wouldn't be too sure about being unsure.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com
User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3551
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: Objective Morality?

Post by neo-x »

On a second thought i think i can give you some excerpts to think about before you read anything like a whole novel. I apologize for a long post but I thought i would save you some time, Pro.

Context: In a dystopian society a single person is trying to comprehend what's going on around him. In the last quote he is being electrocuted for not adhering to the regime's principle. but please see the underlying concept that I am trying to give you, which is in my opinion are the core premises under some of your reasoning...which is that there is no objectivity by default out of itself, present.
The Party said that Oceania had never been in alliance with Eurasia. He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed— if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’ And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. ‘Reality control’, they called it: in Newspeak, ‘doublethink’....

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.
The keyword here is BLACKWHITE. Like so many
Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to BELIEVE that black is white, and more, to KNOW that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as DOUBLETHINK.
The alteration of the past is necessary for two reasons, one of which is subsidiary and, so to speak, precautionary. The subsidiary reason is that the Party member, like the proletarian, tolerates present-day conditions partly because he has no standards of comparison. He must be cut off from the past, just as he must be cut off from foreign countries, because it is necessary for him to believe that he is better off than his ancestors and that the average level of material comfort is constantly rising. But by far the more important reason for the readjustment of the past is the need to safeguard the infallibility of the Party. It is not merely that speeches, statistics, and records of every kind must be constantly brought up to date in order to show that the predictions of the Party were in all cases right. It is also that no change in doctrine or in political alignment can ever be admitted. For to change one’s mind, or even one’s policy, is a confession of weakness. If, for example, Eurasia or Eastasia (whichever it may be) is the enemy today, then
that country must always have been the enemy. And if the facts say otherwise then the facts must be altered. Thus history is continuously rewritten. This day-to-day falsification of the past, carried out by the Ministry of Truth, is as necessary to the stability of the regime as the work of repression and espionage carried out by the Ministry of Love.
The mutability of the past is the central tenet of Ingsoc. Past events, it is argued, have no objective existence, but survive only in written records and in human memories. The past is whatever the records and the memories agree upon. And since the Party is in full control of all records and in equally full control of the minds of its members, it follows that the past is whatever the Party chooses to make it. It also follows that though the past is alterable, it never has been altered in any specific instance. For when it has been recreated in whatever shape is needed at the moment, then this new version IS the past, and no different past can ever have existed. This holds good even when, as often happens, the same event has to be altered out of recognition several times in the course of a year. At all times the Party is in possession of absolute truth, and clearly the absolute can never have been different from what it is now. It will be seen that the control of the past depends above all on the training of memory. To make sure that all written records agree with the orthodoxy of the moment is merely a mechanical act. But it is also necessary to REMEMBER that events happened in the desired manner. And if it is necessary to rearrange one’s memories or to tamper with written records, then it is necessary to FORGET that one
has done so. The trick of doing this can be learned like any other mental technique. It is learned by the majority of Party members, and certainly by all who are intelligent as well as orthodox. In Oldspeak it is called, quite frankly, ‘reality control’. In Newspeak it is called DOUBLETHINK, though DOUBLETHINK comprises much else as well.
DOUBLETHINK means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of DOUBLETHINK he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. DOUBLETHINK lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word DOUBLETHINK it is necessary to exercise DOUBLETHINK. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of DOUBLETHINK one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one
leap ahead of the truth. Ultimately it is by means of DOUBLETHINK that the Party has been able—and may, for all we know, continue to be able for thousands of years—to arrest the course of history...It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of DOUBLETHINK are those who invented DOUBLETHINK and know that it is a vast system of mental cheating.
‘Another example,’ he said. ‘Some years ago you had a very serious delusion indeed. You believed that three men, three one-time Party members named Jones, Aaronson, and Rutherford—men who were executed for treachery and sabotage after making the fullest possible confession— were not guilty of the crimes they were charged with. You believed that you had seen unmistakable documentary evidence proving that their confessions were false. There was a certain photograph about which you had a hallucination. You believed that you had actually held it in your hands. It was a photograph something like this.’
An oblong slip of newspaper had appeared between O’Brien’s fingers. For perhaps five seconds it was within the angle of Winston’s vision. It was a photograph, and there was no question of its identity. It was THE photograph. It was another copy of the photograph of Jones, Aaronson,
and Rutherford at the party function in New York, which he had chanced upon eleven years ago and promptly destroyed. For only an instant it was before his eyes, then it was out of sight again. But he had seen it, unquestionably he had seen it! He made a desperate, agonizing effort to wrench the top half of his body free. It was impossible to move so much as a centimetre in any direction. For the moment he had even forgotten the dial. All he wanted was to hold the photograph in his fingers again, or at least to see it.
‘It exists!’ he cried.
‘No,’ said O’Brien.
He stepped across the room. There was a memory hole in the opposite wall. O’Brien lifted the grating. Unseen, the frail slip of paper was whirling away on the current of warm air; it was vanishing in a flash of flame. O’Brien turned away from the wall.
‘Ashes,’ he said. ‘Not even identifiable ashes. Dust. It does not exist. It never existed.’ ‘But it did exist! It does exist! It exists in memory. I remember it. You remember it.’
‘I do not remember it,’ said O’Brien.
Winston’s heart sank. That was doublethink. He had a feeling of deadly helplessness. If he could have been certain that O’Brien was lying, it would not have seemed to matter. But it was perfectly possible that O’Brien had really forgotten the photograph. And if so, then already he would have forgotten his denial of remembering it, and forgotten the act of forgetting. How could one be sure that it was simple trickery?...

’Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past,‘‘ repeated Winston obediently.
‘’Who controls the present controls the past,‘‘ said O’Brien, nodding his head with slow approval. ‘Is it your opinion, Winston, that the past has real existence?’
Again the feeling of helplessness descended upon Winston. His eyes flitted towards the dial. He not only did not know whether ‘yes’ or ‘no’ was the answer that would save him from pain; he did not even know which answer he believed to be the true one.
O’Brien smiled faintly. ‘You are no metaphysician, Winston,’ he said. ‘Until this moment you had never considered what is meant by existence. I will put it more precisely. Does the past exist concretely, in space? Is there somewhere or other a place, a world of solid objects, where the past is still happening?’
‘No.’
‘Then where does the past exist, if at all?’
‘In records. It is written down.’
‘In records. And——?’
‘In the mind. In human memories.’
‘In memory. Very well, then. We, the Party, control all
records, and we control all memories. Then we control the past, do we not?’
‘But how can you stop people remembering things?’ cried Winston again momentarily forgetting the dial. ‘It is involuntary. It is outside oneself. How can you control memory? You have not controlled mine!’...

You believe that reality is something objective, external, existing in its own right. You also believe that the nature of reality is self-evident. When you delude yourself into thinking that you see something, you assume that everyone else sees the same thing as you. But I tell you, Winston, that reality is not external. Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else...

He paused for a few moments, as though to allow what
he had been saying to sink in.
‘Do you remember,’ he went on, ‘writing in your diary, ‘Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four’?’
‘Yes,’ said Winston.
O’Brien held up his left hand, its back towards Winston, with the thumb hidden and the four fingers extended. ‘How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?’ ‘Four.’ ‘And if the party says that it is not four but five—then how many?’
‘Four.’
The word ended in a gasp of pain. The needle of the dial had shot up to fifty-five. The sweat had sprung out all over Winston’s body. The air tore into his lungs and issued again in deep groans which even by clenching his teeth he could not stop. O’Brien watched him, the four fingers still extended. He drew back the lever. This time the pain was only slightly eased.
‘How many fingers, Winston?’
‘Four.’
The needle went up to sixty.
‘How many fingers, Winston?’
‘Four! Four! What else can I say? Four!’
The needle must have risen again, but he did not look at
it. The heavy, stern face and the four fingers filled his vision. The fingers stood up before his eyes like pillars, enormous, blurry, and seeming to vibrate, but unmistakably four.
‘How many fingers, Winston?’
‘Four! Stop it, stop it! How can you go on? Four! Four!’
‘How many fingers, Winston?’
‘Five! Five! Five!’
‘No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think
there are four. How many fingers, please?’ ‘Four! five! Four! Anything you like. Only stop it, stop the pain!’
Abruptly he was sitting up with O’Brien’s arm round his shoulders. He had perhaps lost consciousness for a few seconds. The bonds that had held his body down were loosened. He felt very cold, he was shaking uncontrollably, his teeth were chattering, the tears were rolling down his cheeks. For a moment he clung to O’Brien like a baby, curiously comforted by the heavy arm round his shoulders. He had the feeling that O’Brien was his protector, that the pain was something that came from outside, from some other source, and that it was O’Brien who would save him from it.
‘You are a slow learner, Winston,’ said O’Brien gently. ‘How can I help it?’ he blubbered. ‘How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.’
Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.’
He laid Winston down on the bed. The grip of his limbs tightened again, but the pain had ebbed away and the trembling had stopped, leaving him merely weak and cold. O’Brien motioned with his head to the man in the white coat, who had stood immobile throughout the proceedings. The man in the white coat bent down and looked closely
into Winston’s eyes, felt his pulse, laid an ear against his chest, tapped here and there, then he nodded to O’Brien.
‘Again,’ said O’Brien.
The pain flowed into Winston’s body. The needle must be at seventy, seventy-five. He had shut his eyes this time. He knew that the fingers were still there, and still four. All that mattered was somehow to stay alive until the spasm was over. He had ceased to notice whether he was crying out or not. The pain lessened again. He opened his eyes. O’Brien had drawn back the lever.
‘How many fingers, Winston?’
‘Four. I suppose there are four. I would see five if I could. I am trying to see five.’
‘Which do you wish: to persuade me that you see five, or really to see them?’
‘Really to see them.’
‘Again,’ said O’Brien.
Perhaps the needle was eighty—ninety. Winston could not intermittently remember why the pain was happening. Behind his screwed-up eyelids a forest of fingers seemed to be moving in a sort of dance, weaving in and out, disappearing behind one another and reappearing again. He was trying to count them, he could not remember why. He knew only that it was impossible to count them, and that this was somehow due to the mysterious identity between five and four. The pain died down again. When he opened his eyes it was to find that he was still seeing the same thing. Innumerable fingers, like moving trees, were still streaming past in either direction, crossing and recrossing. He shut his eyes again.

‘How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?’
‘I don’t know. I don’t know. You will kill me if you do that again. Four, five, six—in all honesty I don’t know.’
‘Better,’ said O’Brien.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com
User avatar
B. W.
Ultimate Member
Posts: 8355
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
Christian: Yes
Location: Colorado

Re: Objective Morality?

Post by B. W. »

Pros,

As Neo stated, every religion has deeds. The exception to Christianity is that deeds do not save, nor do they keep you saved, nor are they the means to earn divine favor, deeds instead are the result of the sanctifying cleansing inner work of the Holy Spirit in a believer shed aboard by the love of God within the heart (one’s inner being). This is what the bible shares – how it works.

Isaiah 26:12, Jeremiah 33:6, John 14:27, Deut 30:6, John 3:21, Eph 2:8, 9, 10c express the principle I mentioned. Unfortunately, even in Christianity, people have strayed from these and twisted earning favor, do this or that to remain saved, into rituals, etc. Most people, like yourself, Pros, confuse these against what I term what biblically based Christianity actually is. Biblically based Christianity is far different than the earning favor deeds types.

In biblically based Christianity you are taught of God by God and learn from him. The Lord develops in you a living way that learns of him, his character and nature, and instructs you from a book, the bible, thru use of free reason and discourse (Isaiah 1:18c) so you learn truth. It is the character and nature of God himself in which one finds objective moral standards which to measure our own conduct with. As human beings, we fall short of this and as Christians we rely on him to transform us out of darkness into light. We acknowledge the truth about him so his truth transforms.

For those who do not believe in object truths or objective morals, then John 3:19-20 is for such people. The confusion comes from the English translated word in the text, ‘Evil’ comes from the Greek various usages of ponērós.

John 3:19, 20, "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed."

The word ponērós has a wide range of meaning but at its core, it means to twist, warp something good into something negative. People do not like the idea of being called evil so they reject and continue twisting and warping things based on their subjective whims and like, well, remains a mess. So look at these verses again read with the basic meaning of poneros implied:

John 3:19, 20, "And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were warping-twisting. 20 For everyone practicing warping-twisting hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed (producing negative effects)."

Objective morality exposes this sin within us and thus it will present a choice before a person to either return to God and be changed by him or remain always lost and twisting things without end. In fact, your constant moral seesawing reveals well how people twist and warp things to avoid coming to the Truth: God’s objective Truth about himself and ourselves.

Herein is a truth about God. He is a God of justice and within His frame of Justice he will allow people the ability to reason independently for if not, he would not be just. He has his reasons for this, and one reason comes to test what is in the heart of the creature man to remove ponērós to those whom he foresaw would come to him so their power comes under his control justly. Ponder that for awhile. Wrestle with it. Begin to reason with God alone about it. Why not come to Christ and discover the living reality of Col 1:26, 27c…
-
-
-
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)

Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys
Proinsias
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:09 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Scotland

Re: Objective Morality?

Post by Proinsias »

deleted, double post
Last edited by Proinsias on Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Proinsias
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:09 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Scotland

Re: Objective Morality?

Post by Proinsias »

jlay:

Roughly predictable behaviour patterns is not proof of a singular objective source. If we both react in similar fashions when asked to hand over all of our cash, have a gun pointed in our face, or choose an internet forum over bashing our heads on the concrete it does not show that your theory as to the source or inspiration behind these actions is true. I imagine we have similarities in morphology and physiology alongside similar behaviour patterns and emotions. That we are both unlikely to give away our all of our money to someone who claims they think we should is no more proof of objective truth than us excreting urine tomrrow.
Humans not wanting to give away cash or die is not proof of an objective and morally good God any more than a cat feeding and protecting its kitten. In some cases giving away cash and giving up life are the actions of those convinced of a loving morally good God.
The behaviours that you are talking about, clinging to resources and relatives, are not unique to humanity. They are common to life in general, granted there are always exceptions right across the spectrum.

Some believers in objective truth cling to their money and life and other believers in objective truth give them up. It doesn't prove much beyond beliefs only directly influencing behavior to an unpredictable extent.
Again Pros, I don't believe for one minute that you consistently live by the tenets you state.
Earlier you said that as I had constructed my own world view I had no need to be consistent. Rejection of an absolute is not the same as absolute rejection of a principle.
On what grounds can you say that all religions might lead to the same place? If they do, then that is an objective truth. And if objective truth exists, then so does the law of non-contradiciton. And therefore it doesn't hold up.
On speculative grounds, the imagination, other religious thought. We're talking about life after death here, not an easily repeatable science experiment.
Your line of reasoning is not particularly strong either. I said they 'might', you say 'if' they do and then jump from this to proof of objective truth and the law of non-contradiction. If they lead to places which are exactly the same but completely different then the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold, it's like trying to imagine something fully God and fully man.

The existence of objectivity does not necessarily lead to the confirmation of the law of non-contradiction. You'd require objectivity, or basic divinity, to asses the claim properly. If there is a God I don't see why God and God's creation would be bound by human laws and rules of rhetoric.
That's because you refuse to acknowledge the law of non-contradiction. It is self-evident law of logic.
We've talked about physics, maths, logic, and now you're down to evidence of the self.
Self evident laws? I think therefore it is!

Gravity is gravity, and Zen isn't zen. It works both ways.

The story was about my grandfather, not me, there was no flying involved. The standard that I employed to evaluate my grandfathers claim to be lost was that he sounded like he really believed he was lost.
In rejecting this, you would have been just as well to have typed random nonsense than to attempt a cogent reply.
In rejecting your argument I must either be insane or act insane, or both. I can't win. It's not even a case of rejection it's more a case of not having absolute faith in it. There seems to be two options:
1. total agreement
2. behaviour which is consistently inconsistent with total agreement
Proinsias
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:09 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Scotland

Re: Objective Morality?

Post by Proinsias »

neo:

I started reading 1984 over ten years ago but never finished it, found it a bit dull. Should probably try again. It's as much of a warning as to the present as it is a description of an imagined future from what I gathered. jlay has used the quote: "Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.
"
, which isn't that far removed from the scene you quote. It's not the disagreement about how many fingers are being held up that gets me in that passage, it's that one human is torturing another human into agreement.
Pro, Every religion has some deeds to follow, you say Buddhism is no-deed religion, well if they follow their code of conduct, it is a deed.
Christianity has codes of conduct. Most religions do. Some also have a get out clause. Christianity is one of these. Buddhism is another. It doesn't seem rare to have a system where one should abide by a code but also be able to break the code and still fair well after death. From what I've heard Islam teaches union with God through surrender to God and deeds. Christianity teaches that only faith matters in the afterlife, but manages to lean heavily upon deeds which don't weigh anything.

My favourite quote on freedom is from Kris Kristofferson:
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose
Since the need to imagine the greatest love of all, you have to assume an objective motive, but the method you apply to materialize that objectivity is your subjective mind. Yet the need is objective as long as you agree that love exists but you endorse it. vice versa would be that there is no such thing as love as if you think like it, you can just produce love out of no where. But even if you produce a love in yourself that doesn't mean that love doesn't exists elsewhere than your mind. It just means you produced it, but you couldn't have done it if you had never really heard about it or knew what it was. so in your mind or from others or by revelation, anyway around it, love would have to exist, even if it is a thought before you invent it. but even if you invent it by accident there would be a climbing need for you to try to invent something in the fist place. As i quoted above, you have to be conscious to do something that is not expected of you. If you are not conscious and accidentally do it, then it just shows that you were not aware of it in the first place yet the underlying principle that you found existed before you.
I don't think I have a need to imagine the greatest love of all. I can't say that love exists, it's one of the most confusing words there is. In short love for me is putting those most closely related to, biologically and socially, first.
You may, of course choose to believe and practice whatever you think is best, but there are flaws in there as well. So I wouldn't be too sure about being unsure.
I don't think I am being too sure. I'm just drawing attention to the notion that being unsure is pretty standard, hence faith.
User avatar
B. W.
Ultimate Member
Posts: 8355
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
Christian: Yes
Location: Colorado

Re: Objective Morality?

Post by B. W. »

Proinsias wrote:I don't think I have a need to imagine the greatest love of all. I can't say that love exists, it's one of the most confusing words there is. In short love for me is putting those most closely related to, biologically and socially, first....I don't think I am being too sure. I'm just drawing attention to the notion that being unsure is pretty standard, hence faith.
This is because Zen cannot have truth nor can accept any truth as it only can teach doubt.

You have faith in Doubt – that is what Zen teaches. Therefore Doubt is an objective truth…

Zen can never remove doubt and produces moral fluctuation fueled by doubt. The world remains a mess, people lost in moral doubt. Not a nice place to be, nowhere, caught up in the hum of nothingness as you are. Even you must doubt your own contrived feelings of bliss – you have nothing to stand on as you rest on quicksand, comfortably numb to God knocking on your door, seeking to awake you from your plight – the one you doubt about having! You must turn away from Zen-isms and seek the Solid Rock of Christ to be free from your firm faith in doubt.

That choice is up to you to make, which again shows the God is Just; henceforth, such justice as shown to you by permitting choice proves there is a moral absolute called Justice that is based solely upon God’s own moral character. You can doubt this all you want but the choice nevertheless remains factual.
-
-
-
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)

Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys
User avatar
jlay
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3613
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:47 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist

Re: Objective Morality?

Post by jlay »

Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.
", which isn't that far removed from the scene you quote. It's not the disagreement about how many fingers are being held up that gets me in that passage, it's that one human is torturing another human into agreement.
Do you understand what is being communicated here?
Your response tells me you do not. That you get caught up on your repulsion of being beaten into agreement, and miss the central truth this graphic use of humor conveys. Whish is to demonstrate to stubborn people that the law of non-contradiction is a reality. I am utterly amazed at how you are unable to read and understand these examples. You seem to take it as if someone is really proposing
The reason I ask, is that the quote is not a Western thought. This was coined by a Muslim philosopher. But it is very easy to understand the truth and humor in it. Apparently it escapes your mind.
Roughly predictable behaviour patterns is not proof of a singular objective source. If we both react in similar fashions when asked to hand over all of our cash, have a gun pointed in our face, or choose an internet forum over bashing our heads on the concrete it does not show that your theory as to the source or inspiration behind these actions is true.
Pros, I've already explained this is not my point. I'm not going to repeat myself. Either you will read what I typed, and what I was conveying through these examples. Or, you will stubbornly keep arguing against things I am not proposing. Your choice. I've even taken time to go bacl and explain in detail what I was driving at. I've even stopped to explain what it means when someone says, 'we'd be better off beating our head against the wall.' These are common expressions in American culture. It is figurative, not literal. Are you seriously saying that you don't understand what this statement means? Do you think I am advocating someone literally beating their head? Newsflash: I am not. It is a figurative expression to communicate the futility of arguing with a stubborn person. Why are you having so much trouble with this? Hmmm, maybe I just explained it.

I don't know where you are from, but I would advise you to read up on these phrases and what they mean. They are common in the English language. As is the use of analogy. It is a definate road block in reasoning with you.
-“The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hands of the exegete.” John Walvoord

"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious
Proinsias
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:09 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Scotland

Re: Objective Morality?

Post by Proinsias »

B. W. wrote:
Proinsias wrote:I don't think I have a need to imagine the greatest love of all. I can't say that love exists, it's one of the most confusing words there is. In short love for me is putting those most closely related to, biologically and socially, first....I don't think I am being too sure. I'm just drawing attention to the notion that being unsure is pretty standard, hence faith.
This is because Zen cannot have truth nor can accept any truth as it only can teach doubt.

You have faith in Doubt – that is what Zen teaches. Therefore Doubt is an objective truth…

Zen can never remove doubt and produces moral fluctuation fueled by doubt. The world remains a mess, people lost in moral doubt. Not a nice place to be, nowhere, caught up in the hum of nothingness as you are. Even you must doubt your own contrived feelings of bliss – you have nothing to stand on as you rest on quicksand, comfortably numb to God knocking on your door, seeking to awake you from your plight – the one you doubt about having! You must turn away from Zen-isms and seek the Solid Rock of Christ to be free from your firm faith in doubt.
If you doubt that Zen can never remove doubt then your Christianity does not remove doubt either. I would say it's more being aware of feelings of faith and doubt, and notions of subjective/objective.
You say cling to the rock, zen says let go and go with the the current. Christianity needs a rock solid base one can have faith in and depend on, zen doesn't.
B. W. wrote:That choice is up to you to make, which again shows the God is Just; henceforth, such justice as shown to you by permitting choice proves there is a moral absolute called Justice that is based solely upon God’s own moral character. You can doubt this all you want but the choice nevertheless remains factual.
-
-
-
The idea that you thinking you could have done things differently to the way you did do them does not prove that God is just for me.
It's circular, your reasoning skills prove that God is reasonable and gave you those skills. You can have faith in this all you want but it doesn't make it fact.
Do other forms of life aside from humanity and God have choice? Is there is difference between choice and free will?

Reading Pooh and the Philosophers on the bus today I came across this:
Bishop Berkeley wrote:There was a young man who said God,
must find it exceedingly odd
when he finds that the tree
continues to be
when noone's about in the Quad.
reply:
Dear Sir, your astonishment's odd
I'm always about in the Quad
And that's why the tree
continues to be
Since observed by, yours faithfully, God
jlay wrote:
Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.
", which isn't that far removed from the scene you quote. It's not the disagreement about how many fingers are being held up that gets me in that passage, it's that one human is torturing another human into agreement.
Do you understand what is being communicated here?
Your response tells me you do not. That you get caught up on your repulsion of being beaten into agreement, and miss the central truth this graphic use of humor conveys. Whish is to demonstrate to stubborn people that the law of non-contradiction is a reality. I am utterly amazed at how you are unable to read and understand these examples. You seem to take it as if someone is really proposing
The reason I ask, is that the quote is not a Western thought. This was coined by a Muslim philosopher. But it is very easy to understand the truth and humor in it. Apparently it escapes your mind.
Yes, I get caught up in my repulsion of people being beaten and burned into agreement with anything. It's a pretty weak argument that those who disagree with the premise will submit to it under torture, but at least it's quite funny.
It may have been a figure of speech to Ibn Sīnā but it wasn't to many Christians, Christianity was quite serious about beating and burning for quite a while with very little room for humour. Muslims seem quite keen on it these days too, Christianity is on its high horse - it's older and has been through the beating and burning stage therefore others repeating it are in the wrong.

jlay wrote:
Roughly predictable behaviour patterns is not proof of a singular objective source. If we both react in similar fashions when asked to hand over all of our cash, have a gun pointed in our face, or choose an internet forum over bashing our heads on the concrete it does not show that your theory as to the source or inspiration behind these actions is true.
Pros, I've already explained this is not my point. I'm not going to repeat myself. Either you will read what I typed, and what I was conveying through these examples. Or, you will stubbornly keep arguing against things I am not proposing. Your choice. I've even taken time to go bacl and explain in detail what I was driving at. I've even stopped to explain what it means when someone says, 'we'd be better off beating our head against the wall.' These are common expressions in American culture. It is figurative, not literal. Are you seriously saying that you don't understand what this statement means? Do you think I am advocating someone literally beating their head? Newsflash: I am not. It is a figurative expression to communicate the futility of arguing with a stubborn person. Why are you having so much trouble with this? Hmmm, maybe I just explained it.

I don't know where you are from, but I would advise you to read up on these phrases and what they mean. They are common in the English language. As is the use of analogy. It is a definate road block in reasoning with you.
I'm from Scotland, lived in Glasgow all my life. I'm familiar with most of the figures of speech you use, they work fine for everyday use. When you're using analogies to explain God, the universe and everything they don't help that much unless we first agree on basic ideas like the objective/subjective division or God, which we don't.

Analogies should be explored, not just held up as take it or leave it proof imo.

The confirmation of the Christian hypothesis requires death. It's not a case of being right or wrong, it's a case of people preparing for the unknown in different ways.
User avatar
B. W.
Ultimate Member
Posts: 8355
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
Christian: Yes
Location: Colorado

Re: Objective Morality?

Post by B. W. »

Proinsias wrote:…If you doubt that Zen can never remove doubt then your Christianity does not remove doubt either. I would say it's more being aware of feelings of faith and doubt, and notions of subjective/objective.

You say cling to the rock, zen says let go and go with the the current. Christianity needs a rock solid base one can have faith in and depend on, zen doesn't.
What standard do you base Zen as Rock Solid because it goes with the flow (of the river) if there are no moral objective standards? Would not your assertion be based on an objective moral standard imposed by Zen? If objective morality does not exist, neither can Zen.

The current flow is ever changing and a mob – enemy - dictator can impose harsh morals on you, your family, country, in Zen, this is acceptable and you must take it as it is part of the flow.

Christianity needs Christ who is the Rock as we learned that the ebb and flow of the moral rivers of constant change cannot save us, but only destroy us. Our faith is in a living God from which inalienable human rights flows because God lives according to his own nature and character and will not deny himself. He alone is the Rock of stability which we all will someday must give an account for how we misuse, manipulate, exploit, abuse, His good character and nature midst the river of constant subjective moral change which creates such misusing, exploiting, manipulating, and abusing of God’s own character / nature. Zen supports that abuse as it goes with the flow of the world.

Again: What standard do you base Zen as Rock Solid because it goes with the flow (of the river) if there are no moral objective standards? Would not your assertion be based on an objective moral standard imposed by Zen? If objective morality does not exist, neither can the Zen you speak of.

Jesus of Christianity indeed removes doubt during our journey in life with its ups and downs. We draw nigh unto God – not a river of constant change. Jesus has been knocking on your heart’s door Pros, for some time now. How long will it be before you answer?
-
-
-
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)

Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys
User avatar
jlay
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3613
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:47 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist

Re: Objective Morality?

Post by jlay »

Yes, I get caught up in my repulsion of people being beaten and burned into agreement with anything. It's a pretty weak argument that those who disagree with the premise will submit to it under torture, but at least it's quite funny.
It may have been a figure of speech to Ibn Sīnā but it wasn't to many Christians, Christianity was quite serious about beating and burning for quite a while with very little room for humour. Muslims seem quite keen on it these days too, Christianity is on its high horse - it's older and has been through the beating and burning stage therefore others repeating it are in the wrong.
Pros,

You are impossible to reason with. The example is not a literal call to beat or burn anyone. Sad that you can't grasp that. Your comments above only demonstrate your examining truth claims on the distortions and wickedness of man, and not on the claims within the tenets of the faith itself.

Although, what is funny is why should anyone care if you are repulsed? What's wrong with Christians or any other group torturing someone into compliance?
-“The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hands of the exegete.” John Walvoord

"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious
Proinsias
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:09 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Scotland

Re: Objective Morality?

Post by Proinsias »

B.W,

I don't view Zen as rock solid. I'm not searching for a rock to cling to.
Yes, harsh morals can be imposed on people but going with the flow may be accepting it or cutting down those imposing it. Neither is objectively right or wrong, there is a time for peace and a time for war. Cutting men down or helping them isn't obviously good or bad to me. Warriors and healers both have their place.

Christianity is deeds based, it is based on the deeds of God at creation, the deeds of Adam & Eve, the deeds of God in the OT, the deeds of God as Jesus and the rather important deeds of those who wrote the scriptures. Christianity may not weight heavily upon deeds at the moment, but other systems would claim there is only the moment and deeds don't matter in it. You just have a rather complicated historical and theological lesson as to why deeds don't matter in the moment or eternity, which is sort of the same thing.

I came here a few years ago as I was active on an atheist forum, I signed up there to find out why atheists are atheists, and Jerry McDonald cross posted snippets from a thread here. I came here and my respect for Christianity has greatly risen since then. I believe you to be a decent, genuine human being whom I have great respect for, I have read hundreds, if not thousands, of your posts and read the book you very kindly sent me, it's on loan to Danny just now. That said I have always found your jumps in logic far beyond what I deem reasonable. It's not just you, I have pretty much the same discussions with committed atheists. Due to the sheer obviousness of the idea of objective reality God obviously does or does not exist it seems.
Personally I'm trying to build a relationship with God and Christianity is part of that, not all of that. Western philosophy is also part of it. Science is part of it. I just don't see them all clicking together to build a great theory of everything that allows us to have absolute faith that certain deeds were committed by a morally good and just God and that faith in these deeds will result in heaven for all eternity.

A religion which is based on humanity being created in the image of God and then God becoming human to save humanity from its sins could be the product of humanity or God. It's tough to say which, well for me at least.

Faith depends on doubt as doubt depends on faith. Christianity does not remove doubt. A Christian does not doubt any less, a Christian just doubts non-Christian thought instead of Christian thought. You're not eliminating doubt, you're absolutely doubting everything you don't see your Christianity agreeing with.
Complete faith in anything will obviously eliminate doubt in that thing, but it won't eliminate doubt.
User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY

Re: Objective Morality?

Post by Byblos »

Proinsias wrote:Complete faith in anything will obviously eliminate doubt in that thing, but it won't eliminate doubt.
Is this your personal opinion? I certainly disagree with it. Not even 'complete' faith (whatever that means) will eliminate doubt. Doubt is not the opposite of faith, it is part and parcel of it. Doubt and free will go hand in hand.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
User avatar
Gman
Old School
Posts: 6081
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 10:36 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Northern California

Re: Objective Morality?

Post by Gman »

Just my two cents here guys.. I believe we will always have some doubt in our lives. I know I face it everyday... But when we become perfect as He is, that will be done away with.
The heart cannot rejoice in what the mind rejects as false - Galileo

We learn from history that we do not learn from history - Georg Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy, think about such things. -Philippians 4:8
Post Reply