Evidence for God from Science

Byblos wrote:

waynepii wrote:

Byblos wrote:Wayne, I really do understand what you're asking and that's what Jac will be addressing in the other thread hopefully soon. My question to you now is this: if objective morality is unknowable even if it exists, then you have no basis to judge anyone by any kind of universal standard. Can we at least agree on that?

People are judged against the code of conduct established by their society(ies).

Judging any given society's code of conduct is more problematic. IMO The "best" criteria for evaluating a code of conduct is equality of justice (ie pretty much based on the Golden Rule).

Your question implies that objective morality exists and is knowable. This brings us back to the same old question - how do we know what objective morality "says" about any given issue? Why is this question so difficult to answer?

I thought that's what the other thread was for, to answer your question on how we can know (epistemology) objective morality (ontology). That's what you and Jac are attempting to nail down.

Jac is now back, so I'll be pursuing the other thread.

And no, my question does not presuppose the existence of objective morality as it could be asked one way or the other so here it is again: if objective morality does not exist or is unknowable, on what basis can you call slavery, pedophilia, genocide abhorrent? They might be abhorrent to you but works of art to others. Can you deny that with the position you espouse? You cannot and still maintain internal consistency, sorry.

Most current societies consider slavery, pedophilia, and genocide abhorrent. In particular, my society does so. As do I. The Golden Rule would indicate slavery and genocide are "wrong". Pedophilia is more of a cultural taboo.

How does objective morality relate to the fact that some societies DID (and some still do) consider slavery, pedophilia, or genocide acceptable?

waynepii wrote:Most current societies consider slavery, pedophilia, and genocide abhorrent. In particular, my society does so. As do I. The Golden Rule would indicate slavery and genocide are "wrong". Pedophilia is more of a cultural taboo.

How does objective morality relate to the fact that some societies DID (and some still do) consider slavery, pedophilia, or genocide acceptable?

Now who's not answering a simple question?

if objective morality does not exist or is unknowable, on what basis can you call slavery, pedophilia, genocide abhorrent?

Byblos wrote:

waynepii wrote:Most current societies consider slavery, pedophilia, and genocide abhorrent. In particular, my society does so. As do I. The Golden Rule would indicate slavery and genocide are "wrong". Pedophilia is more of a cultural taboo.

How does objective morality relate to the fact that some societies DID (and some still do) consider slavery, pedophilia, or genocide acceptable?

Now who's not answering a simple question?

That WAS my answer! I repeat - "Most current societies consider slavery, pedophilia, and genocide abhorrent. In particular, my society does so. As do I. The Golden Rule would indicate slavery and genocide are "wrong". Pedophilia is more of a cultural taboo."

How does objective morality indicate slavery, pedophilia, and genocide are or are not abhorrent?

As a way of expressing my doubts concerning objective reality, consider suicide bombers. What is their motivation? Although monetary rewards for their families play some part, it seems that most are convinced that they are sacrificing their lives for God and for which they will get an immediate heavenly reward. In short, they are doing a very "moral" thing. Is their "objective morality meter" seriously out of whack? Are they deranged? Deluded? All of the above? What about their friends and family, many of whom seem to support and applaud their decision? It seems to me their society is operating on a very different morality than ours. How does objective morality "allow" such divergent local moralities?

waynepii wrote:Absolutely.

All social animals have well defined codes of conduct (aka morals) that control inter-personal relationships. Without these codes of conduct, their respective societies would quickly disintegrate. Since most social animals are not particularly adapted to survive individually, they benefit greatly by operating in concert. Whether this "morality" is the result of evolution or a good design may be debatable, but its existence certainly does not "prove" the existence of God.

You are talking here about a morality of the pack, which is utterly distinguishable from universal morality and altruistic virtue. Morals or "ethics" a formed by a community to help the community in the quest for cohesion and stability. This is a morality that, while to be congratulated and encouraged, differs dramatically from a universal morality that forms an entire civilisation and embeds itself into the unconsciousness of every decent and aspirational human being. Hence you can thank Christianity for the remarkable order - as opposed to a dramatic disorder that you would find in a godless civilisation - that you see around you.

Now you might say that religion is man-made, and you would be right but for one factor: the Christian wants to hold that Christianity is made by man and inspired by God.

Dan

waynepii wrote:As a way of expressing my doubts concerning objective reality, consider suicide bombers. What is their motivation? Although monetary rewards for their families play some part, it seems that most are convinced that they are sacrificing their lives for God and for which they will get an immediate heavenly reward. In short, they are doing a very "moral" thing. Is their "objective morality meter" seriously out of whack? Are they deranged? Deluded? All of the above? What about their friends and family, many of whom seem to support and applaud their decision? It seems to me their society is operating on a very different morality than ours. How does objective morality "allow" such divergent local moralities?

Wayne, you really should look in to the empirical studies of why people are driven to suicide bombings. Religious belief, whatever the kind, is neither necessary nor sufficient in the creation of suicide bombers. The fundamental trigger is political. It is the desire to force the withdrawal of a foreign occupying force from a land which it is believed belongs to an "oppressed people." These potential suicide bombers have bare resources and are motivated enough POLITICALLY to resort to suicide bombings. The reference to "paradise" and other such rhetoric are merely secondary. Never forget it was the Tamil Tigers who invented the "suicide vest." So you are fundamentally wrong in your assumption that religion is the primary cause.

Dan

waynepii wrote:

if objective morality does not exist or is unknowable, on what basis can you call slavery, pedophilia, genocide abhorrent?

Byblos wrote:

waynepii wrote:Most current societies consider slavery, pedophilia, and genocide abhorrent. In particular, my society does so. As do I. The Golden Rule would indicate slavery and genocide are "wrong". Pedophilia is more of a cultural taboo.

How does objective morality relate to the fact that some societies DID (and some still do) consider slavery, pedophilia, or genocide acceptable?

Now who's not answering a simple question?

That WAS my answer! I repeat - "Most current societies consider slavery, pedophilia, and genocide abhorrent. In particular, my society does so. As do I. The Golden Rule would indicate slavery and genocide are "wrong". Pedophilia is more of a cultural taboo."How does objective morality indicate slavery, pedophilia, and genocide are or are not abhorrent?

So it seems GR is really meaningless then as itself is defined in light of societal moral flavor of the day. Yesterday slavery was okay, today it's not, maybe tomorrow it becomes fashionable again, is that it? In other words, it is completely subjective (albeit perhaps at a grander scale).

Byblos wrote:

waynepii wrote:

if objective morality does not exist or is unknowable, on what basis can you call slavery, pedophilia, genocide abhorrent?

Byblos wrote:

waynepii wrote:Most current societies consider slavery, pedophilia, and genocide abhorrent. In particular, my society does so. As do I. The Golden Rule would indicate slavery and genocide are "wrong". Pedophilia is more of a cultural taboo.

How does objective morality relate to the fact that some societies DID (and some still do) consider slavery, pedophilia, or genocide acceptable?

Now who's not answering a simple question?

That WAS my answer! I repeat - "Most current societies consider slavery, pedophilia, and genocide abhorrent. In particular, my society does so. As do I. The Golden Rule would indicate slavery and genocide are "wrong". Pedophilia is more of a cultural taboo."How does objective morality indicate slavery, pedophilia, and genocide are or are not abhorrent?

So it seems GR is really meaningless then as itself is defined in light of societal moral flavor of the day. Yesterday slavery was okay, today it's not, maybe tomorrow it becomes fashionable again, is that it? In other words, it is completely subjective (albeit perhaps at a grander scale).

How do you get that? The GR will always indicate that slavery is wrong (as an example). Whether any given person or society chooses to abide by the guidance provided by the GR IS subject to the "societal moral flavor of the day". But the GR *always gives the same answer to any pertinent question.

*people have tried to justify violating the GR from time to time ("slaves like being enslaved", "slaves cannot survive on their own", etc, etc, ... )

waynepii wrote:How do you get that? The GR will always indicate that slavery is wrong (as an example). Whether any given person or society chooses to abide by the guidance provided by the GR IS subject to the "societal moral flavor of the day". But the GR *always gives the same answer to any pertinent question.

*people have tried to justify violating the GR from time to time ("slaves like being enslaved", "slaves cannot survive on their own", etc, etc, ... )

You've really lost me now. On the one hand you say objective morality doesn't exist and even if it does it is unknowable, and on the other you say 'GR always gives the same answer to any pertinent question'. If we called GR a form of objective morality (which I already said I wouldn't object to out of hand) would you then say that OM exists and is knowable? (remember , as per your definition, GR always gives the same answer so it's not subject to societal changes).

Perhaps the question should be:
"Where do OBJECTIVE moral values come from (originate)?"

rodyshusband wrote:Perhaps the question should be:
"Where do OBJECTIVE moral values come from (originate)?"

Yes but first we have to nail down whether or not it exists.

Byblos wrote:

waynepii wrote:How do you get that? The GR will always indicate that slavery is wrong (as an example). Whether any given person or society chooses to abide by the guidance provided by the GR IS subject to the "societal moral flavor of the day". But the GR *always gives the same answer to any pertinent question.

*people have tried to justify violating the GR from time to time ("slaves like being enslaved", "slaves cannot survive on their own", etc, etc, ... )

You've really lost me now. On the one hand you say objective morality doesn't exist and even if it does it is unknowable, and on the other you say 'GR always gives the same answer to any pertinent question'. If we called GR a form of objective morality (which I already said I wouldn't object to out of hand) would you then say that OM exists and is knowable? (remember , as per your definition, GR always gives the same answer so it's not subject to societal changes).

Early on in a different thread (AIR one claiming objective morality as "proof of God" or that "morality can't exist unless God exists"), I pointed to the GR as an example that morality could be objective in many circumstances and it didn't depend on the existence of God. This was met with all sorts of reasons that the GR was subjective, examples of situations in which the GR didn't work, and a lot of statements that showed a complete misunderstanding of the GR.

I DO (and always have) consider(ed) the GR to be objective in many (but certainly not all) cases. Insofar as the GR is accepted as objective, it forms a knowable basis for objective morality. BUT since the GR is strictly a human-based concept, the limited objective morality neither proves nor disproves the existence of God. Further, the GR has a tendency to give answers to a few questions that are not what some religious people want to hear - example: Q "Would you want to be told whom you could or could not marry (assuming that person was able to be married (of age and not married to another) and agreed to marry you? It's fairly likely your answer would be "no". Conclusion - Don't attempt to deny marriage to others such as homosexual couples.

As applies to this thread, I stand by my original answer - absolutely, morals can and do exist without relying on God or the Bible.

It is my understanding that the golden rule is based upon two ideas. One being roughly "do unto others as you would have then do unto you" and the other being roughly "Do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you". Please correct me if I am wrong.

Both statements have subjectivity at their heart. I may be missing the point entirely but I'm struggling to see how the golden rule can be objective whilst at the same time being what I want and what I don't want.

Wayne, at the hear tof the other thread was the idea that IF morality was something the evolved, then any morality we have today, EVEN if we use the GR, is simply a convenient evolutionary solution and, as such, is not any better than the morality of animals.

If our morality is simply an evolved system, then it is no better than the kill or be killed, dominate or be submissive, maintain your territory and your family at all costs. Chimpanzees that rage against invaders, wolves that go on killing rampages, and lions that kill the cubs from other males are just as valid from a morality perspective as the GR.

While we may say that the GR is great and objective, it all becomes futile when we realize that it is certainly not the only social system that has evolved.

You can't have it either way....if morality has evolved, then nothing is inherently right or wrong, it is only the current evolutionary solution....nothing more, nothing less. That we view the GR with such respect is merely the result of generations of social selective pressue.....BUT IT IS NOT REALLY RIGHT OR WRONG MERELY WHAT HAS BEEN THE RESULT OF THAT SELECTIVE PRESSURE.

You orginally asked about morality without God. If this is so, then the GR nothing more that a successful social system, BUT IT IS NO MORE RIGHT THAN THE ETHICS OF OTHER ANIMALS.

And if if it no more right than other animals, THAN IF A GROUP OF HUMANS WITH ANOTHER MORALITY DEVELOPS OR REGRESSES INTO MORE SAVAGE ANIMAL ETHICS, THEN THAT IS JUST AS RIGHT, as long as it is successful. If these groups of humans, nothing more than animals of course, are successful in breeding, then go to it and have at it, it is just as valid a social code.

Bottom line: I don't argue with you as regards to the validity of the GR....I argue that you cannot hold to it as a valid conclusion from your worldview.

From an evolutionary standpoint:
The mafia boss that kills non-family can be held to have a valid ethical set of standards: I don't want other genes and competitors out there...(ie the male lion kills cubs from other males)

The ruthless lying man who provides for his family is following a valid animal morality....

Gang violence can be akin to mobs of chimpanzees, groups of animals that group together to protect each other

From an evolutionary standpoint (since we are talking about morality without God), why is the GR more right than any of these??!?!

OK, you've given me a laundry list of what is supposedly wrong with my worldview. How about giving me some justification as how yours is better and why?