Evidence for God from Science

Beanybag wrote:Also, subjective morality is not even incompatible with theism - God does not necessarily create objective morality.

Not to really get involved in this thread, as I'm not educated enough in philosophy to really contribute much worthwhile and there are others (such as Jac) who are much much more qualified and able to explain things well. But, I just wanted to address this one point, and say that while this statement may be true, it isn't true of Christian theism. The Bible clearly, throughout its entirety, says that morality is objective and that it is from G-d.

Thanks for the response Jac. I feel I have much to learn from you. As for morals versus ethics.. I don't have a way to distinguish them personally, I use them interchangeably. I'll keep in mind your definitions though.

Jac3510 wrote:What you will find us arguing here (I think correctly) is that there is no objective grounding for our moral systems in a non-theistic framework. Most non-theists tend toward some sort of utilitarian ethics (cf. J.S. Mill), but you'll find that most of us think that fails. Some Christians tend toward Kant's deontology. I, and several of us here, think that fails as well.

As for the objective grounding.. I'm not sure this is a problem. I don't think it's necessary that they have an objective grounding - subjective groundings are neither arbitrary nor just an opinion, like people tend to assert. I'd say nontheist morality can be in the middle ground between entirely subjective and perfectly objective, and I'll try to make this case later. But does it matter what the basis is? People can choose to be moral or they can choose not to, objective basis or no. Immoral people will still sin and moral people will still do good. I used to think that a lack of subjective grounding meant all morals were relative, but a few different philosophers (Mackie in Ethics: Inventing right and wrong, to name one) convinced me otherwise. The question that ethics needs to answer is... what is it to me? I'm not sure any ethical or moral framework can answer this beyond all recourse although objective framing of morality in reason is a start. But misologists exist and much evil is not done in the name of reason but emotion or ignorance.

I'm very much against utilitarian ethics and I don't see why people would use them as they both require perfect knowledge and an objective agent. I do like deontology, however, and consequentialism is derivable given deontology, but I know it's not sufficient. I tend to look at two angles of morality - morality from the perspective of a society and morality from the perspective of the individual. Morality is what is best to a society and to an individual, and the two must work together to ensure the two goals line up. I have a lot more to add on the topic in my thread, however.

cheezerrox wrote:

Beanybag wrote:Also, subjective morality is not even incompatible with theism - God does not necessarily create objective morality.

Not to really get involved in this thread, as I'm not educated enough in philosophy to really contribute much worthwhile and there are others (such as Jac) who are much much more qualified and able to explain things well. But, I just wanted to address this one point, and say that while this statement may be true, it isn't true of Christian theism. The Bible clearly, throughout its entirety, says that morality is objective and that it is from G-d.

This does not mean it is not subjective. When we say morals are either objective or subjective, we mean they are objectively or subjectively prescriptive - it answers the question, how bound am I to this code, what is it to me in what way? The Christian God can create morals and they can be absolute while still only subjectively binding and they would be subject to God because they are subject to the Universe God created and thus to God - but they will be seperate. This can be argued through scripture since I don't even think the word 'objective' is in the bible.

Beanybag wrote:Thanks for the response Jac. I feel I have much to learn from you. As for morals versus ethics.. I don't have a way to distinguish them personally, I use them interchangeably. I'll keep in mind your definitions though.

Morals VS Ethics. There was an episode of NCIS where the character "Ducky" used this explanation to distinguish between morality and ethics. "The ethical man knows he shouldn't cheat on his wife, but the moral man wouldn't."

I suppose I should maybe try and lead you with the questioning a little bit, I'm not sure if we're getting to the answer. Unless, perhaps, you think what is good is beyond our understanding? Do you think what you ought to do should have any considerations on the future? Or should it only have considerations with respect to the action? Or perhaps neither/both?

We all have an "inherent" sense of right and wrong, HOW much that sense is developed or even acknowledged is dependent on the culture.

Why do you think societies have morals? Do those in power only wish to control the minority? Is a sense of fairness irrational? Are double-standards irrational? What ought a society do?

Morals in a society are societies attempt to "put into action" the ingrained knowledge of "right and wrong" that we have.

The problem is that in society, we tend to make things relative ( good for us is best, bad for them is ok, if still good for us) and that is what causes conflict.
Raping and pillaging are ok when done to "THEM" but not cool when done to Us.

Morality can't be based on nature or even on being rational, why?
Because in nature, many horrific things happen that we find as wrong, even if they are rational.
Infanticide, incest, genocide and such.
We can find in nature and in rational thinking, ways to justify the most horrific behaviours that we still KNOW to be wrong.

You've said a lot about what morality is similar to or what morality isn't, but what about what you think it IS?

Beanybag wrote:You've said a lot about what morality is similar to or what morality isn't, but what about what you think it IS?

Oh, I agree with the "mainstream" dictionary definition of morality and morals BUT those definitions are just that, they tell us what it means but not what it IS.
I think that morals, or what we call morals, is mans attempt to put into practice that "guiding light" of right and wrong that God gave us, what made us in "His Image", what made us more than just "animals" ( hairless, talking apes if you will).
Morals and Morality is man's attempt at please God by doing what MAN KNOWS God wants.
The DEGREE to which we are able to do that is dependent on HOW MUCH of a role God plays in Us.

Beanybag wrote:This does not mean it is not subjective. When we say morals are either objective or subjective, we mean they are objectively or subjectively prescriptive - it answers the question, how bound am I to this code, what is it to me in what way? The Christian God can create morals and they can be absolute while still only subjectively binding and they would be subject to God because they are subject to the Universe God created and thus to God - but they will be seperate. This can be argued through scripture since I don't even think the word 'objective' is in the bible.

I think I see what you mean here, but wouldn't being "subject to God" not make a difference as to whether they are objective. First, God doesn't change, so being subject to him means that they won't ever change, and second being subject to God seems a rather meaningless distinction to make. God, as defined by classical theism, is the metaphysically supreme being. In those terms, saying that morality is subject to God is like saying that morality is subject to reality existing, isn't it? I'm certainly no theologist, but that's what I get from it.

Icthus wrote:

Beanybag wrote:This does not mean it is not subjective. When we say morals are either objective or subjective, we mean they are objectively or subjectively prescriptive - it answers the question, how bound am I to this code, what is it to me in what way? The Christian God can create morals and they can be absolute while still only subjectively binding and they would be subject to God because they are subject to the Universe God created and thus to God - but they will be seperate. This can be argued through scripture since I don't even think the word 'objective' is in the bible.

I think I see what you mean here, but wouldn't being "subject to God" not make a difference as to whether they are objective. First, God doesn't change, so being subject to him means that they won't ever change, and second being subject to God seems a rather meaningless distinction to make. God, as defined by classical theism, is the metaphysically supreme being. In those terms, saying that morality is subject to God is like saying that morality is subject to reality existing, isn't it? I'm certainly no theologist, but that's what I get from it.

Well, God is in many ways subject to the laws of logic. While he is acting in the Universe, he would be subject to logic and the laws of morality as well. But, if he created both, they would both be ultimately subject to him. But, that aside, that only has to do with the moral grounding and not the moral prescriptive power, which is what I'm referring to. It would allow for subjective values but that doesn't make the values any less meaningful because they are not objective or inherent, I think. They certainly aren't arbitrary and they make goodness a realer choice.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Beanybag wrote:You've said a lot about what morality is similar to or what morality isn't, but what about what you think it IS?

Oh, I agree with the "mainstream" dictionary definition of morality and morals BUT those definitions are just that, they tell us what it means but not what it IS.
I think that morals, or what we call morals, is mans attempt to put into practice that "guiding light" of right and wrong that God gave us, what made us in "His Image", what made us more than just "animals" ( hairless, talking apes if you will).
Morals and Morality is man's attempt at please God by doing what MAN KNOWS God wants.
The DEGREE to which we are able to do that is dependent on HOW MUCH of a role God plays in Us.

Okay, it seems we're approaching an answer here, but it's still a little difficult to discern. Morality is behaving in a manner in which God would behave, yes? It is trying to be perfectly good or perfectly right. But what does it mean to be good? Is it adhering to virtues or beatitudes? Obeying the commandments of God? What is it that God wants?

Beanybag wrote:Well, God is in many ways subject to the laws of logic. While he is acting in the Universe, he would be subject to logic and the laws of morality as well. But, if he created both, they would both be ultimately subject to him. But, that aside, that only has to do with the moral grounding and not the moral prescriptive power, which is what I'm referring to. It would allow for subjective values but that doesn't make the values any less meaningful because they are not objective or inherent, I think. They certainly aren't arbitrary and they make goodness a realer choice.

Beanybag wrote:Okay, it seems we're approaching an answer here, but it's still a little difficult to discern. Morality is behaving in a manner in which God would behave, yes? It is trying to be perfectly good or perfectly right. But what does it mean to be good? Is it adhering to virtues or beatitudes? Obeying the commandments of God? What is it that God wants?

Consciously or otherwise you are still trying to smuggle in platonic ideas of properties and their existing independently. We (I at least) categorically reject this concept. As I've explained many times before, God did NOT create morality, or the laws of logic, or any other property to which He is bound. Properties themselves do not exist without God (in fact I would argue properties existing independently is a meaningless concept but that's going too far into metaphysics).

God IS morality; God IS logic. It is nonsensical to state God created morality or logic, it would be the equivalent of saying X created X. This is what you need to understand Beany (and why I referred you to classical philosophy and divine simplicity).

Okay, it seems we're approaching an answer here, but it's still a little difficult to discern. Morality is behaving in a manner in which God would behave, yes? It is trying to be perfectly good or perfectly right. But what does it mean to be good? Is it adhering to virtues or beatitudes? Obeying the commandments of God? What is it that God wants?

Not so much behaving as God would behave ( or want us to behave) but being like God as we are created in HIS Image.
It is trying to live IN God because we CAN'T be moral without God, we fail because we need God to be complete and in being complete we are final moral (although moral is just the name we give it).
The commandments, the beatitudes are mere "pointers" to the goal, the goal of being one with God.
Without them ( the commandments and virtues and beatitudes) we would not know "for sure" what we are lacking ( Like Paul said, we needed the law to point out our sin), they are the starting points of morality, not the end goals. The end goal is ONENESS with God.

Byblos wrote:Consciously or otherwise you are still trying to smuggle in platonic ideas of properties and their existing independently. We (I at least) categorically reject this concept. As I've explained many times before, God did NOT create morality, or the laws of logic, or any other property to which He is bound. Properties themselves do not exist without God (in fact I would argue properties existing independently is a meaningless concept but that's going too far into metaphysics).

God IS morality; God IS logic. It is nonsensical to state God created morality or logic, it would be the equivalent of saying X created X. This is what you need to understand Beany (and why I referred you to classical philosophy and divine simplicity).

I've read up a bit on divine simplicity, I know what it says. However, not everyone would seem to ascribe to this belief about God.

PaulSacramento wrote:Not so much behaving as God would behave ( or want us to behave) but being like God as we are created in HIS Image.
It is trying to live IN God because we CAN'T be moral without God, we fail because we need God to be complete and in being complete we are final moral (although moral is just the name we give it).
The commandments, the beatitudes are mere "pointers" to the goal, the goal of being one with God.
Without them ( the commandments and virtues and beatitudes) we would not know "for sure" what we are lacking ( Like Paul said, we needed the law to point out our sin), they are the starting points of morality, not the end goals. The end goal is ONENESS with God.

And so the question remains, then.. how do we know what God wants? You leave lots of room for interpretation right now. That's fine if that's what you want, and we all have to try and find what being Godly means through reflection and introspection. What if there are new prophets who are constantly adding to scripture and updating it for us, but we no longer can distinguish who is what (which brings up the question, are you Roman Catholic?)? Are there any more prophets after Christ? How can we know if, for instance, cloning a human being is right or wrong?

Beanybag wrote:I've read up a bit on divine simplicity, I know what it says. However, not everyone would seem to ascribe to this belief about God.

Well they should. After all, it does answer all objections.

And so the question remains, then.. how do we know what God wants? You leave lots of room for interpretation right now. That's fine if that's what you want, and we all have to try and find what being Godly means through reflection and introspection. What if there are new prophets who are constantly adding to scripture and updating it for us, but we no longer can distinguish who is what (which brings up the question, are you Roman Catholic?)? Are there any more prophets after Christ? How can we know if, for instance, cloning a human being is right or wrong?

I am Christian and while I do not belong to any particular denomination, I am catholic in the sense of the word - Universalist.
Well, we have always had "interpretations", since the first time God spoke to Man and even more so since Man put down God's word on "paper" as it were.
We have to take into account the ways in which God reveals Himself to Us, not just the bible (though the bible is indispensable) but the universe He created and by the Holy Spirit that guides all that believe in Christ as Lord and Saviour. There are no more prophets after Christ for a Christian because after Christ came the Holy Spirit. A christian MUST be guided by his/her own personal conscience and that conscience is "balanced" by the bible and God revealed in our World.
The responsibility is NOT on "prophets" or on "teachers" or on "interpreters" because ALL of them are subject to the believer accepting what they say ( or rejecting it), long gone are the days of "He told me so and he has authority", no more excuses for the believer because of the HS and God revealed Via His living word Christ and His written word the bible and the universe we live in and can relate to, because of these things EVERY believer is able to decide for himself/herself WITH the grace of God, what is right and wrong and THEY are responsible for the consequences of that decision, no one else.

Byblos wrote:

Beanybag wrote:I've read up a bit on divine simplicity, I know what it says. However, not everyone would seem to ascribe to this belief about God.

Well they should. After all, it does answer all objections.

Byblos, I have to admit, I've tried to read the Divine Simplicity thread, and I just don't understand it. Maybe I'll give it another read, and it may sink in.