Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

The Scriptures against adultery and homosexuality are so numerous, so blatantly clear and undeniable

That's a great point, Philip. Usually in an adulterous, sexual relationship, both people are consenting, and in many cases, they also love each other. A sexual adulterous relationship is wrong, just like a sexual, homosexual relationship is wrong. Whether or not there is "love", or mutual consent, involved in either, is irrelevant.

Yep, consent can't be a factor in deciding what is morally correct or incorrect.

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

The Scriptures against adultery and homosexuality are so numerous, so blatantly clear and undeniable

That's a great point, Philip. Usually in an adulterous, sexual relationship, both people are consenting, and in many cases, they also love each other. A sexual adulterous relationship is wrong, just like a sexual, homosexual relationship is wrong. Whether or not there is "love", or mutual consent, involved in either, is irrelevant.

Yep, consent can't be a factor in deciding what is morally correct or incorrect.

Paul, I think it's a great point to show how consent and love may be present in an adulterous, sexual relationship, because just about everyone sees adultery as wrong. Homosexual sex is wrong, even if we may think that there's no harm in a consentual, loving, sexual act. Just because someone thinks people should be able to love whoever they want, if it's consentual, doesn't make the act ok. The parallel between adulterous sex, and homosexual sex, is powerful, in showing if one is wrong, then the other is wrong, by the same standard.

Yes, and when we resort to the virtuosic, natural Aristotlean "ethics" of scripture, we may be able to reject consequentialism. We can say things are wrong because we have accepted the other side of the Euthyphro's dilemma, the other side of the coin. Things are moral because God commands them, suffering or not! Even though a study of ethics would reveal that a legalistic, virtuosic ethical system is typically for those who are less educated and less ethically knowledgeable. This is perhaps why consent and pedophilia were not mentioned in the bible - complex ethical ideas such as this were too ahead of their time. But this ethical system will be perfectly applicable today, somehow. So discard consequences, discard consent, discard costs and benefits, adhere to the law and to the virtues.

But, if you cannot use consequentialism, how can you say that murder is worse than lying? Why then would fifty murders be worse than fifty lies? You cannot appeal to the consequences. Indeed, this makes more sense when we consider the commandments from the exile. Death and exile is awarded for each sin because each sin is equally sinful. By what measure can you say any sin is worse than any other? Why then shouldn't all legal punishment be death/LWOP?

RickD wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

RickD wrote:

The Scriptures against adultery and homosexuality are so numerous, so blatantly clear and undeniable

That's a great point, Philip. Usually in an adulterous, sexual relationship, both people are consenting, and in many cases, they also love each other. A sexual adulterous relationship is wrong, just like a sexual, homosexual relationship is wrong. Whether or not there is "love", or mutual consent, involved in either, is irrelevant.

Yep, consent can't be a factor in deciding what is morally correct or incorrect.

Paul, I think it's a great point to show how consent and love may be present in an adulterous, sexual relationship, because just about everyone sees adultery as wrong. Homosexual sex is wrong, even if we may think that there's no harm in a consentual, loving, sexual act. Just because someone thinks people should be able to love whoever they want, if it's consentual, doesn't make the act ok. The parallel between adulterous sex, and homosexual sex, is powerful, in showing if one is wrong, then the other is wrong, by the same standard.

No, not everyone would think adulterous sex is wrong (sex outside of marriage, at least ). This might make my view too radical, I suppose. Cheating on your spouse is wrong because you are breaking a very close bond of trust, harming someone to whom you are supposedly closest.

No, not everyone would think adulterous sex is wrong (sex outside of marriage, at least ). This might make my view too radical, I suppose. Cheating on your spouse is wrong because you are breaking a very close bond of trust, harming someone to whom you are supposedly closest.

Beany, suppose the husband and wife agreed that they could sleep with other people. Would that still be a breaking of the trust, which makes it wrong in your eyes?

And, for clarity, when I spoke of adultery in this instance, I meant outside the marriage between husband and wife.

RickD wrote:

No, not everyone would think adulterous sex is wrong (sex outside of marriage, at least ). This might make my view too radical, I suppose. Cheating on your spouse is wrong because you are breaking a very close bond of trust, harming someone to whom you are supposedly closest.

Beany, suppose the husband and wife agreed that they could sleep with other people. Would that still be a breaking of the trust, which makes it wrong in your eyes?

And, for clarity, when I spoke of adultery in this instance, I meant outside the marriage between husband and wife.

This is where I will be seen as largely radical, but no, I do not think that would be immoral behavior, so long as it was done with everyone's knowledge, consent, and in a respectful manner.

When I was examining my ethical system, I had to examine this scenario much as you were and I was left with either discarding the system or accepting this as moral. When I seriously examined my conscience, I couldn't find anything wrong with it. I realize this can be seen as a breaker for others, however. But It's not an entirely new idea, is it? Abraham himself had three wives, and there are other instances of polygamy in the bible. I arrived at this conclusion through a careful examination of the consequences and I could see no harm. This would be my personal feelings on the matter, but I feel as if they are correct.

Disclaimer: If the virtue of monogamy and non-adultery are very important to you, however, I could see an argument to be made that the violation of these virtues is enough to make the entire arrangement slightly unethical, despite the lack of harm being done to any of the involved parties. And for the record, while sex outside of marriage isn't bad to me, it's not to say I think sex is just fine outside of a committed relationship - marriage feels more ceremonial to me, and commitment is more of a feeling than a ritual. I think sex is preferably within a committed relationship as promiscuity can lead to psychological health problems - but, I don't see it as being a terrible grievance.

Beanybag wrote:

RickD wrote:

No, not everyone would think adulterous sex is wrong (sex outside of marriage, at least ). This might make my view too radical, I suppose. Cheating on your spouse is wrong because you are breaking a very close bond of trust, harming someone to whom you are supposedly closest.

Beany, suppose the husband and wife agreed that they could sleep with other people. Would that still be a breaking of the trust, which makes it wrong in your eyes?

And, for clarity, when I spoke of adultery in this instance, I meant outside the marriage between husband and wife.

This is where I will be seen as largely radical, but no, I do not think that would be immoral behavior, so long as it was done with everyone's knowledge, consent, and in a respectful manner.

When I was examining my ethical system, I had to examine this scenario much as you were and I was left with either discarding the system or accepting this as moral. When I seriously examined my conscience, I couldn't find anything wrong with it. I realize this can be seen as a breaker for others, however. But It's not an entirely new idea, is it? Abraham himself had three wives, and there are other instances of polygamy in the bible. I arrived at this conclusion through a careful examination of the consequences and I could see no harm. This would be my personal feelings on the matter, but I feel as if they are correct.

Disclaimer: If the virtue of monogamy and non-adultery are very important to you, however, I could see an argument to be made that the violation of these virtues is enough to make the entire arrangement slightly unethical, despite the lack of harm being done to any of the involved parties. And for the record, while sex outside of marriage isn't bad to me, it's not to say I think sex is just fine outside of a committed relationship - marriage feels more ceremonial to me, and commitment is more of a feeling than a ritual. I think sex is preferably within a committed relationship as promiscuity can lead to psychological health problems - but, I don't see it as being a terrible grievance.

I'm curious, you don't see any harm in procreation and child rearing outside of a traditional family setting? Sex doesn't stop at sex you know, it affects generations. You don't see any harm in that?

When I was examining my ethical system, I had to examine this scenario much as you were and I was left with either discarding the system or accepting this as moral. When I seriously examined my conscience, I couldn't find anything wrong with it. I realize this can be seen as a breaker for others, however. But It's not an entirely new idea, is it? Abraham himself had three wives, and there are other instances of polygamy in the bible. I arrived at this conclusion through a careful examination of the consequences and I could see no harm. This would be my personal feelings on the matter, but I feel as if they are correct.

This is actually a common error. The Bible is full of human activity it doesn't endorse. In fact, you will see how Abraham having multiple wives let to some bad consequences. Are you sure you did a careful examination of the consequences?
Also, your comments seem to imply, "if it doesn't prick my conscience then its OK." Of course, if we consistently applied this standard to all people, the results would be anything but consistent, and would be potentially disastrous. In other words you are a law unto yourself.

Cheating on your spouse is wrong because you are breaking a very close bond of trust, harming someone to whom you are supposedly closest.

wrong in what sense?

Byblos wrote:I'm curious, you don't see any harm in procreation and child rearing outside of a traditional family setting? Sex doesn't stop at sex you know, it affects generations. You don't see any harm in that?

I see harm in raising children in a setting that would cause harm to that child. Traditional family setting not necessary so long as the child is cared for and raised-well.

When you make morals THAT subjective, then where do you draw the line?

PaulSacramento wrote:When you make morals THAT subjective, then where do you draw the line?

How is it subjective? We have to ask ourselves what we think is best for humanity, what fosters the most love and the least hate. This is certainly complex and humans are likely to get it wrong in some ways, but is it really subjective in principle? Do you think health is subjective and nothing objective can be said of health? Should we then toss aside all of medicine? Isn't the definition of a word just subjective, should we toss aside language, knowledge and meaning because of this? Just because we have to use our judgment and try our best to discern these things doesn't make it necessarily subjective. It's not as cut and dry as "thou shalt not" but what in our life really is?

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:When you make morals THAT subjective, then where do you draw the line?

How is it subjective? We have to ask ourselves what we think is best for humanity, what fosters the most love and the least hate. This is certainly complex and humans are likely to get it wrong in some ways, but is it really subjective in principle? Do you think health is subjective and nothing objective can be said of health? Should we then toss aside all of medicine? Isn't the definition of a word just subjective, should we toss aside language, knowledge and meaning because of this? Just because we have to use our judgment and try our best to discern these things doesn't make it necessarily subjective. It's not as cut and dry as "thou shalt not" but what in our life really is?

How on earth have humans SHOWN they deserve the right to decide what is best for humanity?
In what way have humans shown that do what fosters the most love and least hate?
You are gonna end up in the "will of the majority" argument if you keep going that way.
Morals become subjective when they become SUBJECT to what best suits us at the time or when they become subject to convenience or become subject to the will of the majority. Right is RIGHT because it is RIGHT, not because it is convenient or the majority think so or because it's ok between consenting adults.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:When you make morals THAT subjective, then where do you draw the line?

How is it subjective? We have to ask ourselves what we think is best for humanity, what fosters the most love and the least hate. This is certainly complex and humans are likely to get it wrong in some ways, but is it really subjective in principle? Do you think health is subjective and nothing objective can be said of health? Should we then toss aside all of medicine? Isn't the definition of a word just subjective, should we toss aside language, knowledge and meaning because of this? Just because we have to use our judgment and try our best to discern these things doesn't make it necessarily subjective. It's not as cut and dry as "thou shalt not" but what in our life really is?

How on earth have humans SHOWN they deserve the right to decide what is best for humanity?
In what way have humans shown that do what fosters the most love and least hate?

Doesn't God give us a conscience? How do you know that divorce is okay and the food laws no longer applicable?

You are gonna end up in the "will of the majority" argument if you keep going that way.

I don't think so. What is harmful would seem more objective that whatever the majority decides is harmful. We can get evidence to settle disagreements about what is harmful as well.

Morals become subjective when they become SUBJECT to what best suits us at the time or when they become subject to convenience or become subject to the will of the majority. Right is RIGHT because it is RIGHT, not because it is convenient or the majority think so or because it's ok between consenting adults.

Why are they not subjective when they are subject to the word of God, then?

Honestly, none of these objections seem applicable either. What is harmful is harmful because it is harmful, by the very same logic. We don't just arbitrarily decide what is harmful, we base it off of experience. You can try and renounce consequentialism if you wish, but it would seem inevitably that you will return to it.

Honestly, none of these objections seem applicable either. What is harmful is harmful because it is harmful, by the very same logic. We don't just arbitrarily decide what is harmful, we base it off of experience. You can try and renounce consequentialism if you wish, but it would seem inevitably that you will return to it.

Now moral are subject to experience?
For the Spartans, an adult male taking a male youth under his wing and teaching him in exchange for sexual gratification, was 100% fine, with BOTH parties benefiting.
In their experience, that system worked great.
A older male passed on his knowledge and wisdom and got laid, a younger male learned to survive and how to be a Spartan citizen and got laid, win-win for everyone, right?
Acceptable now?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Honestly, none of these objections seem applicable either. What is harmful is harmful because it is harmful, by the very same logic. We don't just arbitrarily decide what is harmful, we base it off of experience. You can try and renounce consequentialism if you wish, but it would seem inevitably that you will return to it.

Now moral are subject to experience?
For the Spartans, an adult male taking a male youth under his wing and teaching him in exchange for sexual gratification, was 100% fine, with BOTH parties benefiting.
In their experience, that system worked great.
A older male passed on his knowledge and wisdom and got laid, a younger male learned to survive and how to be a Spartan citizen and got laid, win-win for everyone, right?
Acceptable now?

Perhaps it was then, but we know more now. We know a child's brain is less developed and can show that it causes harm for them to engage in sex too early. Why is it that there are no age restrictions on marriage in the Bible? They just didn't know.

Yes, morals are 'subject' to knowledge - our moral responsibility lies directly within how much knowledge we have. I can give an example if that would help explain this.

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Honestly, none of these objections seem applicable either. What is harmful is harmful because it is harmful, by the very same logic. We don't just arbitrarily decide what is harmful, we base it off of experience. You can try and renounce consequentialism if you wish, but it would seem inevitably that you will return to it.

Now moral are subject to experience?
For the Spartans, an adult male taking a male youth under his wing and teaching him in exchange for sexual gratification, was 100% fine, with BOTH parties benefiting.
In their experience, that system worked great.
A older male passed on his knowledge and wisdom and got laid, a younger male learned to survive and how to be a Spartan citizen and got laid, win-win for everyone, right?
Acceptable now?

Perhaps it was then, but we know more now. We know a child's brain is less developed and can show that it causes harm for them to engage in sex too early. Why is it that there are no age restrictions on marriage in the Bible? They just didn't know.

Yes, morals are 'subject' to knowledge - our moral responsibility lies directly within how much knowledge we have. I can give an example if that would help explain this.

Actually, in ancient times marrying age for a women was pretty much from the moment she could conceive and the reason was that the average life span was NOT that great.
The cultural context and support system makes it hard to judge THEM base don what we know NOW for women that age NOW.
The bible doesn't comment on the age appropriateness for marriage in ANY degree, whether to old or too young, meaning that was left to the discretion of the Parent.
The issue, that you seem to be getting away from, is that YOU are making morals subjective:
First to with there is consent, then whether there is harm, then what society thinks, then based on societies expereince, etc, BUT ALL those methods only show that there are no morals other than subjective ones, which means that, depending on the situation, ANYTHING is permissible.