Evidence for God from Science

PaulSacramento wrote: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.

Consent really isn't that difficult, you can say it's derivable from Kant's categorical imperative or from simply consequentialism. Is it really that farfetched for me to say that we should take into account the preference of another lest we cause harm? Do you see no difference between sex and rape? We must find the cause that differentiates rape from simply sex if we are to discern what the element is that leads to harm. Clearly it's lack of consent. Harm can said to be an objective element that is present in an immoral act.

On the contrary, it would be your moral system that would lead to anything being permissible. For if God commands it, then it is moral, reguardless of the consequences. If God commands us to kill, we must kill - we are not able to discern our own morals nor consider consequences and suffering. Morals are subject to God's word and obedience is the most valued virtue. This is actually not that inconsistent with scripture when you consider the story of Abraham and Isaac. Lucky for us, God considers the consequences for us, most of the time (but then isn't God acting subject to consequentialism?). Maybe it's just by chance that God's commandments tend to avoid suffering and lead to thriving. Then I guess we are lucky the commandment was thou shalt not kill instead of thou shalt kill.

I can see of no conceivable way to claim that consequences aren't important to morality, only what God commands. You must address Euthyphro's dilemma and then remain consistent. You can't have both sides.

Consent can't be the basis for a moral right and wrong or else it is morally correct to do ANYTHING that people consent to.
As for this:

On the contrary, it would be your moral system that would lead to anything being permissible. For if God commands it, then it is moral, reguardless of the consequences. If God commands us to kill, we must kill - we are not able to discern our own morals nor consider consequences and suffering. Morals are subject to God's word and obedience is the most valued virtue. This is actually not that inconsistent with scripture when you consider the story of Abraham and Isaac. Lucky for us, God considers the consequences for us, most of the time (but then isn't God acting subject to consequentialism?). Maybe it's just by chance that God's commandments tend to avoid suffering and lead to thriving. Then I guess we are lucky the commandment was thou shalt not kill instead of thou shalt kill.

A moral system based on the view of an absolute moral right and wrong can't lead t "ALL is permissible", that doesn't make any sense, but a system based on subjective morals, can and will and has.

I can see of no conceivable way to claim that consequences aren't important to morality, only what God commands. You must address Euthyphro's dilemma and then remain consistent. You can't have both sides.

You don't see a morally righteous act having negative consequences and still being morally right?

PaulSacramento wrote:Consent can't be the basis for a moral right and wrong or else it is morally correct to do ANYTHING that people consent to.
As for this:

On the contrary, it would be your moral system that would lead to anything being permissible. For if God commands it, then it is moral, reguardless of the consequences. If God commands us to kill, we must kill - we are not able to discern our own morals nor consider consequences and suffering. Morals are subject to God's word and obedience is the most valued virtue. This is actually not that inconsistent with scripture when you consider the story of Abraham and Isaac. Lucky for us, God considers the consequences for us, most of the time (but then isn't God acting subject to consequentialism?). Maybe it's just by chance that God's commandments tend to avoid suffering and lead to thriving. Then I guess we are lucky the commandment was thou shalt not kill instead of thou shalt kill.

A moral system based on the view of an absolute moral right and wrong can't lead t "ALL is permissible", that doesn't make any sense, but a system based on subjective morals, can and will and has.

If the moral absolute system declares everything is right and nothing is wrong, isn't all permissible? If the moral absolute is "thou shalt kill" does it matter if not killing is not permissible? What is your answer to the dilemma: If God commands you to kill a child, has he commanded you to be immoral or moral?

And you're still not understanding - I never said consent was the basis for anything. Consent is only one aspect of harm, harm is the basis. You're trying to set up straw-men by removing elements from the concept. That's like saying we can't have doctors because doctors cut people and and I said somewhere else that cutting people causes harm. We have to consider the net effects, the consequences, as well as the costs.

PaulSacramento wrote:

I can see of no conceivable way to claim that consequences aren't important to morality, only what God commands. You must address Euthyphro's dilemma and then remain consistent. You can't have both sides.

You don't see a morally righteous act having negative consequences and still being morally right?

I never claimed the means and the virtues involved weren't important. I do think they are. That doesn't exclude an examination of the consequences, however.

And you're still not understanding - I never said consent was the basis for anything. Consent is only one aspect of harm, harm is the basis. You're trying to set up straw-men by removing elements from the concept. That's like saying we can't have doctors because doctors cut people and and I said somewhere else that cutting people causes harm. We have to consider the net effects, the consequences, as well as the costs.

So, it is consequences and whether any harm comes to anyone that dictates morally right and wrong?

PaulSacramento wrote:

And you're still not understanding - I never said consent was the basis for anything. Consent is only one aspect of harm, harm is the basis. You're trying to set up straw-men by removing elements from the concept. That's like saying we can't have doctors because doctors cut people and and I said somewhere else that cutting people causes harm. We have to consider the net effects, the consequences, as well as the costs.

So, it is consequences and whether any harm comes to anyone that dictates morally right and wrong?

Immoral acts cause harm and suffering, moral acts cause happiness and promote love. That would be the general tenant. Moral acts may cause harm sometimes (in fact, most actions have some level of both cost and benefit), but intent is something to consider. If the individual thought it was likely to cause harm and was intending harm, they'd be more blameworthy than someone who, in ignorance, caused harm through trying to be good. With our limited knowledge, sometimes it's best to rest on known virtues when we can't fully examine what the outcome of a scenario will be - there's always unknowns. With perfect knowledge, however, consequences are the ultimate decider of moral right and wrong, yes.

Beanybag wrote: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.

Know more of what?
Just because the Bible doesn't say, '16 is the right age,' doesn't mean that ancient people didn't have restrictions on such things. Your statement infers chronological snobbery, and not to mention fails to really consider the cultural issues. It has a high view of knowledge but a low view of culture. And, it still doesn't account for any inherent reason as to why. Maybe ignorance should be what consequentialism promotes.

Yes, we have more knowledge today. But does that mean it was right for the Spartans to practice such things?
Was knowledge what determined morality?

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.

Presumes that one (love) is inherently better than the other. Also presumes that humanity has some inherent value over the rest of nature.

Do you think health is subjective and nothing objective can be said of health?

i certainly don't think it's odd that wrong choices can result in health consequences. But are those consequences in themselves what determines their moral standing? That is a slippery slope. Many things we see as wrong don't apply. Lying being a good one. Further, if consequences become the answer, then you inevitably end up with some other issues. Especially applied in a societal model.

For example, perhaps a woman's trauma from rape is just a consequence that society has engrained into her based on certain social idioms. Her emotional scarring comes from being taught that her sexually has some sacred, inherent value. So, to deal with the consequence maybe the answer is to totally change our perspective and teach our youth that there is nothing sacred about sexuality. Then they won't be emotionally scarred, and negative consequence avoided. Consequentialism assumes the end jusitfies the means. The problems is that the one proposing this hasn't really considered the larger implications. It's a short sited approach. It's a "what's true for me, may not be for you" position. Of course that begs the question, "Is that statement objectively true?"
An extreme example would be euthenizing children with birth defects and replacing them with 'healthier' children. It's easy to look at the initial benefits of consequentialism, but it can have some nasty ramifications. Obviously the naturalistic fallacy is one problem.
There are many processes about which we can confidently predict an outcome, but even taking all these into consideration our capacity to accurately predict the future is infinitesimally feeble. Finally, the idea that “the ends justify the means” allows for the most fearsome atrocities to be conducted in the name of a sufficient end – as indicated by the horrors of the Inquisition.Do we really want to employ a system of ethics that permits any evil provided we can conceive a justification in terms of some future good?
Source: http://onlyagame.typepad.com/only_a_gam ... thics.html

The problems with outcome focused ethics are well developed. Consequentialists smuggle in objectve morality. They use terms such as good without really accounting for them. It presumes some intrinsic value in humanity, but following through on this either forces them to either redefine what we mean by value, or it blows the theory up.

sometimes it's best to rest on known virtues

Account for virtue.

Immoral acts cause harm and suffering, moral acts cause happiness and promote love.

Just a circular argument. Immoral acts cause harm. What causes harm? An immoral act.
Again short sighted. If I can demonstrate that my knowledge is higher, and because of such, I can morally claim that all of humanity would be better for an act of genocide. Since my intent is not to harm but help humanity, you would have to declare it as morally good and loving.

jlay wrote:

Beanybag wrote: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.

Know more of what?
Just because the Bible doesn't say, '16 is the right age,' doesn't mean that ancient people didn't have restrictions on such things. Your statement infers chronological snobbery, and not to mention fails to really consider the cultural issues. It has a high view of knowledge but a low view of culture. And, it still doesn't account for any inherent reason as to why. Maybe ignorance should be what consequentialism promotes.

Yes, we have more knowledge today. But does that mean it was right for the Spartans to practice such things?
Was knowledge what determined morality?

It means it was more right than it would be if we did it today. They can be said to be less blameworthy for their ignorance much the same as a child is less blameworthy for drawing on wall with a crayon. It could be that if you wish to get away with immorality you would do best to maintain as much ignorance as you can - ignorance is bliss in many respects. But knowledge is a hard thing to prevent.

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.

Presumes that one (love) is inherently better than the other. Also presumes that humanity has some inherent value over the rest of nature.

I am trying to justify this within the framework of Christianity because I think it is justifiable (and correct) for Christians to be in favor of gay marriage - or to promote thriving and prevent suffering. And are not humans more important than the rest of creation?

Do you think health is subjective and nothing objective can be said of health?

i certainly don't think it's odd that wrong choices can result in health consequences. But are those consequences in themselves what determines their moral standing? That is a slippery slope. Many things we see as wrong don't apply. Lying being a good one. Further, if consequences become the answer, then you inevitably end up with some other issues. Especially applied in a societal model.

If we apply virtues to the consequence-base, or more specifically, the future-oriented ethical system, we can account for human error. Lying can most certainly cause harm. If you are about to drink from a cup and I tell you that it's safe, but I was lying, how did my action not lead to harm? Maybe sometimes lying doesn't lead to harm, sometimes lying might lead to good (didn't Abraham lie about his marriage to Sarah in order to protect himself?). We have to apply our best knowledge and realize that lying can cause harm - we simply have to try to minimize harm and maximize happiness while keeping these virtues in mind. In some cases, it's just not anyone's place to take those risks, such as with human life. In this case, we can say human right is an inviolable right. Ethics certainly isn't easy, but we MUST be mindful of the consequences.

For example, perhaps a woman's trauma from rape is just a consequence that society has engrained into her based on certain social idioms.

No, psychological facts would indicate otherwise. Trauma has physical effects on the brain. Perhaps the trauma is due to cultural values, but you can't just argue to change cultural values to make rape less traumatic without having many different and bad consequences elsewhere. You'd have to demonstrate that this culture would largely be happier and more loving, as well as remove trauma for rape victims - I can't conceive of this.

Consequentialism assumes the end jusitfies the means.

No, that is utilitarianism. Consequentialism is a consideration of the consequences when making an action. A consideration of virtues and means are not incompatible with consequentialism, and my ethics would have us consider all of these things.

The problems with outcome focused ethics are well developed. Consequentialists smuggle in objectve morality. They use terms such as good without really accounting for them. It presumes some intrinsic value in humanity, but following through on this either forces them to either redefine what we mean by value, or it blows the theory up.

I have not smuggled in objective morality - whether or not we want to be moral is our choice, and that choice is subjective. But if we assume intrinsic morality through God, then it accounts for objectivity, does it not?

The problem with subjective moral systems such as Divine Commandments is exactly what is presented in Euthyphro's dilemma - What if God commands you to kill?

sometimes it's best to rest on known virtues

Account for virtue.

What do you mean? Do you want me to define it? Virtues are traits of an action that most often result in positive consequences - they are useful for quick decisions and making decisions when there are many different unknowns. If our actions are more virtuous they are more likely to have positive consequences.

Immoral acts cause harm and suffering, moral acts cause happiness and promote love.

Just a circular argument. Immoral acts cause harm. What causes harm? An immoral act.

It's not circular, the terms are meant to be equivocated. Harm can be defined. You should be asking what harm is, but then, we know the answer.

Again short sighted. If I can demonstrate that my knowledge is higher, and because of such, I can morally claim that all of humanity would be better for an act of genocide. Since my intent is not to harm but help humanity, you would have to declare it as morally good and loving.

If you had perfect knowledge and knew exactly what consequences it would result in, then yes, I would - Didn't God not flood the world and commit genocide?

Perfect knowledge can only be attainable by a perfect being, who be definition is absolute Good and as such, to answer you other question ( What if God commands you to kill), that means that God can NOT command that which is NOT good, hence God's command to kill, MUST be good ie: a positive outcome will come out of it.
One assumes you are bringing up the command to kill that God does, according to the OT, command the Israelite to do, yes?

PaulSacramento wrote:Perfect knowledge can only be attainable by a perfect being, who be definition is absolute Good and as such, to answer you other question ( What if God commands you to kill), that means that God can NOT command that which is NOT good, hence God's command to kill, MUST be good ie: a positive outcome will come out of it.
One assumes you are bringing up the command to kill that God does, according to the OT, command the Israelite to do, yes?

But you're still dodging. Is the outcome positive because you followed God's command or is it positive because it resulted in the least amount of harm and suffering and the most amount of happiness and thriving. I am not trying to bring up any commandment, I am trying to get you to understand that an action is not moral because God commands it, but that God commands it because it is moral.

It means it was more right than it would be if we did it today.

That doesn't mean anything. More right? I could understand if you said, "it is easier to understand given the cultural norms." But hell man, it was wrong. Just man up and say it was wrong. Essentially this says, even if the person felt in their conscience they were wrong, they would be wise to go with the knowledge they had. And without having modern psychology or medicine, they would have no reason to obey their conscience. Especially, if despite their conscience, they still experienced 'good' sexual feelings.

They can be said to be less blameworthy for their ignorance much the same as a child is less blameworthy for drawing on wall with a crayon.

Again, sounds like you would be as wise to advocate ignorance as you would knowledge. If we want to be truly good, why not just promote ignorance of everything, if knowledge reveals what's right and wrong.

But knowledge is a hard thing to prevent.

I won't tell you what i'm wanting to say.

I am trying to justify this within the framework of Christianity because I think it is justifiable (and correct) for Christians to be in favor of gay marriage - or to promote thriving and prevent suffering. And are not humans more important than the rest of creation?

you can't stand on our moral ground to defend your worldview. Stand on your own and let it hold or crumble as it may.
Tell us, why are humans more important?

No, that is utilitarianism. Consequentialism is a consideration of the consequences when making an action. A consideration of virtues and means are not incompatible with consequentialism, and my ethics would have us consider all of these things.

And how far out can you consider the consequences? It makes me think of the movie, The Watchmen, in which one of the heroes decides (based on his genuis) that irradicating mankind would serve the greater good. Of course he becomes the villian. The other heroes actually end up killing the one who wants to go public with the story, because, again, they think it preserves the greater good. You assume that you will be the one determining 'happy' and 'good.' You won't, and you don't. Look at all the people today who get great pleasure out of harming themselves. Good gosh man, look at Hinduism.

No, psychological facts would indicate otherwise. Trauma has physical effects on the brain. Perhaps the trauma is due to cultural values, but you can't just argue to change cultural values to make rape less traumatic without having many different and bad consequences elsewhere. You'd have to demonstrate that this culture would largely be happier and more loving, as well as remove trauma for rape victims - I can't conceive of this.

Maybe you just lack the knowledge my friend. Tisk tisk.
Again, you can't prove that the psychology is not just a result of cultural brainwashing. There is nothing (in your world view) that chastity or virginity are inherently sacred. In fact, you can't even say that regarding any virtue.
I can say that the culture would be happier and more loving if certain other people were killed.

The problem with subjective moral systems such as Divine Commandments is exactly what is presented in Euthyphro's dilemma - What if God commands you to kill?

I've already covered this with you. It's a false dichotomy. I can't help it if you refuse to become more knowledgable.

What do you mean? Do you want me to define it? Virtues are traits of an action that most often result in positive consequences - they are useful for quick decisions and making decisions when there are many different unknowns. If our actions are more virtuous they are more likely to have positive consequences.

Greed can have a positive consequence for me. Again, anytime you use the words, better, good, positive, you are presuming something you haven't accounted for. Who cares if their useful? Useful to the human race? So what?

jlay wrote:

It means it was more right than it would be if we did it today.

That doesn't mean anything. More right? I could understand if you said, "it is easier to understand given the cultural norms." But hell man, it was wrong. Just man up and say it was wrong. Essentially this says, even if the person felt in their conscience they were wrong, they would be wise to go with the knowledge they had. And without having modern psychology or medicine, they would have no reason to obey their conscience. Especially, if despite their conscience, they still experienced 'good' sexual feelings.

It is wrong because we of what we know - moral culpability lies within our realm of knowledge. I am not copping out! If we suddenly find out that all milk isn't actually from cows but from the bones of children who are killed to make it, that would make milk wrong. Were we wrong to drink it? Not really, we didn't know! Would we be wrong to still drink it? YES!

They can be said to be less blameworthy for their ignorance much the same as a child is less blameworthy for drawing on wall with a crayon.

Again, sounds like you would be as wise to advocate ignorance as you would knowledge. If we want to be truly good, why not just promote ignorance of everything, if knowledge reveals what's right and wrong.

If we want to be more moral, we need knowledge - perfect morality can only come with perfect knowledge, and that is what we ascribe for, yes? Moral responsibility is directly related to knowledge. If you want to be immoral, you would be wise to be ignorant, but how immoral can you be without knowledge anyway? You wouldn't actually know you were being immoral unless you had the knowledge to know it was immoral. Do you see how this isn't a problem with culpability?

I am trying to justify this within the framework of Christianity because I think it is justifiable (and correct) for Christians to be in favor of gay marriage - or to promote thriving and prevent suffering. And are not humans more important than the rest of creation?

you can't stand on our moral ground to defend your worldview. Stand on your own and let it hold or crumble as it may.
Tell us, why are humans more important?

I am not defending my world view, this makes entirely no sense! Many Christians support gay marriage and I think justifiably so (See original post!!), and I am providing justification!

No, that is utilitarianism. Consequentialism is a consideration of the consequences when making an action. A consideration of virtues and means are not incompatible with consequentialism, and my ethics would have us consider all of these things.

And how far out can you consider the consequences? It makes me think of the movie, The Watchmen, in which one of the heroes decides (based on his genuis) that irradicating mankind would serve the greater good. Of course he becomes the villian. The other heroes actually end up killing the one who wants to go public with the story, because, again, they think it preserves the greater good. You assume that you will be the one determining 'happy' and 'good.' You won't, and you don't. Look at all the people today who get great pleasure out of harming themselves. Good gosh man, look at Hinduism.

Again, I advocate for as much knowledge as we can get - that will lead to more moral societies. Higher costs require higher amounts of justification and knowledge so it can be said that using a human life as a cost requires more knowledge of how the action will affect future consequences than can be possible as a general rule - thus we can create a right to human life, and other rights as we deem them necessary. I am making a pragmatic ethical system that makes concessions to imperfect amounts of knowledge. Obviously, with perfect knowledge, there'd be no problems with utilitarianism. But no one has that, so we must make room for virtues and rights.

No, psychological facts would indicate otherwise. Trauma has physical effects on the brain. Perhaps the trauma is due to cultural values, but you can't just argue to change cultural values to make rape less traumatic without having many different and bad consequences elsewhere. You'd have to demonstrate that this culture would largely be happier and more loving, as well as remove trauma for rape victims - I can't conceive of this.

Maybe you just lack the knowledge my friend. Tisk tisk.
Again, you can't prove that the psychology is not just a result of cultural brainwashing. There is nothing (in your world view) that chastity or virginity are inherently sacred. In fact, you can't even say that regarding any virtue.
I can say that the culture would be happier and more loving if certain other people were killed.

I don't think chastity or virginity are sacred, no, but an argument could be made for it. Stop talking about my world-view, I am arguing within Christianity.

And yes, if I lacked the knowledge, then I could be wrong. I am only as responsible as I am knowledgeable. I doubt you ability to have the knowledge to control other people's lives, however.

The problem with subjective moral systems such as Divine Commandments is exactly what is presented in Euthyphro's dilemma - What if God commands you to kill?

I've already covered this with you. It's a false dichotomy. I can't help it if you refuse to become more knowledgable.

So a thing is moral because God commands it then, regaurdless of any consequences?

No one has provided me with a straight answer to the dilemma. Why is this? Are you afraid of the answer?

Beanybag wrote: "So a thing is moral because God commands it then, regaurdless of any consequences?
"

Please give an example where you think God commanded something immoral.

Philip wrote:

Beanybag wrote: "So a thing is moral because God commands it then, regaurdless of any consequences?
"

Please give an example where you think God commanded something immoral.

You're also dodging then?

edit: I'm really at a loss.. Why is this question so frightening?

Beanybag wrote:

Philip wrote:

Beanybag wrote: "So a thing is moral because God commands it then, regaurdless of any consequences?
"

Please give an example where you think God commanded something immoral.

You're also dodging then?

edit: I'm really at a loss.. Why is this question so frightening?

Your question fails to recognize who God is. God IS perfect morality the same way God IS perfect love, the same way God IS.