Evidence for God from Science

Butterfly wrote:

The Protector wrote:

Butterfly wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Butterfly wrote:
I think you have misunderstood the Golden Rule by the example you gave. You said the Vikings had issues with their own women being raped but had no problem raping other women; the Golden Rule has to do with treating others as you wish to be treated. An appropriate question to ask the Vikings who were raping other women, is if they themselves would want to be raped? The answer is most certainly NO. The Golden Rule must be applied to ones self and how you treat others.

Self awareness is a fact that leads to morality and is always consistent, because the mere fact of being aware of ones own feelings and knowing other humans have those same feelings, invariably leads to the idea of treating others as you wish to be treated. It's a very simple idea and it applies universally, that is why so many great teachers like Confucius and Jesus taught it as the commandment that trumps all others.

I wanted to bring this back because I think that it is the root of the difference:
First off, Jesus taught the golden rule as a starting point and NOT as a commandment that trumps all others, He actually went BEYOND it ( and his commandment to love each other as He loved us would, arguably, be THE commandment to "trump all others") but the main issue is this I think:
the Golden Rule has to do with treating others as you wish to be treated

So, if I wish that Adrian Lima would tie me up an do all sorts of naughty things to me with her mouth, I am justified in doing so to her ?
Doing such, doing to Adriana what I would want her to do to me, treating her as I would like her to treat me, is following the GR, yes?

I think there is a problem there...

I'm probably making a big mistake taking on your "slightly off-color" example, but here goes.

In this case I would propose to you the inverse version of the GR taught by Confucius: Don't do unto others what you don't want done to yourself. If Adrian Lima did not want your "naughty" things done to herself, then she would not do them to you. You would not want something forced upon you that you didn't like, which means you don't force something upon others that they don't like.

That my friend, is the perfect symmetry of the GR...
-

Here's what I don't understand: what makes symmetry (or reciprocity) a moral good?

And if the GR is objectively good because of its "symmetry," then why not "do unto others what they do unto you?" Something akin to eye for an eye? Call it the "Kharmic Code" if you like. Wouldn't that be just as symmetrical as the golden rule?

First off, the "symmetry" of the GR is not in and of itself a moral good, nor is the GR objectively good because of symmetry. Symmetry is a quality of the GR.

Secondly, applying the symmetric quality of the GR to your proposition of "doing unto others what they do unto you" does not quite work, because of the potential of imbalance. Take for instance you accidentally knocked my tooth out, so then I purposely knock your tooth out. The symmetry is lost, because accidentally and purposely are not symmetric.

Hope that helps,

jlay wrote: There are many dilemas we can examine. The same issue came up when we were discussing consequentialism. As I mentioned before. The GR rule can help us measure right and wrong, just as a ruler can help us measure the lenght of an object.
I would contend there are times where discarding the GR is the right thing to do. What pops right in my mind is if someone is attempting to harm my family. In this case there is another ruler/measure we will turn to. I will do something to them they would not want done to themselves. But again, what we need to focus on here is the bigger question. It seems absolutely silly for Christians to argue against the GR. And I think it is just as odd for the GR to be positioned againt the Christian. But again I think this gets back to how the terms are being used. Again, there is a sense that we all would agree the GR is objective.
But as best I can discern, to promote the GR as objective in this sense is arbitrary.

The Protector wrote:

Butterfly wrote:

The Protector wrote:
Here's what I don't understand: what makes symmetry (or reciprocity) a moral good?

And if the GR is objectively good because of its "symmetry," then why not "do unto others what they do unto you?" Something akin to eye for an eye? Call it the "Kharmic Code" if you like. Wouldn't that be just as symmetrical as the golden rule?

First off, the "symmetry" of the GR is not in and of itself a moral good, nor is the GR objectively good because of symmetry. Symmetry is a quality of the GR.

Secondly, applying the symmetric quality of the GR to your proposition of "doing unto others what they do unto you" does not quite work, because of the potential of imbalance. Take for instance you accidentally knocked my tooth out, so then I purposely knock your tooth out. The symmetry is lost, because accidentally and purposely are not symmetric.

Hope that helps,

Firstly, why this arbitrary distinction between "accidental" and "purposeful." An an atheist worldview (and here, again, I am assuming naturalism, so please correct me if I'm wrong), isn't ALL behavior "accidental" in a sense? Can ANY behavior truly be considered "purposeful?" On such a worldview, all behavior is the result of complex electro-chemical reactions and nothing more; our behavior is determined, and experience or perception of intentionality is a mere illusion.

Secondly, as PaulSacramento's example demonstrates, accidental misapplications of the GR could also occur, could they not? So how is this a defeater of the symmetry of my Kharmic Code?

Finally-- Okay, let's make a distinction between intentional and accidental behaviors. We'll add to the Kharmic Code that only intentional behaviors apply. Again, does this make the Kharmic Code a foundation for objective morality? If not, why? What am I missing here?

Butterfly wrote:It seems that so far a good case has been made showing that the GR is objective, and OM can exist without a divine source as its foundation.

Byblos wrote:

Butterfly wrote:It seems that so far a good case has been made showing that the GR is objective, and OM can exist without a divine source as its foundation.

According to whom?

All you've done is make a baseless assertion that symmetry must also apply to morality as it is analogously applicable to physics. That's nothing more than a mere assertion without a single shred of evidence to back it up. If we know anything about human behavior is that it is anything BUT symmetric. Given the same set of conditions it is our observational experience that the laws of physics will hold every time (for the most part). Given the same set of conditions people will make all kinds of contradictory decisions every single time. There goes your symmetry out the window. Try again.

Butterfly wrote:

The Protector wrote:

Butterfly wrote:

The Protector wrote:
Here's what I don't understand: what makes symmetry (or reciprocity) a moral good?

And if the GR is objectively good because of its "symmetry," then why not "do unto others what they do unto you?" Something akin to eye for an eye? Call it the "Kharmic Code" if you like. Wouldn't that be just as symmetrical as the golden rule?

First off, the "symmetry" of the GR is not in and of itself a moral good, nor is the GR objectively good because of symmetry. Symmetry is a quality of the GR.

Secondly, applying the symmetric quality of the GR to your proposition of "doing unto others what they do unto you" does not quite work, because of the potential of imbalance. Take for instance you accidentally knocked my tooth out, so then I purposely knock your tooth out. The symmetry is lost, because accidentally and purposely are not symmetric.

Hope that helps,

Firstly, why this arbitrary distinction between "accidental" and "purposeful." An an atheist worldview (and here, again, I am assuming naturalism, so please correct me if I'm wrong), isn't ALL behavior "accidental" in a sense? Can ANY behavior truly be considered "purposeful?" On such a worldview, all behavior is the result of complex electro-chemical reactions and nothing more; our behavior is determined, and experience or perception of intentionality is a mere illusion.

Secondly, as PaulSacramento's example demonstrates, accidental misapplications of the GR could also occur, could they not? So how is this a defeater of the symmetry of my Kharmic Code?

Finally-- Okay, let's make a distinction between intentional and accidental behaviors. We'll add to the Kharmic Code that only intentional behaviors apply. Again, does this make the Kharmic Code a foundation for objective morality? If not, why? What am I missing here?

If you constrain the parameters to only intentional behavior, then it seems that maybe your "Kharmic Code" expresses symmetry and could be considered objective. If that is the case, is a divine source needed?
-

Butterfly wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Butterfly wrote:It seems that so far a good case has been made showing that the GR is objective, and OM can exist without a divine source as its foundation.

According to whom?

All you've done is make a baseless assertion that symmetry must also apply to morality as it is analogously applicable to physics. That's nothing more than a mere assertion without a single shred of evidence to back it up. If we know anything about human behavior is that it is anything BUT symmetric. Given the same set of conditions it is our observational experience that the laws of physics will hold every time (for the most part). Given the same set of conditions people will make all kinds of contradictory decisions every single time. There goes your symmetry out the window. Try again.

You quoted me, but then didn't address my quote which said nothing about the necessity of symmetry applying to morality . Here it is again:

"It seems that so far a good case has been made showing that the GR is objective, and OM can exist without a divine source as its foundation."

Do you agree or not?
-

The Protector wrote:

Butterfly wrote:

The Protector wrote: Firstly, why this arbitrary distinction between "accidental" and "purposeful." An an atheist worldview (and here, again, I am assuming naturalism, so please correct me if I'm wrong), isn't ALL behavior "accidental" in a sense? Can ANY behavior truly be considered "purposeful?" On such a worldview, all behavior is the result of complex electro-chemical reactions and nothing more; our behavior is determined, and experience or perception of intentionality is a mere illusion.

Secondly, as PaulSacramento's example demonstrates, accidental misapplications of the GR could also occur, could they not? So how is this a defeater of the symmetry of my Kharmic Code?

Finally-- Okay, let's make a distinction between intentional and accidental behaviors. We'll add to the Kharmic Code that only intentional behaviors apply. Again, does this make the Kharmic Code a foundation for objective morality? If not, why? What am I missing here?

If you constrain the parameters to only intentional behavior, then it seems that maybe your "Kharmic Code" expresses symmetry and could be considered objective. If that is the case, is a divine source needed?
-

But didn't you just say that symmetry was not what made the GR objectively moral? I'm confused. Regardless, let us go with this concession that the Kharmic Code is objectively moral. But it is rather different from the Golden rule. How can they both be said to be the foundations of objective morality?

The Protector wrote:Butterfly, I think you seriously misunderstand what we (and WLC, for that matter) mean when we speak of objective morality. You seem to think that it is any proposed ethic that can be applied consistently and reciprocally. What we have been trying to get at is that you fail to account for WHY consistent ethic of reciprocity is moral in the first place; you simply assert that this is so.

Butterfly wrote:OM values can exist without a theistic foundation. Case in point: the GR can exist as a OM value without the need of a theistic foundation.

Butterfly wrote:

The Protector wrote:

Butterfly wrote:

The Protector wrote: Firstly, why this arbitrary distinction between "accidental" and "purposeful." An an atheist worldview (and here, again, I am assuming naturalism, so please correct me if I'm wrong), isn't ALL behavior "accidental" in a sense? Can ANY behavior truly be considered "purposeful?" On such a worldview, all behavior is the result of complex electro-chemical reactions and nothing more; our behavior is determined, and experience or perception of intentionality is a mere illusion.

Secondly, as PaulSacramento's example demonstrates, accidental misapplications of the GR could also occur, could they not? So how is this a defeater of the symmetry of my Kharmic Code?

Finally-- Okay, let's make a distinction between intentional and accidental behaviors. We'll add to the Kharmic Code that only intentional behaviors apply. Again, does this make the Kharmic Code a foundation for objective morality? If not, why? What am I missing here?

If you constrain the parameters to only intentional behavior, then it seems that maybe your "Kharmic Code" expresses symmetry and could be considered objective. If that is the case, is a divine source needed?
-

But didn't you just say that symmetry was not what made the GR objectively moral? I'm confused. Regardless, let us go with this concession that the Kharmic Code is objectively moral. But it is rather different from the Golden rule. How can they both be said to be the foundations of objective morality?

I said your "Kharmic Code" expresses symmetry and could also be considered objective. Not that the symmetry made it objectively moral.

The Protector wrote:Butterfly, I think you seriously misunderstand what we (and WLC, for that matter) mean when we speak of objective morality. You seem to think that it is any proposed ethic that can be applied consistently and reciprocally. What we have been trying to get at is that you fail to account for WHY consistent ethic of reciprocity is moral in the first place; you simply assert that this is so.

WLC posits the idea that OM values require a theistic foundation (specifically the Biblegod) in order to exist, thus he claims the existence of OM values proves the existence of God.

My argument is that OM values can exist without a theistic foundation. Case in point: the GR can exist as a OM value without the need of a theistic foundation.
-

jlay wrote:Butter,

Saying OM can exist without a divine source is a bit of begging the question. As I've mentioned, it isn't whether the GR is objective. It is, in what sense is it objective. You may assume that you and Spock are using the word 'objective' in the same sense as Craig, but I'm not so sure. If not, it is ultimately arbitrary and meaningless. As you mention with the Kharmic code. Well, I'd say several other codes could be mentioned. Might veres right. Kill or be killed. An eye for an eye. Can these different rules all be objective? Even when they conflict? I hope you see the problems there. In that sense, i don't see how it challenges Craig at all. I mentioned a scenario in my previous post, but you seem to have overlooked it.

I think Protector makes some good points. Where does the GR exist, objectively? What is it's source? It's ontology? Proposed as it is, it would seem to be contingent on man existing, and of course that is subjective. Unless you propose that man (and woman) exist here purposefully, and of course we know where that points. And, that is what ultimately makes me doubt that you are using the word 'objective' in the same sense as Craig. You can say things are more pleasant for you if people live by the GR. True, but arbitrary. You can even say everyone benefits. True, but arbitrary. But ultimately, why does it matter? Is there any inherent purpose or meaning in people existing at all, much less existing and living by the GR? If man is merely a by-product of a mindless, unguided, material world, then the GR is a product of such. You may prefer it. In fact, every person may prefer it (even though some don't). But that doesn't make it objective in the ontological sense. It may be objective under moral epistomology, but not moral ontology.
I think we learned from Aristotle's mistakes that it isn't necessarily right to apply metaphysical meanings to physics. In fact, many people miss out on the metaphysical works of Aristotle because of his mistakes regarding science. I would say to also be wary of the doing the opposite. Applying physic's principles to metaphysics, which seems to be the case.

The Golden Rule and the Foundation of Objective Morality

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
~ Matthew 7:12 (NIV)
The "Moral Argument for God" asserts that there would be no moral truths if there were no God. Here is how prominent Christian apologist William Lane Craig formulates the argument:

If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Therefore, God exists.


His argument is flawed because he conflates the idea of "moral values" with "moral duties." The concept of "duty" secretly imports his conclusion because it implies the existence of social norms and laws which require a legislative agent whereas our moral intuitions are based on what we think is right or wrong regardless of such things. Our moral intuitions are based entirely on the nature of the action itself and its effect on sentient beings. They have absolutely nothing to do with social norms or duties. This is self-evident because any social norm is itself subject to moral judgment. They can be moral or immoral. Dr. Craig's error is evident from a simple review of Webster's definition of duty which depends critically on legislative agents like parents, superiors, civil laws, and institutions like the military:
1: conduct due to parents and superiors
2a: obligatory tasks, conduct, service, or functions that arise from one's position
2b: (1) assigned service or business (2) : active military service (3) : a period of being on duty
3a: a moral or legal obligation
3b: the force of moral obligation
Another fundamental flaw in Dr. Craig's argument is his disjunction between moral ontology and moral epistemology. Here is how he expresses it in his article Keeping Moral Epistemology and Moral Ontology Distinct:
"I’m convinced that keeping the distinction between moral epistemology and moral ontology clear is the most important task in formulating and defending a moral argument for God’s existence of the type I defend. A proponent of that argument will agree quite readily (and even insist) that we do not need to know or even believe that God exists in order to discern objective moral values or to recognize our moral duties. Affirming the ontological foundations of objective moral values and duties in God similarly says nothing about how we come to know those values and duties. The theist can be genuinely open to whatever epistemological theories his secular counterpart proposes for how we come to know objective values and duties."

Dr. Craig's essential error is his idea that "the ontological foundations of objective moral values and duties in God ... says nothing about how we come to know those values and duties." This is absurd for two reasons. First, we would never be talking about the abstract philosophical "ontological foundations" of moral values if we didn't already have a compelling epistemological foundation for how we know them. Second, epistemology and ontology are mutually dependent as explained by Hugh G. Gauch, Jr. his book Scientific Method in Practice (quote available online):
"In ordinary discourse, ontology, epistemology, and logic are reasonably distinct and recognizable topics within philosophy. But at the point where discourse begins, those topics fuse together. The reason is that epistemology presumes ontology, because what we know depends on what exists. But also ontology presumes epistemology, because what we can become aware of depends on our sensory and cognitive faculties. And logic is operating in any rational discourse."

It is impossible to understand the objective ground of morality (ontology) without understanding how we know if something is moral (epistemology). The two aspects must be fully unified in any intellectually satisfying theory of morality. And so the fundamental question is this: How do we know if something is moral? The answer, with which Dr. Craig appears to agree when he says he would "appeal to all the same mechanisms that you appeal to in order to explain how you know" the truth of moral values, is the Golden Rule. That is how any sentient being determines if something is moral. We put ourselves in the place of the other and ask if we would want to be subject to our own actions. This is the principle of moral symmetry. So why is it so important for Dr. Craig to keep moral ontology separate from moral epistemology? It is because he desires to use moral values to prove the existence of God and so must hide the root of our moral intuitions which obviously has nothing to do with any god. He attempts to ground moral values ontologically in "God's commands." This is called the Divine Command Theory. It is fraught with fatal philosophical problems and is, in my estimation, fundamentally irrational because it breaks the connection between the nature of an action, what it is (moral ontology), and how we know if it is right or wrong (moral epistemology).

A Complete theory of Objective Morality

The philosophical clouds of confusion quickly disperse when we simply appeal to the Golden Rule, the root of our moral intuitions. It is an objective rule because it is based on an objective principle of moral symmetry which constrains any morally valid statement concerning person A and person B to be invariant under an interchange of the two persons, everything else being equal. Specifically:
Person A can discern if action X affecting person B is moral if person A would be willing to be subject to action X by person B (everything else being equal).
This statement is symmetric under an interchange of person A and person B. It is an objective way for anyone to know if there actions are moral. The same formula can be written to objectively define the moral value of any action X:
An action X by person A affecting person B is moral if and only if person A would be willing to be subject to action X by person B (everything else being equal).
It is an objective standard because it's truth value does not depend on any particular individual (confusions relating to the subjective "willingness" of person A will be dealt with in a future article). It is a satisfying theory of morality because it tells us why something is moral. It is nothing but a precise formulation of the Golden Rule, the most universal moral principle, explained in terms of moral symmetry. It is analogous to the symmetry constraints used to derived fundamental laws of physics. For example, the law of conservation of angular momentum can be derived from the rotational symmetry of space by Noether's Theorem. It is also similar to the Pauli Exclusion Principle which imposes a symmetry constraint on the quantum state vector and so explains the structure of the atom. Thus our deepest moral intuitions are formally similar to the logic that led to our greatest insights into the fundamental nature of physical reality.

There is much more to say (involving love, for example) and many details to work out (such as objections involving psychopaths and masochists, the meaning of "everything else being equal," etc.) which will be the subject of a series of articles. But nothing can detract from the profound depth, beauty, and simplicity of this line of reasoning to understand the root and reality of our moral intuitions. I am confident that this argument will yield an intellectually satisfying and robust theory of objective morality.