Evidence for God from Science

Spock wrote:It is a fundamental error to equate atheism with materialism. The two concepts are distinct. It may be true that materialism implies atheism, but not the reverse. Atheism is the rejection of theism, not of metaphysics! An atheist could believe in the perennial philosophy that sees "mind" or the One Self as the ground of being. Or pansychism or idealism or any number of isms. But Craig deliberately misleads his audience to believe in the false dichotomy that says the only options are theism or materialism. I think this is a gross intellectual and moral failure on Craig's part. I saw him do it again in a debate I watched tonight.
Love is objective. I begin with the axiom that "Self loves Self." Then our big brains with the ability to abstract and represent ourselves and others to ourselves gets all philosophical and develops the a priori principle of indifference and the next thing you know it sees the obvious logic that "I could just as well be that person" and TADA the Golden Rule is recognized. We have an objective test to discern the truth value of moral statements and objective morality is understood.

I am sorry you took me as equating atheism with materialism, I was commenting on love not atheism or materialism, if it is objective I believe there has to be a source outside ourselves where it comes from, if not it would be materialistic in it's process. Now before you try to explain all that philosophical gubbly gook to me, I won't understand it and neither do I care about it, I believe God exists because of personal experience which negates me to bother arguing about the subject, which I find quite boring and tedious as I already know the answer.

I agree with Craig that it is one or the other, mainly because of my own and others personal experiences with God, because in my mind only God exists, anything other than him would have to be materialism period.

I know it's not much of an argument, but I am not trying to argue or convince anyone (convicting I leave to God).

This ain't rocket science you know. It really seems pretty basic and obvious to me.

No it is not rocket science, yet what you say still makes no sense. I am a mechanical person, I work with pictures and numbers in my mind not words, ask me to pull apart an engine, rebuild a gear box, make something out of metal/wood/plastic (or pretty much any other material) and I can, I would have a better chance building a working rocket and flying it to the moon than getting my Phd in philosophy.

No offence, it's just the way I work.


Dan

jlay wrote:The issue is whether the decision is CORRECT

This is your issue. How do you determine if it is correct? As you and others have said to me on this forum: the death penalty for breaking the 10 commandments was something that was done 2000 years ago and it was basically only for the jews because they were stubborn in accepting God.

How do you motivate your KILLING nowadays? I think it's clear that we don't use the death penalty for breaking the 10 commandments.

I told you and I am telling you again: you are using subjective moral values when making such decisions.

jlay wrote:So, you are saying motive and intent do matter. Good. But Bryan you are not making any argument. YOU are telling us what we SHOULD do and SHOULDN'T do. You've yet to provide any basis for this. You deny OM, but you keep saying SHOULD and SHOULDN'T. I hope you understand that this is smuggling in OM.

Actually I am not telling you what you should do and what you shouldn't do.
I just pointed out that according to the bible you have Justified Killing and Unjustified Killing.
That is subjective and you are trying to make it objective by saying that this whole moral spirit comes from God. God is kind of subjective then.

jlay wrote:People making subjective moral interpretations is NOT an argument against OM.

People do not only make subjective moral interpretations, but they act subjective as well.

Here is something I wrote on page 26 of this topic:

BryanH wrote:***Every person is unique and has an individual personality. Given these 2 facts, you can't argue that a PERSON can be MORALLY OBJECTIVE. They can be closer or further to what the general moral values are.
***A In normal social conditions every person will be closer and 'more' objective to moral values.
***B In special extreme conditions, you will notice that the survival instinct takes over and people can do pretty immoral things just to survive.

Given facts A+B, you can't say that a PERSON is morally objective because SAME moral values are used differently given different scenarios.

So tell me again, how can you prove OM? Your only argument that can still stand is that OM comes from and God.
First you have to prove God and then you have to prove he is Objective.
Even if I agree with his existence, the bible shows that he is rather not objective at all.

Welcome back, Spock

Definition: A statement is objective if its truth value can be determined by an objective test.

Note that this definition states a sufficient but not necessary condition. There may be objective statements for which we have no test. For example, "God exists" may be objectively true even though there is no objective test to determine that fact.

Examples:

Objective: It is 73 degrees and sunny outside.
Subjective: The Grateful Dead plays great music.

Applying this to morality we have:

Definition: A moral statement is objective if its truth value can be determined by an objective test.
So the question comes down to this: What is the test? How do we determine if something is or is not moral? It is my argument that the Golden Rule provides such a test.

Spock, you already know that, me or anyone else will not go against the GR. See the bold part in your statement. How do you escape this, that the determination process is truly "non-subjective"? For you would agree that the we are not dealing with mathematics here. 2+2, might be the same even across the multi-verse, why? for one thing it has to or we need to further research. But as you yourself pointed out with regards Kant, and I favor the same conclusion, that telling a lie across various scenarios is not the same, it is not consistent, for to be consistent we can reach absurdities. The GR provides a good test but that is really not in question here.

Is there any other moral theory that can provide such a test? The Divine Command Theory fails utterly because we don't have any direct access to the the Divine Commands and so have no way to test if anything is moral or not. Appeal to a sacred text is no help for three reasons. First, there is no objective test to determine which, if any, sacred text accurately represents the Divine Commands. Second, there is no sacred text that unambiguously states a complete set of the Divine Commands. Third, all existing sacred texts have many possible interpretations and there is no objective test to determine which, if any, is true. This means that the Divine Command Theory fails redundantly. I can't imagine how anyone could take it seriously for a moment.

While I see you reference this with regards to WLC, I am going to skip this, because I really have nothing to put on defense here.

Why does the symmetry make the GR objective? Because the symmetry is based on the principle of indifference which says there is no OBJECTIVE reason to prefer one over the other. This is the same logic we use to determine the OBJECTIVE statistics of rolling a six sided die. We expect each face to appear 1/6th of the time because there are six faces and no reason to prefer one over the other. Same goes for human faces.

Yes, but what are the limits of the indifference principle?

It is not objective, because the uniformity of the equal probabilities is not evidence of objectivity but probable succession. I find the analogy, not proper. And the circular error of the argument rests in the details. For, instance, if we have no evidence at all, about all the outcomes on a six sided dice, then sure there is no circular logic here. But when you say that I have a symmetrical-balanced outcome as objective proof, then I have to note i.e that all the probable outcomes would also weigh in favor of all the desired probable outcomes, equally, every 1/6 of the time. That makes it circular because you can not do it without using probability as a reference a priori since your desired outcome also resides within the probable indifference.

The Lex Talionis has a kind of superficial symmetry and that's why it appealed to primitive people with an undeveloped moral sense. It obviously fails as a moral theory since the true moral theory must cohere with love. Why do you think that all morally advanced people reject the Lex Telionis? It obviously fails the test of the Golden Rule which in its purest expression is merely the Law of Love. Indeed, most if not all of the confusion in this discussion would evaporate if folks understood that morality is the logic of love.

1. The Lex Talionis has a kind of superficial symmetry...
I do not think so, please point where does the superficial part lies in Lex Talionis and I'll show you where it lies in GR.

2. A true moral theory must cohere with love.
Why?
what is love? Does it exists anywhere but within the chemical imbalance of our hormones?

3. Why do you think that all morally advanced people reject the Lex Telionis?
No they don't, last I heard they still jail people for murdering, they hang them too. Is that an immoral act? Or else you mean that societies where capital punishment is still legal are "morally" inferior, I do not think you meant that to be particular but your statement implies this passively. You see again, this is circular and cherry-picking. Your sample data considers and categorizes people in "morally advance" forms and vice-versa, yet you maintain its objectivity on the human perception of a certain group of people. An ad populum is not going to help your theory here.

4. I never said that symmetry was a sufficient condition. It is only a necessary condition. Not all symmetric statements are moral or even true.
True indeed, but for your "all things being equal" part you need the symmetry to be not only sufficient but also true and the inference, valid.

5. Yes, the Lex Talionis is objective. But it is objectively evil whereas the GR is objectively good...The underlying principle of the Golden Rule is symmetry based on self-love. The underlying principle of the Lex Talionis is revenge,
Here is your error. Why would you think that GR is based in self-love? how it is different from being selfish? You are attaching connotations to the GR and the LT. And you have conceded that L.T is objective. In-fact, if you note, I also said the same thing, LT and GR are anti-thesis. The difference is I do not have to say that LT is objective at all but you have to maintain it or else you would have to concede the objectivity of GR as well.

Now you are talking about is, application , yes, IN A WAY (not always or every time) in application, the LT can be used as revenge but it can also be used as justice. Even by your earlier words, if a killer enters your home, you have every reason to lie to him and not disclose the location of a family member. The killer gets what he deserves in principle, since he broke a moral rule, he should be treated with respect to LT (he broke in your home therefore you have no reason to be honest.) and he not be treated with respect to GR, which in this case would be absurd since if you never want to be lied to, you should not lie to the killer. No body wants to be lied to, every person on this planet might agree to this, why because it is rational and closest to the state of reality we can get by information from others. But in this instance the GR is not important, we can skip it, because it is not objective.

The same way GR can be motivated by pure selfish means,too. The outcome of this immoral notion may be helpful to some but would that change the motivation of the act? No. There is no reason to prefer one over the other, you see as long as we already define that the motivation for the act has no bearing on the act itself, which you are doing, then any act regardless of why we did it, becomes moral because of its consequences. But this makes it even more problematic. You would inevitably have to justify your theory on the consequences of the actions, not their motivations. This again makes it subjective.

Spock wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Spock wrote:As for the "uniqueness" of my argument - I don't know if that is true because I have not read all the philosophical literature. I'm currently researching this to find out what philosophers may have written. Other folks in this thread have baldly asserted that it is "nothing new" but they forgot to present any evidence, such as a link or a quote, supporting that assertion.

Then you ought to familiarize yourself with Emanuel Kant, particularly what he terms "Categorical Imperative". But I have a feeling you're already familiar with it.

I'm no expert in Kant, but yes, of course I am familiar with the categorical imperative. It is similar, but significantly different than the Golden Rule as Kant himself explicitly stated. He thought the categorical imperative was philosophically superior to the Golden Rule.

Kant's theory has crazy implications. For example, Kant believed that the categorical imperative implied ridiculous things like it would ALWAYS be wrong to lie under any circumstance, even when lying to a murderer about the location of the person he desires to kill. Obviously, he was not a clear thinker. I doubt he himself even knew what he meant some of the time. It looks to me that he denied the most basic moral intuition that there is a hierarchy of values descending from love merely because the truth contradicted his theory. He should be dismissed out of hand because his central theory leads directly to moral absurdities.

Kant erred from the start as also did Craig. As explained in a previous post, morality is NOT based on "imperatives" and "duties." It is based on love. Duh. Moral theory is merely the logic of love. Without love, there is no moral understanding at all.

Yes, Kant was smart enough to know GR is not objective enough to base his moral theory upon. But hey, maybe you're smarter than Kant, I don't know (not being facetious, you could very well be). But since you distanced your theory from kant's CI and you dismissed 'out of hand' (your words) anything that has to do with classical Aristotelian/Scholastic/Tomistic philosophy (which is your exact antithesis) then you've truly built yourself a no true Scotsman argument.

lol, I should've read Beany's response before posting. Much more eloquant than mine.

The Protector wrote:Spock,

Thank you for your contributions. You have brought up some interesting points. I am still in the process of digesting it all, so again I must beg your patience. I have a couple of questions that I hope you can further clarify:

Hey there Protector,

I applaud your careful thoughtfulness. Please take all the time you need to reflect on things before commenting. That is a rare virtue of great value on the internet.

The Protector wrote:

Spock wrote:
Definition: A statement is objective if its truth value can be determined by an objective test.

Note that this definition states a sufficient but not necessary condition. There may be objective statements for which we have no test. For example, "God exists" may be objectively true even though there is no objective test to determine that fact.

Examples:

Objective: It is 73 degrees and sunny outside.
Subjective: The Grateful Dead plays great music.

I take it, then, that you propose that the GR is like the thermometer in the above example? What I don't get, though, is where you think the analogous statement regarding moral actions or duties might go.

Man may develop the thermometer, establishing consistent interval markings thereon in order to develop an objective measure, but ultimately the measure of degrees is the measure of a man-made construct, is it not? I doubt you would suggest that fahrenheit measurements are objectively preferable to celsius, after all. Although we may develop an objective (i.e. consistent) measure of molecular motion, it would be inaccurate to say that degrees exist, and we can measure 73 of them. In the end, it's a bit like cutting oatmeal at its joints; we are imposing a descrete template onto a continuous phenomenon. Bearing that in mind, are you really saying that "morality" exists and the GR is our objective measure thereof, or are you saying that the GR is objectively morality itself?

Yes, the Golden Rule compares to the thermometer in as much as it provides an objective test to establish the truth value of moral statements. In principle, we can discern the objective moral value of any action by the Golden Rule. I say "in principle" because we will always encounter complex moral situations where the application of our science is beyond our ability. This happens all the time. For example, Quantum Mechanics is great and we have yet to find any disconfirmation of it, but we can actually use it to directly calculate the exact solution of a very small set of problems because the equations quickly get too complex when there are more than a few interacting particles. In those situations we must develop other methods such as statistical mechanics to deal with averages governed by the fundamental laws because we simply have no way to know the exact state of each and every particle.

You said: "the measure of degrees is the measure of a man-made construct." That is correct. All units of measurement like meters, seconds, etc. are "man made." Does that make physics subjective? Of course not. One of the demands we impose upon physics is that it must be independent of coordinate systems and units in the sense that there are objective rules to transform from one set to another. This is what motivated Einstein to develop the Special Theory of Relativity. Observations made from different inertial frames of reference will depend upon the relative velocities of the reference frames, but there are objective rules to transform from one to another so that the objective (invariant) phenomena can be discerned with no ambiguity.

The Protector wrote: Also, if the statement, "Yahweh performed bad moral acts" is objective, then why isn't the statement "The Grateful Dead play great music" objective as well? If moral goodness is objective while musical goodness is subjective, is it because true morality "exists" and true musicality does not, or is it because we simply lack an objective (i.e. consistent) measure for the latter?

I do not think that things are "objectively moral" because "true morality exists." Statements like that don't add anything to our understanding. On the contrary, they tend to add a lot of confusion because our concept of "exists" is based on things in physical reality that can be measured with instruments. This confusion is found in some definitions of objectivity as discussed earlier in this thread. The problem is that we don't know what it means for an abstract concept to "exist" and to speak that way is at best metaphorical and leads to dubious questions about "where" the non-physical things "exist" which is a category mistake because the concept of "where" applies only to physical objects.

I don't know if musical values are objective, but I doubt they are because they are profoundly dependent upon attributes unique to each individual. It is hard to imagine any kind of objective test like the Golden Rule to discern the truth of statements about musical value. This is the same as other personal preferences. The Golden Rule is different because things are right or wrong quite independently of personal preferences. We can establish this upon fundamental principles that 1) Self loves self, and 2) Our big brain can represent ourselves and others to ourselves and then apply logic which results in an understanding of morality because we see that self could just as well be other. This is the logic of love. More on this below.

The Protector wrote:

Spock wrote: Why does the symmetry make the GR objective? Because the symmetry is based on the principle of indifference which says there is no OBJECTIVE reason to prefer one over the other. This is the same logic we use to determine the OBJECTIVE statistics of rolling a six sided die. We expect each face to appear 1/6th of the time because there are six faces and no reason to prefer one over the other. Same goes for human faces.

Now surely you don't mean this, do you? It seems you conflate "expect" with "prefer," or at any rate equivocate on the meaning of "prefer" here. You are right that we expect each face of a fair 6-sided die to appear 1/6th of the time, but it has nothing to do with our preferences. Indeed, our preference for which side turns up has to do with how much we have riding on the outcome, not on proper understanding of probabilities! When we speak of what we expect to see from a 6-sided die, then--that is, when we speak of a "fair" die--we are referring to what should be observed if all six outcomes are equally likely. With humans, on the other hand, an individual could have any number of reasons to prefer one human face over another, and we have no reason to expect to observe equal treatment among humans because we have no reason to expect that all outcomes are equal. Where am I misunderstanding you here?

I most certainly meant exactly what I wrote. The words "expect" and "prefer" are common in the literature discussing statistics, epistemic probability, etc. The word "prefer" refers to choices guided by the principle of indifference. Here is how my brother in law Robin Collins, Professor of the Philosophy of Science at Messiah College (we met while both getting our degrees in Physics and Mathematics 30 years ago and I married his sister, my beloved Butterfly 9 years ago) states it in his article called The Fine-Tuning Design Argument: A Scientific Argument for the Existence of God (he is a leader in the field - he's debated Stenger and Craig quoted him in a debate I watched last night):

Applied to cases in which there is a finite number of alternatives, the principle of indifference can be formulated as the claim that we should assign the same probability to what are called equipossible alternatives, where two or more alternatives are said to be equipossible if we have no reason to prefer one of the alternatives over any of the others. (In another version of the principle, alternatives that are relevantly symmetrical are considered equipossible and hence the ones that should be assigned equal probability.) For instance, in the case of a standard two-sided coin, we have no more reason to think that the coin will land on heads than that it will land on tails, and so we assign them each an equal probability. Since the total probability must add up to one, this means that the coin has a 0.5 chance of landing on heads and an 0.5 chance of landing on tails. Similarly, in the case of a standard six-sided die, we have no more reason to think that it will land on one number, say a 6, than any of the other number, such as a 4. Thus, the principle of indifference tells us to assign each possible way of landing an equal probability--namely 1/6.

The "assigning of equal probability" is just another way to say what we should "expect" based on the fact that we have no reason to "prefer" one face over another.

The Protector wrote:

Spock wrote: The Lex Talionis has a kind of superficial symmetry and that's why it appealed to primitive people with an undeveloped moral sense. It obviously fails as a moral theory since the true moral theory must cohere with love. Why do you think that all morally advanced people reject the Lex Telionis? It obviously fails the test of the Golden Rule which in its purest expression is merely the Law of Love. Indeed, most if not all of the confusion in this discussion would evaporate if folks understood that morality is the logic of love.

Spock wrote: Yes, the Lex Talionis is objective. But it is objectively evil whereas the GR is objectively good.

The difference with the GR should be evident. The GR is logical framework powered by self-love. A computer makes a fine analogy: if the circuits are logic, love is the electricity. The only way we could possibly love others is if we have direct personal knowledge of what love is. This knowledge comes from the intrinsic love that every being has for its own self. It is an axiom that self loves self. That's why Christ equated love with unity amongst believers. This love then expands to include others symmetrically through the Golden Rule. It is a progression from self-love to Self-love, where the capitalized Self refers to the ultimate unity of all reality which is nicely captured in the Bible in the statement that God, who is identified with love, is the "all in all."

Previously I thought you were simply saying that the GR was a moral code that is objective, and that the whole debate hinged on how we and Craig used the word "objective." But here you seem to be implying something more than that: You seem to be saying that the GR is THE objective moral code. Am I understanding you correctly?

If so, then:

What is love (baby don't hurt me)? That is, as you are using it here.

Why is love "good?" By what standard?

Why must a true moral theory "cohere with love?"

Why do you say Lex Talionis has only "superficial symmetry?" What does it lack that is needed for true symmetry?

I understand that you are stating that "self loves self" as an axiom, but what reason do we have to accept it? I see people every day who quite clearly do not love themselves.

Thank you for your time and patience as I try to understand these things.

I think it is I who should thank YOU for carefully presenting your probing questions!

You seem to be saying that the GR is THE objective moral code. Am I understanding you correctly?
I wouldn't call it a "moral code." It is an objective test to determine the truth value of moral statements.

What is love (baby don't hurt me)? That is, as you are using it here.
All philosophy and science requires primitive concepts that cannot be defined in terms of other words else we would fall into an infinite regress or self-referential loop. I think love is the proper "primitive concept" and that morality is the logic of love. Here is how the wiki explains it:

In mathematics, logic, and formal systems, a primitive notion is an undefined concept. In particular, a primitive notion is not defined in terms of previously defined concepts, but is only motivated informally, usually by an appeal to intuition and everyday experience. In an axiomatic theory or other formal system, the role of a primitive notion is analogous to that of axiom. In axiomatic theories, the primitive notions are sometimes said to be "defined" by one or more axioms, but this can be misleading. Formal theories cannot dispense with primitive notions, under pain of infinite regress.

Why is love "good?" By what standard?
Would you ever ask that question of Jesus? If not, why not? If so, what do you think his answer would be?

Why must a true moral theory "cohere with love?"
Because moral theory is the logic of love. Could a person with no love have any authentic moral intuitions?

Why do you say Lex Talionis has only "superficial symmetry?" What does it lack that is needed for true symmetry?
That was probably a poor choice of words. The symmetry is "superficial" because that's all the Lex Talionis has going for it. It obviously fails as a moral principle for two reasons. 1) It does not account for our moral intuitions, and 2) It directly contradicts our moral intuitions.

I understand that you are stating that "self loves self" as an axiom, but what reason do we have to accept it? I see people every day who quite clearly do not love themselves.
A self is by definition a unity. People such as schizophrenics who lack self love have a severe mental illness and are incapable of understanding the Golden Rule, especially in its ultimate formulation as Universal Love taught by Christ when he said "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Folks who hate themselves have a "divided self" - as Christ said, "a house divided cannot stand." A good introduction to the psychology of this mental illness is R. D. Laing's book The Divided Self: An Existential Study in Sanity and Madness.. As its title suggests, any sentient being lacking self-love (recall the fundamental relation between Love and Unity - the principle underlying Integrity, Morality, etc.) is insane to one degree or another.

This is why this moral theory is so compelling. It coheres with literally everything we know of morality, psychology, religion, physics, philosophy ... This is the sin qua non of truth. Indeed, this touches on the essence of all truth, which is well expressed in E. O. Wilson's book Consilience - the Unity of Knowledge. To be "consilient" is to be intellectually harmonious, to cohere logically and factually. Note the connection with the word "reconciliation." All truth must be consilient with all other truth because truth is ONE = Unified. All ultimate principles share this property. Unity is fundamental to our concept of love. Mental unity is integrity of mind. Moral unity is integrity of heart. This is all so plain and obvious. The major problems of philosophy should have been solved aions ago. The principle of concilience is the fundamental principle of epistemology. How do we know something is true? If we have many mutually confirming independent witnesses. Physics coheres with chemistry coheres with mathematics coheres with biology coheres with geology ... etc., etc., etc. Our confidence that we have the truth grows in direct proportion to the number of mutually confirming independent witnesses. This is, of course, also taught in Scripture in the oft repeated rule that 'in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established."

BryanH wrote:This is your issue. How do you determine if it is correct? As you and others have said to me on this forum: the death penalty for breaking the 10 commandments was something that was done 2000 years ago and it was basically only for the jews because they were stubborn in accepting God.

How do you motivate your KILLING nowadays? I think it's clear that we don't use the death penalty for breaking the 10 commandments.

I told you and I am telling you again: you are using subjective moral values when making such decisions.

How we determine whether something is correct is different than whether it REALLY is CORRECT. You keep repeating the same thing. People are subjective. They make subjective decisions. So, is everyone correct?
You aren't answering the questions. Is it equally moral to protect the innocent versus do nothing? Why won't you answer these questions?

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Spock wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:If morals are the logic of love, then where does this love come from, is there an objective love giver or is it illusory, caused by random chance inside the brain.

It is a fundamental error to equate atheism with materialism. The two concepts are distinct. It may be true that materialism implies atheism, but not the reverse. Atheism is the rejection of theism, not of metaphysics! An atheist could believe in the perennial philosophy that sees "mind" or the One Self as the ground of being. Or pansychism or idealism or any number of isms. But Craig deliberately misleads his audience to believe in the false dichotomy that says the only options are theism or materialism. I think this is a gross intellectual and moral failure on Craig's part. I saw him do it again in a debate I watched tonight.
Love is objective. I begin with the axiom that "Self loves Self." Then our big brains with the ability to abstract and represent ourselves and others to ourselves gets all philosophical and develops the a priori principle of indifference and the next thing you know it sees the obvious logic that "I could just as well be that person" and TADA the Golden Rule is recognized. We have an objective test to discern the truth value of moral statements and objective morality is understood.

I am sorry you took me as equating atheism with materialism, I was commenting on love not atheism or materialism, if it is objective I believe there has to be a source outside ourselves where it comes from, if not it would be materialistic in it's process. Now before you try to explain all that philosophical gubbly gook to me, I won't understand it and neither do I care about it, I believe God exists because of personal experience which negates me to bother arguing about the subject, which I find quite boring and tedious as I already know the answer.

I agree with Craig that it is one or the other, mainly because of my own and others personal experiences with God, because in my mind only God exists, anything other than him would have to be materialism period.

I know it's not much of an argument, but I am not trying to argue or convince anyone (convicting I leave to God).

Hey there Dan,

As we can see by the words I highlighted red, you clearly believe that atheism implies materialism. That's why I addressed that point. How then could you say "I am sorry you took me as equating atheism with materialism"?

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Spock wrote:This ain't rocket science you know. It really seems pretty basic and obvious to me.

No it is not rocket science, yet what you say still makes no sense. I am a mechanical person, I work with pictures and numbers in my mind not words, ask me to pull apart an engine, rebuild a gear box, make something out of metal/wood/plastic (or pretty much any other material) and I can, I would have a better chance building a working rocket and flying it to the moon than getting my Phd in philosophy.

No offence, it's just the way I work.

Dan

Don't worry Dan, I take no offense at all. I really appreciate the fact you took care to be sure. That is very valuable to discussions like ours. We need to maintain an attitude of mutual respect and our common love of truth. Thanks!

I find it curious that that Golden Rule makes no sense to you. Christ hung the entire divine revelation upon it! How is it possible that its truth is not immediately self-evident to you? And now my curiosity is piqued because you didn't actually state what you don't understand. You merely said that you are mechanically minded. What does that have to do with our discussion? If there is something about the Golden Rule that you say "makes no sense" please be specific and I will do my best to answer.

All the best,

Richard

Spock wrote:
I find it curious that that Golden Rule makes no sense to you. Christ hung the entire divine revelation upon it! How is it possible that its truth is not immediately self-evident to you?

Now wait a minute, Spock. If you believe Christ hung the entire divine revelation upon the GR, and you also believe that Christ says he is God, then how can you say that the GR isn't from God? From where do you believe Christ got the GR that upon which, he hung the entire divine revelation? Please explain in laymans terms so even we dummies can understand. Thanks.

Not sure where the notion that Christ hung "the entire divine revelation" on some version of the GR comes from, since Christ says:
43 “(BD)You have heard that it was said, ‘(BE)You shall love your neighbor (BF)and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, (BG)love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be (BH)sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 For (BI)if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 Therefore (BJ)you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

And even more so(perhaps):
A (AX)new commandment I give to you, (AY)that you love one another, (AZ)even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 (BA)By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

It is important to understand that the GR is a starting point, not the end or an end unto itself.

RickD wrote:

Spock wrote:
I find it curious that that Golden Rule makes no sense to you. Christ hung the entire divine revelation upon it! How is it possible that its truth is not immediately self-evident to you?

Now wait a minute, Spock. If you believe Christ hung the entire divine revelation upon the GR, and you also believe that Christ says he is God, then how can you say that the GR isn't from God? From where do you believe Christ got the GR that upon which, he hung the entire divine revelation? Please explain in laymans terms so even we dummies can understand. Thanks.

Christ got the GR from his direct perception of Truth just like everyone else who sees it. If that Truth is God, then he got it from God but that doesn't mean that his conception of God, which was steeped in Jewish tradition, was correct. There are big problems with believing in the God Christ spoke of. For example, when I read descriptions of Yahweh I see much that seems irrational, false, and morally abominable. And we don't even know if the Gospel record is accurate because it was written long after the fact. Imagine if all we had was the official "record" of Joseph Smith written by the Mormons. Should we trust it? Of course not. Why then should we presume that the Gospels are accurate? We know from Joseph Smith that new religions can be made up instantly out of whole cloth despite any fact checkers. This is because the members of his cult were looking for gullible folks willing to believe, not rational folk who are skeptical.

I hope that is simple enough. If not, I would be happy to explain more.

Spock wrote:
Christ got the GR from his direct perception of Truth just like everyone else who sees it. If that Truth is God, then he got it from God but that doesn't mean that his conception of God, which was steeped in Jewish tradition, was correct.

Richard, your whole argument is that the God that the bible talks about can't be the real God because of the immoralities you think the biblical God says He condones. So, let's stick to what the bible claims. The bible claims Jesus Christ is God. So, Christ, according to the bible, IS truth. Christ, being God, can't get his direct perception of truth outside himself. I'm not saying you have to believe this, only that you have to admit that the bible says, Christ is God. If you won't admit that, then you have a whole other set of problems that undermine your credibility.

Spock wrote:
. There are big problems with believing in the God Christ spoke of. For example, when I read descriptions of Yahweh I see much that seems irrational, false, and morally abominable. And we don't even know if the Gospel record is accurate because it was written long after the fact.

This is irrelevant. You're arguing against the God that the bible portrays. The bible portrays Jesus Christ as God in the flesh.

Hey there Dan,
As we can see by the words I highlighted red, you clearly believe that atheism implies materialism. That's why I addressed that point. How then could you say "I am sorry you took me as equating atheism with materialism"?

This is getting a little off topic now, but anyway as to your question, I have no idea what an atheist is these days, some tell me it is someone who does not believe in God(s), then others tell me it is someone who has a lack of belief in a God(s) (apparently there is a difference) and there are other less common definitions. So no I am not equating atheism with materialism, I am equating materialism with materialism because from my perspective a God exists so anything other would be materialistic because that is all there would be.

Don't worry Dan, I take no offence at all. I really appreciate the fact you took care to be sure. That is very valuable to discussions like ours. We need to maintain an attitude of mutual respect and our common love of truth. Thanks!

I find it curious that that Golden Rule makes no sense to you. Christ hung the entire divine revelation upon it! How is it possible that its truth is not immediately self-evident to you? And now my curiosity is piqued because you didn't actually state what you don't understand. You merely said that you are mechanically minded. What does that have to do with our discussion? If there is something about the Golden Rule that you say "makes no sense" please be specific and I will do my best to answer.

Oh don't get me wrong, I understand basically what the GR is, I just don't understand or care about the philosophical augments for it being objective without God, mainly because I already know God exists making the discussion in my view pointless. Me being mechanical is relevant, I build stuff with my hand not my mind like other people, this is not my area of expertise so I will stay well clear thank you.

Dan

neo-x wrote:Welcome back, Spock

Definition: A statement is objective if its truth value can be determined by an objective test.

Note that this definition states a sufficient but not necessary condition. There may be objective statements for which we have no test. For example, "God exists" may be objectively true even though there is no objective test to determine that fact.

Examples:

Objective: It is 73 degrees and sunny outside.
Subjective: The Grateful Dead plays great music.

Applying this to morality we have:

Definition: A moral statement is objective if its truth value can be determined by an objective test.
So the question comes down to this: What is the test? How do we determine if something is or is not moral? It is my argument that the Golden Rule provides such a test.

Spock, you already know that, me or anyone else will not go against the GR. See the bold part in your statement. How do you escape this, that the determination process is truly "non-subjective"? For you would agree that the we are not dealing with mathematics here. 2+2, might be the same even across the multi-verse, why? for one thing it has to or we need to further research. But as you yourself pointed out with regards Kant, and I favor the same conclusion, that telling a lie across various scenarios is not the same, it is not consistent, for to be consistent we can reach absurdities. The GR provides a good test but that is really not in question here.

Hey there neo-x,

I don't understand what you mean when you say that "The GR provides a good test but that is really not in question here." That is the most pertinent question. If there are objective moral values, then they are objective in the same sense as arithmetic like 1 + 2 = 3. That's what we mean by "objective." Now it is possible that there are things that are objectively true but that cannot be proven, but if we are to justify any particular statement as objectively true we need an objective test to determine that fact. So are you saying that there are objective moral truths, but that there is no way to test the truth of moral statements? If that is the case, what good is the concept of objective morals if they can never be known?

neo-x wrote:

Why does the symmetry make the GR objective? Because the symmetry is based on the principle of indifference which says there is no OBJECTIVE reason to prefer one over the other. This is the same logic we use to determine the OBJECTIVE statistics of rolling a six sided die. We expect each face to appear 1/6th of the time because there are six faces and no reason to prefer one over the other. Same goes for human faces.

Yes, but what are the limits of the indifference principle?

It is not objective, because the uniformity of the equal probabilities is not evidence of objectivity but probable succession. I find the analogy, not proper. And the circular error of the argument rests in the details. For, instance, if we have no evidence at all, about all the outcomes on a six sided dice, then sure there is no circular logic here. But when you say that I have a symmetrical-balanced outcome as objective proof, then I have to note i.e that all the probable outcomes would also weigh in favor of all the desired probable outcomes, equally, every 1/6 of the time. That makes it circular because you can not do it without using probability as a reference a priori since your desired outcome also resides within the probable indifference.

I don't understand your comments. We use the principle of indifference in the foundation of our understanding of the objective frequency of random events like rolling a die. It is based on the similar underlying symmetry principles that we use to derive objective laws of nature. Any judgment by a subject is necessarily subjective. Does this mean that science is subjective? No, of course not. The same goes for moral theory.

neo-x wrote: 1. The Lex Talionis has a kind of superficial symmetry...
I do not think so, please point where does the superficial part lies in Lex Talionis and I'll show you where it lies in GR.

As mentioned in my answer to The Protector, that was probably a poor choice of words. The symmetry is "superficial" because that's all the Lex Talionis has going for it. It obviously fails as a moral principle for two reasons. 1) It does not account for our moral intuitions, and 2) It directly contradicts our moral intuitions.

neo-x wrote: 2. A true moral theory must cohere with love.
Why?
what is love? Does it exists anywhere but within the chemical imbalance of our hormones?

Your questions are tracking quite closely with those of The Protector. I find it curious that folks focus on the "what is love" question. Would you ask that of Jesus when he commanded that you love your neighbor? If not, why not? If so, what do you think he would say? The Pharisees didn't do so well when they challenged him that way.

All philosophy and science requires primitive concepts that cannot be defined in terms of other words else we would fall into an infinite regress or self-referential loop. I think love is the proper "primitive concept" and that morality is the logic of love.

neo-x wrote: 3. Why do you think that all morally advanced people reject the Lex Telionis?
No they don't, last I heard they still jail people for murdering, they hang them too. Is that an immoral act? Or else you mean that societies where capital punishment is still legal are "morally" inferior, I do not think you meant that to be particular but your statement implies this passively. You see again, this is circular and cherry-picking. Your sample data considers and categorizes people in "morally advance" forms and vice-versa, yet you maintain its objectivity on the human perception of a certain group of people. An ad populum is not going to help your theory here.

The charge of circularity is a very popular around here. It makes no sense for you to accuse me of circularity merely because I am stating that something is morally advanced over another. And your charge strikes me as entirely inconsistent with your own beliefs. When you read the Golden Rule in the Bible, do you reject it because it is circular? If you were there when Christ taught it, would you feel inclined to give him lessons in philosophical fallacies like Cherry Picking and Ad Populum? If not, then you have a double standard and are committing the Genetic Fallacy by accepting or rejecting a proposition because of who said it rather than judging it on its own merits.

There are many confusions in your comment.

1) You are confusing laws regulating society with morality. There is some overlap of course, but the topics are quite distinct. Many social laws are merely pragmatic and have nothing to do with morality. For example, speeding is not intrinsically immoral but we makes laws prohibiting it to protect against accidents. Other laws are rooted in morality, such as the prohibition of murder. An advanced morality based on Love and the Golden Rule rejects the lex talionis (the only purpose of which is to inflict pain as punishment), and replaces it with the desire to find restoration of both the victim and the victimizer. This desire is greatly advanced over the lex talionis because it seeks the manifestation of love which is unity, harmony, justice, reconciliation, truth and all that is good. These values flow directly from Love and the Golden Rule which is most simply expressed as "Universal Love."

2) You are confusing social justice with the lex talionis. Mere punishment and retribution is not a rational moral motivation for putting people in prison. The lex talionis is a primitive form of social justice that obviously falls far short of the ideal of love which is the basis of the Golden Rule. It has been replaced with more rational systems in modern societies which are designed explicitly in accordance with the fundamental value of Love and Justice which cohere perfectly with the Golden Rule. The truly MORAL purpose of prison is protection of innocent people and the rehabilitation of criminals and their reconciliation with society. Mere revenge and punishment for the sake of punishment is grossly immoral. Here is a helpful bit from a guest article on William Lane Craig's site:

The moral foundation of punishment is a problematic issue which has prompted several competing views. A biblical perspective is anchored in the principle of retribution: punishment is deserved in proportion to the seriousness of an offence. However, the biblical endorsement of retribution is qualified and carefully nuanced. The fundamental aim is not to inflict suffering on offenders but to reassert the existence of the moral order that governs human life. That moral order emphasises the connections between justice, right relationships and seeking after community well-being. For this reason, punishment should normally aim both at making reparation to victims and at restoring offenders into the community. Taken together these priorities highlight shortcomings in our criminal justice system and suggest directions for reform.

How would you want to be treated if you were a criminal? If you were rational and had a healthy self-love, you would desire to be reconciled with the ones you harmed and be reintegrated back into society.

3) The morality of capital punishment is dubious at best. I see no reason to think it is moral because it directly contradicts the Law of Love, which is the root of all morality. Love desires the best for each person, even criminals. And what is the best for criminals? Reconciliation - just like the Good Book says.

neo-x wrote: 4. I never said that symmetry was a sufficient condition. It is only a necessary condition. Not all symmetric statements are moral or even true.
True indeed, but for your "all things being equal" part you need the symmetry to be not only sufficient but also true and the inference, valid.

I don't know what you are trying to say. You will have to elaborate a bit.

neo-x wrote: 5. Yes, the Lex Talionis is objective. But it is objectively evil whereas the GR is objectively good...The underlying principle of the Golden Rule is symmetry based on self-love. The underlying principle of the Lex Talionis is revenge,
Here is your error. Why would you think that GR is based in self-love? how it is different from being selfish? You are attaching connotations to the GR and the LT. And you have conceded that L.T is objective. In-fact, if you note, I also said the same thing, LT and GR are anti-thesis. The difference is I do not have to say that LT is objective at all but you have to maintain it or else you would have to concede the objectivity of GR as well.

There is no error. Self-love is the first of two principles of my theory that explains morality. If there is no self-love, then there cannot be love-for-other. You should know this since Christ said that you should "love your neighbor as yourself." If you have no self-love, then how could you possible know how to love others? And Paul built on this principle saying "For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church" (Ephesians 5:29). Self-love if presumed not only in the Bible, but in any rational analysis of what it means to be a "self." It is an axiom that "self loves self." If not, the self that hates itself would be a house divided, and we know what Christ said about that. I am rather surprised how much Scripture I must preach to teach such elementary truths that should be common knowledge amongst anyone claiming the name of Christ.

So here are the two principles as explained in my blog article called An Atheist Foundation for Objective Morality:

1) Self-love: All rational beings desire the best for themselves.

2) The Golden Rule: There is no objective reason to prefer one over another. This is the principle of moral symmetry, commonly known as "fairness" or "justice." An action is objectively moral if and only if a person would want to be subjected to his or her own actions.

A person who is "selfish" in the sense of ignoring the Golden Rule is immoral by definition. We all know this and that's why we understand that that kind of selfishness is morally invalid. Indeed, this is why this approach gives authentic insight into moral questions. It brings self-love into dynamic tension with the Golden Rule; self-love is the root of both moral and immoral behavior. But when coupled with the Golden Rule, we have the foundation for objective morality.

As for the "objectivity" of the LT - how can you deny it? It gives an objective rule based on nothing but logic and facts and the judgment is independent of any properties of the one judging. It is, by definition, an objective rule.

neo-x wrote: Now you are talking about is, application , yes, IN A WAY (not always or every time) in application, the LT can be used as revenge but it can also be used as justice. Even by your earlier words, if a killer enters your home, you have every reason to lie to him and not disclose the location of a family member. The killer gets what he deserves in principle, since he broke a moral rule, he should be treated with respect to LT (he broke in your home therefore you have no reason to be honest.) and he not be treated with respect to GR, which in this case would be absurd since if you never want to be lied to, you should not lie to the killer. No body wants to be lied to, every person on this planet might agree to this, why because it is rational and closest to the state of reality we can get by information from others. But in this instance the GR is not important, we can skip it, because it is not objective.

OK - that's a bit confusing, but I'll do my best to answer. Let me generalize your scenario: As far as I can tell, you are asserting that a person with immoral desires should "not be treated with respect to GR." That's fascinating. The GR says that we should treat everyone as we would want them to treat us, under the presumption of Rationality and Love. The GR is based on moral symmetry. Any rational person would desire to be treated according to the rational morality of the Golden Rule based on Love. If the criminal is immoral then he is irrational because there is a complete consilience between Rationality and Morality, that is, between Truth and Love. Therefore, when we say that we should treat others as we would want to be treated, we are presuming both parties are rational and moral. The GR is a test to determine the truth value of moral statements. It does not tell us how to act in every situation. How then do we deal with irrational and immoral people? That is a big study involving many pragmatic considerations, psychology, sociology, criminology, etc., etc., etc. I don't see it as a challenge to the fundamental theory.

neo-x wrote: The same way GR can be motivated by pure selfish means,too. The outcome of this immoral notion may be helpful to some but would that change the motivation of the act? No. There is no reason to prefer one over the other, you see as long as we already define that the motivation for the act has no bearing on the act itself, which you are doing, then any act regardless of why we did it, becomes moral because of its consequences. But this makes it even more problematic. You would inevitably have to justify your theory on the consequences of the actions, not their motivations. This again makes it subjective.

Where did you get that idea highlighted red?

PaulSacramento wrote:Not sure where the notion that Christ hung "the entire divine revelation" on some version of the GR comes from, since Christ says:
43 “(BD)You have heard that it was said, ‘(BE)You shall love your neighbor (BF)and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you, (BG)love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be (BH)sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 For (BI)if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 Therefore (BJ)you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

And even more so(perhaps):
A (AX)new commandment I give to you, (AY)that you love one another, (AZ)even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 (BA)By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.”

Christ explicitly "hung the entire divine revelation" of the OT (Law on Prophets) on the Golden Rule:

Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Matthew 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

This shows that the two formulations of the Golden Rule are equivalent.

I get the impression that you were creating confusion by applying my reference to the OT, which was the "entire divine revelation" that had been written at that time, with the later NT revelation. If so, that is nothing but confusion. It should be obvious what I meant from context.

PaulSacramento wrote: It is important to understand that the GR is a starting point, not the end or an end unto itself.

Love is the beginning and the end of morality. It is an end in itself. The GR is the logic of love. Simple as that.

Spock wrote:Love is the beginning and the end of morality. It is an end in itself. The GR is the logic of love. Simple as that.

I think the big difference with Christianity and the GR is that loving God is the beginning and end of morality and everything else flows from there. God is the logic of love which is the logic of morality.

Edit. This is why Jesus started with

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

because he knew that if you loved God this would naturally follow

Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

. Matthew 22:36

Dan