Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:

But it's NOT a "preference" there are PROVABLE correct answers.

You are still confusing ontology with epistemology. If you don't have the expertise to prove someone wrong on some matter, does that mean that they are not wrong? What if the math problem was particularly complex and you weren't capable of showing me where my answer was wrong. What if the math was so complex, that no one was yet able to show me my error? Does that mean that I am not really wrong?

I'm not confusing ontology with epistemology.

In any case, you missed the point of my question. I asked a "what if." If it so happened that math was only a matter of preference, would it make any sense for you to be able to say I was wrong? To go back to my ice cream example, why can't you tell me that I am wrong when I say that vanilla is better than chocolate?

What if chocolate ice cream WAS right? So what?'

SOMETHING changed the morality. You'll need to provide some proof of your assertion that it was "objective morality".

The morality didn't change. Our position on the question changed. What WE THOUGHT changed. Look at it this way:

They thought it was right --- They were incorrect. It was wrong
We think it was wrong --- We are right. It was wrong.

Do you see that what we THINK is what changed? What did not change was the fact that it was wrong. Again, you are confusing epistemology (which deals with what we know) and ontology (which deals with what a thing is).

I GET IT!! You're saying there IS an objective morality, and hence "correct and constant" definitions of "right" and "wrong" - right? "Objective morality" only changes things IF it is unambiguously defined, and readily "read". How do we even know if slavery is really "wrong" by "objective morality". If transactional morality is defined by contemporary society and changes over time and between cultures and "objective morality" is mute - then our transactional morality IS the only game in town.

I do. Many contemporary preachers did not.

Good. So you think those preachers were MISTAKEN? You think that they made an incorrect judgment? An objectively incorrect judgment?

What differentiates this from if they had said that chocolate ice cream was better than vanilla (or insert your favorite flavor ice cream to make the point)?

Their error was a bit more consequential than choice of ice cream. What impact did "objective morality" have on the situation? How can you prove when the situation FINALLY changed that it was because "objective morality" and not changes in human sensibilities?

I ask yet AGAIN - how do we "read" the guidance "objective morality" provides on any specific issue such that the guidance is constant between cultures and over time? Without such an ability "objective morality" is useless and might as well not exist (assuming it actually exists in the first place).

What if chocolate ice cream WAS right? So what?'

This is what makes me wonder if you really get the difference in ontology and epistemology. Let's play this out. In order for chocolate to be better than vanilla, there would have to be an objective gradation on which chocolate was higher than vanilla. What, pray tell, would that be? It cannot be a matter of personal taste, which is the definition of the statement "I like chocolate ice cream better than vanilla."

If, however, we could come up with some objective means by which chocolate was "better" than vanilla, it would have to be rooted outside the human mind. It makes no sense to say one is better than the other if this is only a matter of preference. In exactly the same way, it makes no sense to say that one action is morally better or worse than another if morality is only rooted in the human mind.

I GET IT!! You're saying there IS an objective morality, and hence "correct and constant" definitions of "right" and "wrong" - right? "Objective morality" only changes things IF it is unambiguously defined, and readily "read". How do we even know if slavery is really "wrong" by "objective morality". If transactional morality is defined by contemporary society and changes over time and between cultures and "objective morality" is mute - then our transactional morality IS the only game in town.

If you get it, then why are asking me how we decide what is right and wrong? How is that related to our discussion at all?

If transactional morality is the only game in town, and if it is defined by society,then it is completely subjective and has no meaning. By such a system, murder is not wrong. It is simply a societal preference, which is what I have been saying since the very beginning. It is a very easily distinguishable difference between ontology and epistemology. You are so hell bent on having a discussion on moral epistemology, and I don't understand that. I've not objected to anything you said regarding moral epistemology. What I am objecting to is your statement that things can be ontologically wrong (i.e., murder) apart from the existence of God. I am objecting to your idea that morality can be ontologically objective while being completely defined as a societal construct. Wayne, why can't you see that if something is defined as a societal construct, then it is subjective by definition? It is then not objective.

Tell me: if society up and decided that murder was permissible tomorrow, would you agree that it was no longer wrong, but was now good and right? Please, answer this question. If you don't answer anything else in this post, answer that question.

Their error was a bit more consequential than choice of ice cream. What impact did "objective morality" have on the situation? How can you prove when the situation FINALLY changed that it was because "objective morality" and not changes in human sensibilities?

I ask yet AGAIN - how do we "read" the guidance "objective morality" provides on any specific issue such that the guidance is constant between cultures and over time? Without such an ability "objective morality" is useless and might as well not exist (assuming it actually exists in the first place).

You are asking "yet AGAIN" for a moral epistemology. How does that affect morality's ontology, Wayne? Do you realize that epistemology can have no effect on ontology whatsoever? Your last statement makes me wonder if you really do get it. You seem to imply that without an epistemological system then morality cannot be ontologically objective. Is that what you are really saying? If so, we have to give you a basic course in philosophy 101. If you aren't saying that, then please explain to me what bearing moral epistemology has on moral ontology. Considering that my entire point is strictly, totally, and only about the latter, I am at a complete loss what you are talking about.

Before launching into the alphabet soup that is philosophy, why not answer four simple questions:

1. What is the absolute source of morality? (God, society, philosophy, ... )
2. By what means are the "rules" of morality presented to humanity? (God's word, laws, ... )
3. What role (if any) do we humans play in obtaining these "rules"?
4. Is there a process to clarify or refine the "rules", and why? (Courts, legislature, ... )

Perhaps a redefinition of 'objective' is in order. One of the definitions in the Miriam-Webster dictionary is as follows:

b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries…are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world.

As opposed to 'subjective' whose definition is:

3 a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind.

(emphasis mine).

So objective is independent of the mind while subjective is dependent on it. For an all-encompassing morality to be objective, it cannot, by definition, be mind-made. Therefore its source must be something outside of the mind (collectively).

A very crude analogy would be a dispute between two individuals who seek the independent (objective) opinion of an arbitrator. Why do they do that? Because the arbitrator is outside of the issue and can judge it fairly based on the merits. As related to objective morality, the question then becomes if it is a mind construct, was its source objective? Again, by definition, the answer is no. Either objective morality does exist and God is its source, or there is no such thing as an objective morality and preference is the rule (however well-intentioned).

Byblos wrote:So objective is independent of the mind while subjective is dependent on it.

Quoted for emphasis. Thank you, Byblos, for stating so clearly the issues at hand.

Wayne, the issues, at Byblos has pointed out for us again, are definitional. The questions you raise are intersting, but that cannot be answered until we first decide if morality is objective or subjective. Consider the first. If morality is subjective, then its source is the human mind BY DEFINITION with all the implications we have been discussing. If it is objective, it is not the human mind BY DEFINITION with all the implications we have been discussing. The other three are epistemological questions and cannot be answered until the ontological question is settled.

That is what I have been saying the entire time. That is the initial statement that you objected to. You claimed that things could really be objectively wrong without God's existence. We have shown you dozens of times in this thread, and Byblos perhaps most clearly of all, how that is logically impossible.

You claim it is objective. Fine.

What is the objective touchstone? How does one "read" the touchstone in an unambiguous and repetitive manner so that the reading IS objective?

If you can't "read" it objectively, the reading ISN'T objective.

waynepii wrote:You claim it is objective. Fine.

What is the objective touchstone? How does one "read" the touchstone in an unambiguous and repetitive manner so that the reading IS objective?

If you can't "read" it objectively, the reading ISN'T objective.

Having settled the ontological question, on to epistemology. Carry on Jac.

If you can't "read" it objectively, the reading ISN'T objective.

The question of an objective reading vs. an objective reality are different questions. Whether or not a reading is objective has everything to do with methdology, which I am more than happy to discuss with you. But I still want to be sure that you are seeing the force of my original argument.

Objective reality can have subjective readings. People like Thomas Kuhn would argue (wrongly, I think), that ALL "reading" of ANY kind of reality--even the hard sciences--are 100% subjective, and that objectivity is impossible. Here, we are distinguishing between a thing's being objective and our own objectivity. Even if Kuhn is right and objectivity is impossible, it does not follow that reality is not objective.

Taken to morality, then, it is still true that if morality is OBJECTIVE, God must exist. If Kuhn is right and it is impossible for US to be objective about objective morality, that doesn't hinder the conclusion. It just hinders our ability to say for certain what does or does not line up with reality itself.

I am perfectly willing to have a discussion on moral epistemology and how we can have an objective reading. I think we can rather well, but to do so, we first have to recognize several things:

1. Morality itself must be objective before we can talk about moral epistemology, for it is impossible to be "wrong" or "right" about a subjective asssertion. If objective morality goes, so goes moral epistemology.
2. Subjective readings do not undercut morality being objective in and of itself
3. Subjective readings do not undercut objective readings of morality

Do you agree with these three statements? Also, so that we are sure we are on the same page, do you agree that

1. For morality to be objective, it must be rooted in something outside of the human mind (collective or individual)?
2. If morality is subjective--that is, if it is rooted only in the human mind (collective or individual)--then there is no way to say that anything is really wrong or right?

These last two questions are just to confirm that we have reached an agreement on the ontological question. Obviously, agreeing with these does not commit you to accept the conclusion of the moral argument for God's existence, but it does require you to accept its validity and the soundness of its first premise.

If we have reached this agreement, then I am looking forward to getting into a discussion on how we can objectively know right for wrong.

Jac3510 wrote:

If you can't "read" it objectively, the reading ISN'T objective.

The question of an objective reading vs. an objective reality are different questions. Whether or not a reading is objective has everything to do with methdology, which I am more than happy to discuss with you. But I still want to be sure that you are seeing the force of my original argument.

Objective reality can have subjective readings. People like Thomas Kuhn would argue (wrongly, I think), that ALL "reading" of ANY kind of reality--even the hard sciences--are 100% subjective, and that objectivity is impossible. Here, we are distinguishing between a thing's being objective and our own objectivity. Even if Kuhn is right and objectivity is impossible, it does not follow that reality is not objective.

Taken to morality, then, it is still true that if morality is OBJECTIVE, God must exist.

IF morality is objective, it must be based on something concrete. It needn't be based on God. IF God set up an objective morality based on Himself, wouldn't it have made sense to also set up an objective means to READ the objective morality?

If Kuhn is right and it is impossible for US to be objective about objective morality, that doesn't hinder the conclusion. It just hinders our ability to say for certain what does or does not line up with reality itself.

Correction - " ... It just hinders our ability to say for certain what does or does not line up with objective morality."

I am perfectly willing to have a discussion on moral epistemology and how we can have an objective reading. I think we can rather well, but to do so, we first have to recognize several things:

1. Morality itself must be objective before we can talk about moral epistemology, for it is impossible to be "wrong" or "right" about a subjective asssertion. If objective morality goes, so goes moral epistemology.

Are you saying governments cannot establish codes of conduct (aka "laws") for it's citizens?
Are you saying governments cannot punish those who violate laws?
Would it not be "wrong" from the government's perspective to violate one of its laws?

True, the law may or may not agree with objective morality (if OM even exists), but seeing as there is no way to "read" OM, does it even matter?

2. Subjective readings do not undercut morality being objective in and of itself

Perhaps, but they sure undermine the accuracy of the reading.

3. Subjective readings do not undercut objective readings of morality

What "objective" readings?

Do you agree with these three statements?

Basically, no.

Also, so that we are sure we are on the same page, do you agree that

1. For morality to be objective, it must be rooted in something outside of the human mind (collective or individual)?

OK

2. If morality is subjective--that is, if it is rooted only in the human mind (collective or individual)--then there is no way to say that anything is really wrong or right?

Governments do it all the time. The lack of a concrete moral benchmark means "right" and "wrong" tend to vary between cultures and over time - which is EXACTLY the situation that has existed right along.

These last two questions are just to confirm that we have reached an agreement on the ontological question. Obviously, agreeing with these does not commit you to accept the conclusion of the moral argument for God's existence, but it does require you to accept its validity and the soundness of its first premise.

If we have reached this agreement, then I am looking forward to getting into a discussion on how we can objectively know right for wrong.

Pretend I agree there is an objective morality. How is it read to determine right from wrong? Shouldn't the answer be the same regardless of who asks the question and when the question is asked?

EDIT:
I was interrupted while posting this reply. Upon return, I couldn't find the partial reply so I retyped it as best as I could and posted it (this message). Then I found the original post (the next one) - I posted it intending to delete this reply only to discover that this board apparently doesn't support deletion of posts.

Sorry

Jac3510 wrote:

If you can't "read" it objectively, the reading ISN'T objective.

The question of an objective reading vs. an objective reality are different questions. Whether or not a reading is objective has everything to do with methdology, which I am more than happy to discuss with you. But I still want to be sure that you are seeing the force of my original argument.

What do I have to do to get you to move on to the issues I have? BTW I am refraining from participating in philosophical mind games as I do not wish to obfuscate the discussion.

Objective reality can have subjective readings. People like Thomas Kuhn would argue (wrongly, I think), that ALL "reading" of ANY kind of reality--even the hard sciences--are 100% subjective, and that objectivity is impossible. Here, we are distinguishing between a thing's being objective and our own objectivity. Even if Kuhn is right and objectivity is impossible, it does not follow that reality is not objective.

But it DOES impact the validity of the reading. IF an objective morality exists (and I'm assuming one does for argument's sake), it would lose its objective status if it must be "read" subjectively.

Taken to morality, then, it is still true that if morality is OBJECTIVE, God must exist. If Kuhn is right and it is impossible for US to be objective about objective morality, that doesn't hinder the conclusion. It just hinders our ability to say for certain what does or does not line up with reality itself.

It is the presence of the "object" that allows for objectivity. Declaring something "objective" does not prove existence of the related "object".

I am perfectly willing to have a discussion on moral epistemology and how we can have an objective reading. I think we can rather well, but to do so, we first have to recognize several things:

1. Morality itself must be objective before we can talk about moral epistemology, for it is impossible to be "wrong" or "right" about a subjective asssertion. If objective morality goes, so goes moral epistemology.
2. Subjective readings do not undercut morality being objective in and of itself
3. Subjective readings do not undercut objective readings of morality

Would you agree that a subjective reading reading of an objective entity is no better than a reading of a subjective entity? If not, why not?

Do you agree with these three statements? Also, so that we are sure we are on the same page, do you agree that

1. For morality to be objective, it must be rooted in something outside of the human mind (collective or individual)?
2. If morality is subjective--that is, if it is rooted only in the human mind (collective or individual)--then there is no way to say that anything is really wrong or right?

Are you saying governments can't define a code of conduct?
Are you saying governments don't have the right to establish laws to enforce their code of conduct?
Are you saying governments shouldn't punish law-breakers for violating their laws?
If the laws don't define the society's view of "right" and "wrong", what do they do?

Or are you just saying that each society's laws may differ from those of other societies? (which they DO, of course),
And that each society's laws may change over time? (which they DO, of course)

So where is your "objective morality"?

These last two questions are just to confirm that we have reached an agreement on the ontological question. Obviously, agreeing with these does not commit you to accept the conclusion of the moral argument for God's existence, but it does require you to accept its validity and the soundness of its first premise.

If we have reached this agreement, then I am looking forward to getting into a discussion on how we can objectively know right for wrong.

If we can objectively know right from wrong, why do right and wrong seem so subjective? (varying between cultures, over time, etc.) I really object to the idea that "right" and "wrong" are ONLY meaningful if God exists. Societies can, should, and do define codes of conduct (aka "laws"). True, these codes of conduct would tend to vary between cultures and across time. And they DO just that!

A code of conduct based on an objective morality, read objectively, should be universal and constant over time. If this is not right, why not? Where is such a code?

And I actually thought we were getting somewhere until the last section of your second post . . . ah well, let me walk through this whole thing.

IF morality is objective, it must be based on something concrete. It needn't be based on God. IF God set up an objective morality based on Himself, wouldn't it have made sense to also set up an objective means to READ the objective morality?

He has. If we can ever get past the ontological issues, we will address the epistemological ones. As far as this statement here goes, pray tell, what could an objective morality be based on other than God?

Are you saying governments cannot establish codes of conduct (aka "laws") for it's citizens?

No, I'm not.

Are you saying governments cannot punish those who violate laws?

No, I'm not.

Would it not be "wrong" from the government's perspective to violate one of its laws?

Yes, it would.

True, the law may or may not agree with objective morality (if OM even exists), but seeing as there is no way to "read" OM, does it even matter?

How do you know OM can't be read? You are making an epistemological claim. We haven't even discussed that yet.

Perhaps, but they sure undermine the accuracy of the reading.

How? When a scientist makes a subjective reading of some piece of data (being human, he can, of course, make such mistakes), does that undermine the accuracy of other scientists' objective readings of the data?

What "objective" readings?

The one we will get to if we ever get past the ontological question.

Basically, no.

Why not?

Governments do it all the time. The lack of a concrete moral benchmark means "right" and "wrong" tend to vary between cultures and over time - which is EXACTLY the situation that has existed right along.

Wayne, you are contradicting yourself. On one hand, you say that objective morality has to exist outside the mind. On the other side, you say here that governments can decide what is right and wrong. Government statements on right and wrong, though, are in the mind. You can't have it both ways. If morality is rooted in government statements, then, being rooted in the human mind, it is completely subjective and thus cannot be objective.

So, how can a government say something is wrong? If it declared giving to the poor wrong, would that make it wrong, Wayne?

Pretend I agree there is an objective morality. How is it read to determine right from wrong? Shouldn't the answer be the same regardless of who asks the question and when the question is asked?

I can't pretend you agree with it if you keep contradicting your own understanding of it, Wayne. I can't even get you to use the right terminology here. Our "reading" of morality doesn't DETERMINE it. It DISCOVERS it. You may think that is nitpicking, but that is just the kind of ontology/epistemology confusion that you won't acknowledge that has been happening since your first post in this thread (I mean that, you FIRST post here, back when you were complaining about God letting the world play out and not distinguishing between middle knowledge and actuality).

I've told you dozens of times that I am perfectly willing to discuss the epistemological aspects of objective morality. But we can't have that discussion until we have nailed down what objective morality is and what it is not. Your insistence that objective morality can be rooted in government tells me that we still have a deep disagreement over the basic meaning of this word.

What do I have to do to get you to move on to the issues I have? BTW I am refraining from participating in philosophical mind games as I do not wish to obfuscate the discussion.

I'm trying to talk about the issues you have. I can't give you a proper system of morality if we haven't agreed on what morality IS. I'm sorry if you don't want to talk about the philosophy behind this, but this is a philosophical question, Wayne. Perhaps you are only complaining about the vernacular. If so, we determine to defenestrate with all obfuscatory vocabulary so as to ensure perspicuity. But the philosophy is the philosophy. You can't put the cart before the horse. You want me to talk about how human beings read morality, and yet you don't want to talk seriously about what that morality is that they are reading?

Besides, if I recall correctly, this aspect of our conversation came up because you objected to my claim that morality cannot be objective outside of God's existence. You objected to a claim about what morality IS. Why, then, should we move on to another discussion? If you objected to a claim about what morality IS, then shouldn't we talk about our disagreement about what it IS before we move on to talk about how it is known?

Basic philosophy, Wayne. Ontology comes first. THEN comes epistemology. It is evident in the definition of epistemology itself: "The study of how we know." But what do we know? We know things. We know reality (or at least our interpretation of it). That means that it is the study of how we know THINGS, which means before we can discuss how we know "them" we must discuss what "them" is in the first place.

But it DOES impact the validity of the reading. IF an objective morality exists (and I'm assuming one does for argument's sake), it would lose its objective status if it must be "read" subjectively.

WRONG. It does not lose its objective status. Only the reading loses its objective status.

Let me give you an example I'm sure you can agree with. When a creationist looks at the Grand Canyon and uses it as evidence of Noah's Flood, wouldn't you agree he is being subjective in his interpretation of the data? Now, does my subjective reading affect in any way either your objective reading OR the fact that the data itself is still objective and waiting to be treated properly?

It is the presence of the "object" that allows for objectivity. Declaring something "objective" does not prove existence of the related "object".

So long as the object is external to the mind.

Would you agree that a subjective reading reading of an objective entity is no better than a reading of a subjective entity? If not, why not?

For the READING, of course? A subjective reading is a subjective reading no matter what type of object it is. But this is why I am convinced that you do not understand my argument.

My argument is rooted in the nature of morality, not in the nature of our reading of it. I said that if morality is objective, God must exist. I did not say that if our reading of morality is objective, then God must exist. THIS is why we can't move on to discuss the epistemological question until we have settled the ontological one. If you keep interpreting my arguments in light of epistemology, you will miss the entire point.

Do you understand that the subjectivity or objectivity of our epistemology has NO BEARING on my claim that morality itself cannot be objective if God does not exist?

Are you saying governments can't define a code of conduct?
Are you saying governments don't have the right to establish laws to enforce their code of conduct?
Are you saying governments shouldn't punish law-breakers for violating their laws?

I answered these above already. Did you just copy/paste your own response?

If the laws don't define the society's view of "right" and "wrong", what do they do?

Good heavens, how many times have we gone over this? No, society does not DEFINE right and wrong. They DISCOVER it. Look at the words you are using, Wayne.

If society says "X is wrong" then they are saying that it ought not be practiced by ANYONE. They are saying that if someone else says that it is not wrong, then they are MISTAKEN. Thus, it is impossible for society to define morality. They make their laws based on morality. Do you not understand that the words "right" and "wrong" presuppose objective reality? If there is no objective reality, it is impossible for something to be right or wrong in the first place. Can't you see that?

Or are you just saying that each society's laws may differ from those of other societies? (which they DO, of course),
And that each society's laws may change over time? (which they DO, of course)

Of course they differ, and of course they do. But morality doesn't differ. I've proved this how many times now? Let's use something I've ALREADY said:

• They thought it was right --- They were incorrect. It was wrong
  We think it was wrong --- We are right. It was wrong.
  
  Do you see that what we THINK is what changed? What did not change was the fact that it was wrong. Again, you are confusing epistemology (which deals with what we know) and ontology (which deals with what a thing is).

It is as clear as it can possibly be, Wayne. Morality doesn't change. Society's understanding of how to apply it may, but morality does not.

So where is your "objective morality"?

Present in every society since the beginning of time. Every society thinks that honesty and courage are good, that you should not steal or murder. What they disagree on is how to apply those. Who should I be honest to and in what cases? When should I be courageous? Who is it wrong to steal from, and is it really murder if I kill that person rather than this one? Societies may differ on those questions, but they agree on the fundamental aspects on what is right and wrong.

But we are getting ahead of ourselves, because if our terms are not properly defined, this will be taken as an ad populum argument. Just because everyone knows murder is wrong (however they may choose to apply that standard) doesn't make it wrong. That would be a SUBJECTIVE statement which can be accounted for by mere evolutionary principles. The question is whether it is REALLY right or REALLY wrong apart from what any society thinks of it. Is it intrinsically right or wrong? That cannot be the case if there is no God.

If we can objectively know right from wrong, why do right and wrong seem so subjective? (varying between cultures, over time, etc.)

If science is objective, why have scientific ideas varied over time and culture? Because we have to learn.

I really object to the idea that "right" and "wrong" are ONLY meaningful if God exists.

Then you don't believe that there can be right or wrong in any meaningful sense, because it CANNOT BE objective or intrinsic without God. If morality is rooted only in the human mind, it is purely subjective and therefore not real. For the love of God, that is definitional. Didn't you read Byblos' post?

Societies can, should, and do define codes of conduct (aka "laws"). True, these codes of conduct would tend to vary between cultures and across time. And they DO just that!

A code of conduct based on an objective morality, read objectively, should be universal and constant over time. If this is not right, why not? Where is such a code?

[/quote]
You have got to get past this idea that epistemology can affect ontology. You are just wrong. Philosophically wrong. This is just a factually wrong statement. It is incorrect and objectively WRONG. Mistaken. Say that to your philosophy prof and he will mark a big red X over that answer.

Physics is a simple counter example. Have people ALWAYS believed the same things about physics? Do they today? There are some people who still believe in string theory and others who don't. Some who believe in gravitons and some who don't. Some who believe in punctuated equilibrium and some who don't. Are you saying that physics is not objective?

Epistemology does not determine ontology. It is circular and thus irrational to say that it does.

Jac3510 wrote:And I actually thought we were getting somewhere until the last section of your second post . . . ah well, let me walk through this whole thing.

IF morality is objective, it must be based on something concrete. It needn't be based on God. IF God set up an objective morality based on Himself, wouldn't it have made sense to also set up an objective means to READ the objective morality?

He has. If we can ever get past the ontological issues, we will address the epistemological ones. As far as this statement here goes, pray tell, what could an objective morality be based on other than God?

How do we DISCOVER what God says about any given moral question?

Are you saying governments cannot establish codes of conduct (aka "laws") for it's citizens?

No, I'm not.

Are you saying governments cannot punish those who violate laws?

No, I'm not.

Would it not be "wrong" from the government's perspective to violate one of its laws?

Yes, it would.

True, the law may or may not agree with objective morality (if OM even exists), but seeing as there is no way to "read" OM, does it even matter?

How do you know OM can't be read? You are making an epistemological claim. We haven't even discussed that yet.

So how is it "read"?

Perhaps, but they sure undermine the accuracy of the reading.

How? When a scientist makes a subjective reading of some piece of data (being human, he can, of course, make such mistakes), does that undermine the accuracy of other scientists' objective readings of the data?

What "objective" readings?

The one we will get to if we ever get past the ontological question.

Basically, no.

Why not?

Governments do it all the time. The lack of a concrete moral benchmark means "right" and "wrong" tend to vary between cultures and over time - which is EXACTLY the situation that has existed right along.

Wayne, you are contradicting yourself. On one hand, you say that objective morality has to exist outside the mind. On the other side, you say here that governments can decide what is right and wrong. Government statements on right and wrong, though, are in the mind. You can't have it both ways. If morality is rooted in government statements, then, being rooted in the human mind, it is completely subjective and thus cannot be objective.

I didn't contradict myself, I SAID "The lack of a concrete moral benchmark means "right" and "wrong" tend to vary between cultures and over time - which is EXACTLY the situation that has existed right along.". I never claimed morality was objective. On several occasions I have agreed that an "objective morality" might exist in order to move the discussion to how the alleged objective morality might be "read".

So, how can a government say something is wrong? If it declared giving to the poor wrong, would that make it wrong, Wayne?

YOU said they could do so only a few paragraphs ago.

Pretend I agree there is an objective morality. How is it read to determine right from wrong? Shouldn't the answer be the same regardless of who asks the question and when the question is asked?

I can't pretend you agree with it if you keep contradicting your own understanding of it, Wayne. I can't even get you to use the right terminology here. Our "reading" of morality doesn't DETERMINE it. It DISCOVERS it. You may think that is nitpicking, but that is just the kind of ontology/epistemology confusion that you won't acknowledge that has been happening since your first post in this thread (I mean that, you FIRST post here, back when you were complaining about God letting the world play out and not distinguishing between middle knowledge and actuality).

My apologies. I forgot your penchant for selective definitions ...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/determine
... I was using "determine" per definition 4. Please consider my post to be " ... discovers ... "

I've told you dozens of times that I am perfectly willing to discuss the epistemological aspects of objective morality. But we can't have that discussion until we have nailed down what objective morality is and what it is not. Your insistence that objective morality can be rooted in government tells me that we still have a deep disagreement over the basic meaning of this word.

I KNOW what "objective morality" is and isn't. I KNOW governments can only deal in subjective morality. I'm waiting for any evidence that objective morality even exists.

What do I have to do to get you to move on to the issues I have? BTW I am refraining from participating in philosophical mind games as I do not wish to obfuscate the discussion.

I'm trying to talk about the issues you have. I can't give you a proper system of morality if we haven't agreed on what morality IS. I'm sorry if you don't want to talk about the philosophy behind this, but this is a philosophical question, Wayne. Perhaps you are only complaining about the vernacular. If so, we determine to defenestrate with all obfuscatory vocabulary so as to ensure perspicuity. But the philosophy is the philosophy. You can't put the cart before the horse. You want me to talk about how human beings read morality, and yet you don't want to talk seriously about what that morality is that they are reading?

Besides, if I recall correctly, this aspect of our conversation came up because you objected to my claim that morality cannot be objective outside of God's existence. You objected to a claim about what morality IS. Why, then, should we move on to another discussion? If you objected to a claim about what morality IS, then shouldn't we talk about our disagreement about what it IS before we move on to talk about how it is known?

Basic philosophy, Wayne. Ontology comes first. THEN comes epistemology. It is evident in the definition of epistemology itself: "The study of how we know." But what do we know? We know things. We know reality (or at least our interpretation of it). That means that it is the study of how we know THINGS, which means before we can discuss how we know "them" we must discuss what "them" is in the first place.

But it DOES impact the validity of the reading. IF an objective morality exists (and I'm assuming one does for argument's sake), it would lose its objective status if it must be "read" subjectively.

WRONG. It does not lose its objective status. Only the reading loses its objective status.

Correct - the morality would still be objective, our understanding of it would be subjective. Hence we cannot use the morality as if it is objective, we must treat it as subjective because our perception of it is subjective.

Would you agree that a subjective reading reading of an objective entity is no better than a reading of a subjective entity? If not, why not?

For the READING, of course? A subjective reading is a subjective reading no matter what type of object it is. But this is why I am convinced that you do not understand my argument.

You claim there is an objective morality based on God (correct?)

My argument is rooted in the nature of morality, not in the nature of our reading of it. I said that if morality is objective, God must exist.

Understood.

I did not say that if our reading of morality is objective, then God must exist.

I didn't think you did.

THIS is why we can't move on to discuss the epistemological question until we have settled the ontological one. If you keep interpreting my arguments in light of epistemology, you will miss the entire point.

I have not seen anything even close to an objective morality. Morality varies between societies and over time - ie it looks very subjective. Why do you think there is an objective morality - because you believe in God and God must have defined an objective morality?

Do you understand that the subjectivity or objectivity of our epistemology has NO BEARING on my claim that morality itself cannot be objective if God does not exist?

I see no signs of objective morality.

Are you saying governments can't define a code of conduct?
Are you saying governments don't have the right to establish laws to enforce their code of conduct?
Are you saying governments shouldn't punish law-breakers for violating their laws?

I answered these above already. Did you just copy/paste your own response?

As I explained at the bottom of the first post, a second (slightly edited) version of the post was inadvertently posted. I am unable to delete the extraneous post.

If the laws don't define the society's view of "right" and "wrong", what do they do?

Good heavens, how many times have we gone over this? No, society does not DEFINE right and wrong. They DISCOVER it. Look at the words you are using, Wayne.

"Define" seems to fit, what's wrong with it?

If society says "X is wrong" then they are saying that it ought not be practiced by ANYONE. They are saying that if someone else says that it is not wrong, then they are MISTAKEN. Thus, it is impossible for society to define morality. They make their laws based on morality. Do you not understand that the words "right" and "wrong" presuppose objective reality? If there is no objective reality, it is impossible for something to be right or wrong in the first place. Can't you see that?

Actually NO. Islamic societies say it is "wrong" for women to show their hair (or even their faces in some cases) in public. In the West, there is no such restriction. This is a characteristic of subjective morality, "right" and "wrong" vary between cultures.

Or are you just saying that each society's laws may differ from those of other societies? (which they DO, of course),
And that each society's laws may change over time? (which they DO, of course)

Of course they differ, and of course they do. But morality doesn't differ. I've proved this how many times now? Let's use something I've ALREADY said:

• They thought it was right --- They were incorrect. It was wrong
  We think it was wrong --- We are right. It was wrong.
  
  Do you see that what we THINK is what changed? What did not change was the fact that it was wrong. Again, you are confusing epistemology (which deals with what we know) and ontology (which deals with what a thing is).

It is as clear as it can possibly be, Wayne. Morality doesn't change. Society's understanding of how to apply it may, but morality does not.

OK, is it moral for a women (anywhere) to be seen in public with her hair and face exposed? And why or why not?

So where is your "objective morality"?

Present in every society since the beginning of time. Every society thinks that honesty and courage are good, that you should not steal or murder. What they disagree on is how to apply those. Who should I be honest to and in what cases? When should I be courageous? Who is it wrong to steal from, and is it really murder if I kill that person rather than this one? Societies may differ on those questions, but they agree on the fundamental aspects on what is right and wrong.

That's not very definitive and could easily be explained by the requirements to make a society function.

But we are getting ahead of ourselves, because if our terms are not properly defined, this will be taken as an ad populum argument. Just because everyone knows murder is wrong (however they may choose to apply that standard) doesn't make it wrong. That would be a SUBJECTIVE statement which can be accounted for by mere evolutionary principles. The question is whether it is REALLY right or REALLY wrong apart from what any society thinks of it. Is it intrinsically right or wrong? That cannot be the case if there is no God.

How do we know there IS an intrinsic "right" and "wrong"? As you pointed out, most societies agree on the "big" issues, but what about the issues on which they don't agree?

If we can objectively know right from wrong, why do right and wrong seem so subjective? (varying between cultures, over time, etc.)

If science is objective, why have scientific ideas varied over time and culture? Because we have to learn.

A science may be objective but our understanding of it is constantly being refined. The difference is that if God defined an objective morality that He expects us to live by and be judged by, why would He not reveal it to us in a clear, concise, and consistent form?

I really object to the idea that "right" and "wrong" are ONLY meaningful if God exists.

Then you don't believe that there can be right or wrong in any meaningful sense, because it CANNOT BE objective or intrinsic without God. If morality is rooted only in the human mind, it is purely subjective and therefore not real. For the love of God, that is definitional. Didn't you read Byblos' post?

I have said MANY times that it is subjective.

Societies can, should, and do define codes of conduct (aka "laws"). True, these codes of conduct would tend to vary between cultures and across time. And they DO just that!

A code of conduct based on an objective morality, read objectively, should be universal and constant over time. If this is not right, why not? Where is such a code?

You have got to get past this idea that epistemology can affect ontology. You are just wrong. Philosophically wrong. This is just a factually wrong statement. It is incorrect and objectively WRONG. Mistaken. Say that to your philosophy prof and he will mark a big red X over that answer.

Physics is a simple counter example. Have people ALWAYS believed the same things about physics? Do they today? There are some people who still believe in string theory and others who don't. Some who believe in gravitons and some who don't. Some who believe in punctuated equilibrium and some who don't. Are you saying that physics is not objective?

Epistemology does not determine ontology. It is circular and thus irrational to say that it does.

Same answer as to the "science" question above.

I really object to the idea that "right" and "wrong" are ONLY meaningful if God exists.

Did Jack say that. I guess it depends on your definition of meaningful. Sure, it might be meaningful to you and to a particular society. How did that work out for the Jews in Germany?

Hitler had an entire country at his will, and submitting to his wims that the Jews were an inferior race, worthy of extinction. If Hitler had the moral approval of the majority of the people then what makes this objectively wrong?
I know you can say it is wrong, based on what you consider meaningful. But so what? Your morality is only the reaction of billions of years of purposeless biological events. In other words, an illusion of your mind. It's just the reaction of your envrionment, electrical firings in your synapses and chemicals. How does that have anymore meaning than an elephant fart? Because you think it does? So what. You are just a blip on the cosmic radar. A spec of dust that is here for meaningless blip of time. And some how in a purposeless, vast universe, what is meaningful to you is suppose to matter. If an asteroid hit the planet and wiped out all of humanity today, what would murder and rape matter? What would kindness and goodness matter? what would your opinion matter? In that moment, how could anything be right or wrong or meaningful? There would be nothing, it would mean nothing. If you are trying to establish that somehow right and wrong can exist, then you are delusional. You are being fooled by your mind. It is an accident of nature. Not much different than a dog sniffing another's rear end. To say it is "meaningful" is only evidence of self-absorbtion and arrogance. Your conscience awareness of right and wrong is nothing more than a byproduct of chance. How can that have meaning? Your conscience screams at you that there is right and wrong. In your stubborness you only demonstrate your own error. On one hand you want to reduce it to a biological process, a manifestation of survival behavior passed on to us by primitive ancestors. On the other you say there is "meaning." If this isn't hypocrisy, then I don't know what is. Meaning. I would laugh if it wasn't such a sad display of atheistic arrogance.
What is the meaning of the universe?
Atheist: none.
There is no meaning to the universe?
Athiest: nope.
So, if there is no meaning to the universe then how can murder be wrong?
Atheist: Because of morals.
But if the universe and everything in it is the result of a meaningless event, then how can morals have meaning?
Atheist: Because of society.
But aren't morals and societies just a product of a meaningless event in a meaningless universe? How can those things have any true meaning?


Like Jac said. You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want the benefits of objective morality. You want things to be objectively right and wrong. Otherwise, how could they have real "meaning."

Wane, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I sense a shift in your position. First you were saying objective morality can exist without God, then you stated even if OM did exist we have no way of knowing it, and now that it doesn't exist at all, it is all subjective. Could you please narrow it down to one position? This way we can determine whether or not this discussion is even worth pursuing. As it stands now you're all over the place. Thanks.

jlay wrote:

I really object to the idea that "right" and "wrong" are ONLY meaningful if God exists.

Did Jack say that. I guess it depends on your definition of meaningful. Sure, it might be meaningful to you and to a particular society. How did that work out for the Jews in Germany?

How well did objective morality work out for them?

Hitler had an entire country at his will, and submitting to his wims that the Jews were an inferior race, worthy of extinction. If Hitler had the moral approval of the majority of the people then what makes this objectively wrong?

So if there is an objective morality, how did it benefit the Jews?

I know you can say it is wrong, based on what you consider meaningful.

What I say is "right" and "wrong" as an individual IS meaningless except to myself. What society says is "right" and "wrong" is considerably more important. Sure, some societies have some very unjust, cruel, and inhumane concepts of "right" and "wrong". Some of these societies use religion to "justify" their concepts.

But so what? Your morality is only the reaction of billions of years of purposeless biological events. In other words, an illusion of your mind. It's just the reaction of your envrionment, electrical firings in your synapses and chemicals. How does that have anymore meaning than an elephant fart? Because you think it does? So what. You are just a blip on the cosmic radar. A spec of dust that is here for meaningless blip of time. And some how in a purposeless, vast universe, what is meaningful to you is suppose to matter. If an asteroid hit the planet and wiped out all of humanity today, what would murder and rape matter? What would kindness and goodness matter? what would your opinion matter? In that moment, how could anything be right or wrong or meaningful? There would be nothing, it would mean nothing. If you are trying to establish that somehow right and wrong can exist, then you are delusional. You are being fooled by your mind. It is an accident of nature. Not much different than a dog sniffing another's rear end. To say it is "meaningful" is only evidence of self-absorbtion and arrogance. Your conscience awareness of right and wrong is nothing more than a byproduct of chance. How can that have meaning? Your conscience screams at you that there is right and wrong. In your stubborness you only demonstrate your own error.

On one hand you want to reduce it to a biological process, a manifestation of survival behavior passed on to us by primitive ancestors. On the other you say there is "meaning."

I never said there was "meaning" in that sense. I said "right" and "wrong" have meaning, as in society can, should, and does state what it considers "right" and "wrong".

If this isn't hypocrisy, then I don't know what is.

It's not hypocrisy at all.

Meaning. I would laugh if it wasn't such a sad display of atheistic arrogance.[/
What is the meaning of the universe?
Atheist: none.
There is no meaning to the universe?
Athiest: nope.

OK So far.

So, if there is no meaning to the universe then how can murder be wrong?

What does the meaning or non-meaning of the universe have to do with murder being wrong?

Atheist: Because of morals.

A plausible answer. I prefer "an established code of conduct" myself - less "baggage".

But if the universe and everything in it is the result of a meaningless event, then how can morals have meaning?

How are you using "meaning" wrt morals (or an established code of conduct")?

Atheist: Because of society.

Society established the code of conduct, so an appropriate answer.

But aren't morals and societies just a product of a meaningless event in a meaningless universe? How can those things have any true meaning?

They don't have "meaning" at the cosmic level, or even beyond the particular society to which the apply (and possibly to other societies which interact with them). Does Hitler's crimes against humanity have any significance to the populace of a planet orbiting a star in another galaxy? Of course not! Far lesser crimes do have meaning closer to home.

Like Jac said. You want to have your cake and eat it too. You want the benefits of objective morality. You want things to be objectively right and wrong. Otherwise, how could they have real "meaning."

I said no such thing. I have repeatedly said morality is subjective.