Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Hi Ken,

Yes, it seems evident to me that different information can lead to different moral actions (or “calculations” if you will). This doesn’t necessarily mean “morality” has changed.

Perhaps morality hasn't changed, but what people see as moral/immoral has.

Kurieuo wrote:In the examples previously provided (volcano sacrifice, racism) there was only different information. The moral values being used to calculate particular actions were much the same, only working with different information.

For example, self-sacrifice is a good quality. It is seen as good and virtuous, even if it logically seems quite stupid to give up our lives since they're the only ones we'll presumably ever have.

I agree!

Kurieuo wrote:In addition to information, there are also differences in circumstance that can change a moral calculation. For example, I think we both would agree that it is wrong for someone to steal for no reason. Yet, I think we would both agree stealing food to survive, while not ideal, is justified.

This does not mean we believe stealing is now good – stealing is still absolutely wrong – but we’re faced with a moral dilemma. That is, there is no good outcome either way. If we value someone’s life more, than stealing is an acceptable course of action. If we value honesty more than life, then not stealing even unto death will be seen as the better thing.

I agree and I think you are making a case for subjective morality. On a previous thread we were discussing (at least I believe it was you; if not my apologizes in advance) I made the point that if morality were objective and lying is wrong, and it were the year 1938 and you lived in Germany, and the SS came knocking at your door asking if you had any Jews in the house and you knew you had a Jewish family hiding in your attic, if you believed morality were objective you would have to either refuse to answer them (which would prompt them to search the house) or tell the SS where this family were hiding so they can be taken to the death camps; because under objective morality; lying is immoral no matter the circumstance, personal opinions, assumptions, or beliefs.

Under Subjective morality, you have the option of taking extenuating circumstances into consideration and determine that lying to be the moral thing to do in this particular situation.

Using your example of stealing, perhaps it is moral to steal to feed a starving child rather than allow him to starve to death. Objective morality would require you allow him to starve (assuming there is no other option)

What we've got here is, failure to communicate.

I've seen it said, as you say -- that this steal example evidences subjective morality.
Even the Nazi example of lying used. Maybe even some teachers use such as an example in favour of subjective morality.
Let me say clearly, they're wrong. It's not an example in favour of subjective morality.
If you've ever heard the line, "that might be right for you, but it's not right for me."
That is the heart of subjective morality.

The most the above can lean towards is a morality relative to a situation -- situational ethics.
Contrasted against moral absolutism, for example, where someone who absolutely believes in non-violence would even die for such.
OR, if someone believes that it is absolutely honourable to die for others, then they may even seek out such death in strange ways.

BUT, how terms are applied are rarely nice and neat.
For example, I can believe it is absolutely wrong to steal. The fact that one is starving doesn't undercut this.
But then, I absolutely believe that a person has a right to life. Their life takes precedence, and therefore while stealing is still wrong, I'd tolerate such! (ahh, the true meaning of "tolerance" -- don't often get to use it correctly today).

That said, I think the confusion comes in because of a behaviorist mindset that our society/ies have been philosophically saturated in. Behaviorism looks at the actions of the person and what is observed rather than how they feel or what is within. Such is based upon a scientific physicalist philosophy, however I don't wish to distract from a discussion on morality -- you can investigate this further if unsure about it.

Anyway, as I was saying, the confusion I think happens because "moral actions" (which is an outcome of our applying morality) is often reduced to just represent "morality". On the other hand, "moral knowledge" (the actual moral values, virtues and the like that we foundationally believe in) can result in different actions when applied under different situations or circumstances.

What I, and probably every Christian here you've had a discussion with on objective morality is advocating, is that "morality" is objective so far as our basic knowledge of good and bad is concerned. We all appear to share common set of values and virtues. This lends credence to an invisible universal standard of some sort.

On the other hand, how we apply such might differ from one situation to the next, or might be dependent upon certain circumstances, or change according to our information -- but this doesn't change the fact we still strongly feel and believe that it is wrong to take something that doesn't belong to them. We will tolerate and make allowances in certain situtations, but that doesn't change the fact the stealing is wrong.

So what about subjectivity, which is often setup in opposition to objectivity? Well, subjectivity is more about what I say goes.
So If I steal from someone, let's just forget that it's stealing. I'm entitled to take what I want. The world is a cruel place, get over it. Don't like it, tough. Go cry to Mommy. If someone thinks my taking someone else's possessions is wrong, and I think it right, then we're both right. Morality is merely a matter of personal taste and preference. Without an external standard there is nothing to really say my stealing is wrong.

So society sets in place a legal system with judges and what not.
If both parties subscribe to such (and in our societies we kind of have no choice), then the judge becomes the objective standard of two parties who are is disagreement. What the judge decides goes.
BUT, is it just the judges opinion? It'd be odd if a judge ruled, "Well actually, Kurieuo is entitled to take what he pleased. You may not like that Ken but go cry to Mommy."
In our societies, judges are often making decisions based it upon some standard. Often this is in the form of legislation which places boundaries upon what can or cannot be ruled. But, even legislation is built upon something more objective to itself.
And so we keep going back until we come face-to-face with some invisible form of values and virtues that we all just seem to acknowledge intuitively. Thus, is what we Christians often mean by objective morality.

I'll leave you to work out what you believe.
Understandably it isn't always clear. As for the terms used in this discussion, your last post just shows how it is so important to first understand what people mean by this or that term. People often intend all different things when they use this or that term.
And further, I don't expect you to just accept what I tell you, but hopefully what I wrote does make some sense.

B. W. wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Ken wrote:

I agree and I think you are making a case for subjective morality. On a previous thread we were discussing (at least I believe it was you; if not my apologizes in advance) I made the point that if morality were objective and lying is wrong, and it were the year 1938 and you lived in Germany, and the SS came knocking at your door asking if you had any Jews in the house and you knew you had a Jewish family hiding in your attic, if you believed morality were objective you would have to either refuse to answer them (which would prompt them to search the house) or tell the SS where this family were hiding so they can be taken to the death camps; because under objective morality; lying is immoral no matter the circumstance, personal opinions, assumptions, or beliefs.

Under Subjective morality, you have the option of taking extenuating circumstances into consideration and determine that lying to be the moral thing to do in this particular situation.

Using your example of stealing, perhaps it is moral to steal to feed a starving child rather than allow him to starve to death. Objective morality would require you allow him to starve (assuming there is no other option)


Ken
T

This has to be the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.
Kenny,
You REALLY don't get it, do you?

If you wish to be taken seriously, you need to do a little bit better than calling something ridicules then walking away. A little explanation goes a long way

Ken

Kenny the biblical definition of lying is akin to slander and character assassination... has nothing to do with your examples
-
-

I speak English. When I use words I use the English definition of those words; not the Bible definition (what-ever that means). In English lying is NOT akin to slander and character assassination. To say someone did something good when you know they did bad is as much of a lie as any other, even though they have not been slandered or character assassinated.
Henceforth; whenever reading my posts assume the English definition, that might make things a little easier for ya; Kooo?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Ken wrote:

I agree and I think you are making a case for subjective morality. On a previous thread we were discussing (at least I believe it was you; if not my apologizes in advance) I made the point that if morality were objective and lying is wrong, and it were the year 1938 and you lived in Germany, and the SS came knocking at your door asking if you had any Jews in the house and you knew you had a Jewish family hiding in your attic, if you believed morality were objective you would have to either refuse to answer them (which would prompt them to search the house) or tell the SS where this family were hiding so they can be taken to the death camps; because under objective morality; lying is immoral no matter the circumstance, personal opinions, assumptions, or beliefs.

Under Subjective morality, you have the option of taking extenuating circumstances into consideration and determine that lying to be the moral thing to do in this particular situation.

Using your example of stealing, perhaps it is moral to steal to feed a starving child rather than allow him to starve to death. Objective morality would require you allow him to starve (assuming there is no other option)


Ken
T

This has to be the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.
Kenny,
You REALLY don't get it, do you?

If you wish to be taken seriously, you need to do a little bit better than calling something ridicules then walking away. A little explanation goes a long way

Ken

Ken if you want to know why it's ridiculous, read Kurieuo's response here

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Hi Ken,

Yes, it seems evident to me that different information can lead to different moral actions (or “calculations” if you will). This doesn’t necessarily mean “morality” has changed.

Perhaps morality hasn't changed, but what people see as moral/immoral has.

Kurieuo wrote:In the examples previously provided (volcano sacrifice, racism) there was only different information. The moral values being used to calculate particular actions were much the same, only working with different information.

For example, self-sacrifice is a good quality. It is seen as good and virtuous, even if it logically seems quite stupid to give up our lives since they're the only ones we'll presumably ever have.

I agree!

Kurieuo wrote:In addition to information, there are also differences in circumstance that can change a moral calculation. For example, I think we both would agree that it is wrong for someone to steal for no reason. Yet, I think we would both agree stealing food to survive, while not ideal, is justified.

This does not mean we believe stealing is now good – stealing is still absolutely wrong – but we’re faced with a moral dilemma. That is, there is no good outcome either way. If we value someone’s life more, than stealing is an acceptable course of action. If we value honesty more than life, then not stealing even unto death will be seen as the better thing.

I agree and I think you are making a case for subjective morality. On a previous thread we were discussing (at least I believe it was you; if not my apologizes in advance) I made the point that if morality were objective and lying is wrong, and it were the year 1938 and you lived in Germany, and the SS came knocking at your door asking if you had any Jews in the house and you knew you had a Jewish family hiding in your attic, if you believed morality were objective you would have to either refuse to answer them (which would prompt them to search the house) or tell the SS where this family were hiding so they can be taken to the death camps; because under objective morality; lying is immoral no matter the circumstance, personal opinions, assumptions, or beliefs.

Under Subjective morality, you have the option of taking extenuating circumstances into consideration and determine that lying to be the moral thing to do in this particular situation.

Using your example of stealing, perhaps it is moral to steal to feed a starving child rather than allow him to starve to death. Objective morality would require you allow him to starve (assuming there is no other option)

Kurieuo wrote:What we've got here is, failure to communicate.

I've seen it said, as you say -- that this steal example evidences subjective morality.
Even the Nazi example of lying used. Maybe even some teachers use such as an example in favour of subjective morality.
Let me say clearly, they're wrong. It's not an example in favour of subjective morality.

But subjective morality means it is left up to interpretation, takes into account extenuating circumstances, colored by personal biases, and perceptions. Objective means “cut in stone”. Each of the examples I gave included interpretations, biases, and extenuating circumstances; did they not? How could you call that an example of objective?

Kurieuo wrote:If you've ever heard the line, "that might be right for you, but it's not right for me."
That is the heart of subjective morality.

That’s another way of saying, “what I believe is wrong is different than what you believe is wrong. Like it or not, that’s the way people judge things.

Kurieuo wrote:The most the above can lean towards is a morality relative to a situation -- situational ethics.

I agree! Often the right/wrong of stealing, sharing, lying, or various other moral actions is dependent upon the situation. The same action can be right in one situation, yet wrong in another; do you agree? Because that is the heart of subjective morality.

Kurieuo wrote:how terms are applied are rarely nice and neat.
For example, I can believe it is absolutely wrong to steal. The fact that one is starving doesn't undercut this.
But then, I absolutely believe that a person has a right to life. Their life takes precedence, and therefore while stealing is still wrong, I'd tolerate such! (ahh, the true meaning of "tolerance" -- don't often get to use it correctly today)

.
Now how is that example different than subjective morality?

Kurieuo wrote:What I, and probably every Christian here you've had a discussion with on objective morality is advocating, is that "morality" is objective so far as our basic knowledge of good and bad is concerned. We all appear to share common set of values and virtues. This lends credence to an invisible universal standard of some sort.

Haven’t you noticed this “Universal standard of some sort” has been constantly changing over the years?

Kurieuo wrote:On the other hand, how we apply such might differ from one situation to the next, or might be dependent upon certain circumstances, or change according to our information

IOW based upon personal biases, prejustices, and points of view. Sounds like subjective to me!
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Object ... Subjective

Kurieuo wrote:- but this doesn't change the fact we still strongly feel and believe that it is wrong to take something that doesn't belong to them. We will tolerate and make allowances in certain situtations, but that doesn't change the fact the stealing is wrong.

So what about subjectivity, which is often setup in opposition to objectivity? Well, subjectivity is more about what I say goes.
So If I steal from someone, let's just forget that it's stealing. I'm entitled to take what I want. The world is a cruel place, get over it. Don't like it, tough. Go cry to Mommy. If someone thinks my taking someone else's possessions is wrong, and I think it right, then we're both right. Morality is merely a matter of personal taste and preference. Without an external standard there is nothing to really say my stealing is wrong.

That would be an example of subjective morality enforced by a jerk. Suppose the external standard enforcing objective morality were a jerk? You could have the same thing!

But stealing is easy; what about a moral issue like “race mixing” I knew of a man who honest believed race mixing was immoral. He believed God created different races for a reason and to mix races goes against God. If we assume morality were objective, how do you prove him right or wrong?
Also you mentioned an external standard. Is it safe to assume this external standard is the God of the bible?


Ken

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Ken wrote:

I agree and I think you are making a case for subjective morality. On a previous thread we were discussing (at least I believe it was you; if not my apologizes in advance) I made the point that if morality were objective and lying is wrong, and it were the year 1938 and you lived in Germany, and the SS came knocking at your door asking if you had any Jews in the house and you knew you had a Jewish family hiding in your attic, if you believed morality were objective you would have to either refuse to answer them (which would prompt them to search the house) or tell the SS where this family were hiding so they can be taken to the death camps; because under objective morality; lying is immoral no matter the circumstance, personal opinions, assumptions, or beliefs.

Under Subjective morality, you have the option of taking extenuating circumstances into consideration and determine that lying to be the moral thing to do in this particular situation.

Using your example of stealing, perhaps it is moral to steal to feed a starving child rather than allow him to starve to death. Objective morality would require you allow him to starve (assuming there is no other option)


Ken
T

This has to be the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard.
Kenny,
You REALLY don't get it, do you?

If you wish to be taken seriously, you need to do a little bit better than calling something ridicules then walking away. A little explanation goes a long way

Ken

Ken if you want to know why it's ridiculous, read Kurieuo's response here

Question; Would you agree in order for morality to be objective, a moral base is necessary? Yes or no.

Ken

Kenny, there seems to be some things not clicking.
I can't help but feel the fact I am Christian embracing objective morality is somehow influencing matters.

Take a read of this article by someone more neutral to you:
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/ph ... _morality/

Perhaps this guy speaks more your language.
I'd be interested to know your thoughts?

Kenny wrote:But stealing is easy; what about a moral issue like “race mixing” I knew of a man who honest believed race mixing was immoral. He believed God created different races for a reason and to mix races goes against God. If we assume morality were objective, how do you prove him right or wrong?

This man obviously has a completely set of different moral values to you, right?

As for how to approach, I love the approach this woman takes.
Seriously tries to understand the information and person behind such views.

Kenny wrote:Also you mentioned an external standard. Is it safe to assume this external standard is the God of the bible?

You can always fall back on we don't have the answer to that yet.
Just like the universe, consciousness and universals like math, shapes and the like.

Kurieuo wrote:Kenny, there seems to be some things not clicking.
I can't help but feel the fact I am Christian embracing objective morality is somehow influencing matters.

Take a read of this article by someone more neutral to you:
http://www.strongatheism.net/library/ph ... _morality/

Perhaps this guy speaks more your language.
I'd be interested to know your thoughts?

My disagreements have nothing to do with you being Christian.
I read the entire article; it was a very painful read. Too long and too boing.

He claimed morality was objective, but he mentioned nothing about a moral base. I wish I could have asked him some questions, he obviously don't believe in a moral base but to claim objective morality without a base sounds absurd to me. I picked out a few quotes from the article I disagreed with.


Most atheists would not accept subjectivist answers in any other area (except perhaps some nihilists), especially things like science.

Science is supposed to be objective! What about art? will bet most atheists would accept a subjective view on art



To argue that morality is not knowledge and that therefore any belief or whim is acceptable, is not any more acceptable than saying that biology is not knowledge and that Creationist is true by default.


He seems to suggest subjective morality is not about knowledge which I disagree with


I already mentioned that the standard skeptic, and humanist, answer to morality is evolutionary adaptation.

I disagree with his standard skeptic and humanist answer to morality


To claim that morality is subjective is a denial of causality

Here he makes the claim but he doesn’t back it up.

I think he spends too much time disproving subjective morality; (the arguments he dismantles I do not hold) and not enough proving objective morality. As I said before, I wish I could ask him some questions.

Kem

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:But stealing is easy; what about a moral issue like “race mixing” I knew of a man who honest believed race mixing was immoral. He believed God created different races for a reason and to mix races goes against God. If we assume morality were objective, how do you prove him right or wrong?

This man obviously has a completely set of different moral values to you, right?

As for how to approach, I love the approach this woman takes.
Seriously tries to understand the information and person behind such views.

Kenny wrote:Also you mentioned an external standard. Is it safe to assume this external standard is the God of the bible?

You can always fall back on we don't have the answer to that yet.
Just like the universe, consciousness and universals like math, shapes and the like.

But we do know about the Universe, consciousness, math, shapes and the like. How can we claim a moral base if we don't know what it is?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:Also you mentioned an external standard. Is it safe to assume this external standard is the God of the bible?

You can always fall back on we don't have the answer to that yet.
Just like the universe, consciousness and universals like math, shapes and the like.

But we do know about the Universe, consciousness, math, shapes and the like. How can we claim a moral base if we don't know what it is?

Would they exist without us though, if no intelligence existed? (thread here where it was discussed a little)

As for a "moral base" neither do we have a "universe base" if you will.
That is, without God, we simply do not know whether something came from nothing or what was prior.
And yet, I'm sure you do not conclude that belief in our universe is subjective.

Likewise in the stealing example where I steal from you, you call the judge a jerk?
Why? You're being the jerk trying to tell me what I can and cannot do. The judge agrees.
The only reason this seems absurd is because we readily identify the judge siding with me goes against some fundamental values we intuitively recognise.

You know, we can't even prove we exist, right? In order to do so we accept some a priori things like logic and reason.
We also can't prove that what we physically sense of the world is in fact true. Again, we accept our immediate experiences as a priori truths.
Likewise, we can't prove our sense of morality is in fact true. Unless we disregard our moral intuitions, we ought to accept morality as an a priori. The fact we both agree the judge would be a jerk to rule in my favour, that my taking your belongings is wrong, well it is just absurd to think otherwise.

So, what do I identify as this moral base? Clearly I believe it doesn't just keeping going back forever.
It is not the Bible. The source of this moral standard of goodness I believe is however God.
And when we were created God placed a sense of good values within us after Himself.

As far as an Atheist embracing an objective morality, well the issue is just the same to me as where did the universe come from given science points to a beginning? It could be left in the box of unknown answers about our world. Maybe science will reveal the answers.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:Also you mentioned an external standard. Is it safe to assume this external standard is the God of the bible?

You can always fall back on we don't have the answer to that yet.
Just like the universe, consciousness and universals like math, shapes and the like.

But we do know about the Universe, consciousness, math, shapes and the like. How can we claim a moral base if we don't know what it is?

Kurieuo wrote:Would they exist without us though, if no intelligence existed? (thread here where it was discussed a little)

In the thread listed, I think my immediate response after the OP summed it up quit well

Kurieuo wrote:As for a "moral base" neither do we have a "universe base" if you will.

Of course not; the Universe is defined as all that exist; it isn't base upon anything. IOW the Universe exist by itself, morality exists only in the context of human thought

Kurieuo wrote:That is, without God, we simply do not know whether something came from nothing or what was prior.
And yet, I'm sure you do not conclude that belief in our universe is subjective.

The existence of the Universe can be demonstrated.

Kurieuo wrote:You know, we can't even prove we exist, right?

Actually we can

Kurieuo wrote:In order to do so we accept some a priori things like logic and reason.

Using reason and logic we can prove we exist

Kurieuo wrote:We also can't prove that what we physically sense of the world is in fact true. Again, we accept our immediate experiences as a priori truths.

I disagree. When it comes to things like building machines that can fly, these things can only be accomplished if they are based on reality. You can only get to the moon base upon what's real

Kurieuo wrote:Likewise, we can't prove our sense of morality is in fact true.

that's because morality is subjective and our physical sense of the world is objective.

Kurieuo wrote:Unless we disregard our moral intuitions, we ought to accept morality as an a priori.

How can something in a constant state of change like morality be accepted this way?

Kurieuo wrote:So, what do I identify as this moral base? Clearly I believe it doesn't just keeping going back forever.
It is not the Bible. The source of this moral standard of goodness I believe is however God.
And when we were created God placed a sense of good values within us after Himself.

As far as an Atheist embracing an objective morality, well the issue is just the same to me as where did the universe come from given science points to a beginning? It could be left in the box of unknown answers about our world. Maybe science will reveal the answers.

Let’s say you are right; that morality IS objective. You as a Christian will claim moral goodness is based upon Jesus/God, but someone of another religion; say Zoroastrianism will claim moral goodness is based upon Ahura Mazda (his God), and non-believers will claim moral goodness is based upon human empathy, or whatever they currently claim it is based upon. I guess my question is; what difference does it make? If morality is objective, everybody behaves as if it were subjective; behaving as if morality were objectively based upon their deity of choice, because Jesus/God, Ahura Mazda, Vinishu, or whatever being morality is based upon does not enforce anything. Do you agree?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:As far as an Atheist embracing an objective morality, well the issue is just the same to me as where did the universe come from given science points to a beginning? It could be left in the box of unknown answers about our world. Maybe science will reveal the answers.

Let’s say you are right; that morality IS objective. You as a Christian will claim moral goodness is based upon Jesus/God, but someone of another religion; say Zoroastrianism will claim moral goodness is based upon Ahura Mazda (his God), and non-believers will claim moral goodness is based upon human empathy, or whatever they currently claim it is based upon. I guess my question is; what difference does it make? If morality is objective, everybody behaves as if it were subjective; behaving as if morality were objectively based upon their deity of choice, because Jesus/God, Ahura Mazda, Vinishu, or whatever being morality is based upon does not enforce anything. Do you agree?

What you see as everyone "behaving subjectively", I see as being built upon objective moral values.
It is because that they possess objective values that they can even make moral decisions.

If there is a person who is truly sovereign and Lord of all (e.g., God who created all), then it seems rightful that God be top of the ladder.
That said, God clearly doesn't enforce His moral standards, but does plant them within our nature.
That is my belief. You might believe whatever values that are shared evolved.

Some modern and very influential Atheist speakers and debaters, argue objective morality can be grounded in science and reason.
Sam Harris for one. I encourage you to watch that. In fact, I think you might very much enjoy watching it!

I haven't got the slightest idea why this came to mind, but somehow it seems appropriate.

RickD wrote:I haven't got the slightest idea why this came to mind, but somehow it seems appropriate.

You had similar to what I had in mind which was:

Jac3510 wrote:

• a. Slavery is wrong
  b. I think of slavery as wrong

Prefixing your thoughs with "I think" doesn't change much. If you think it does you are being silly.

Unicorns are pretty.

The ice cream comparrison makes a mockery of the suffering and slavery of animals in the dairy industry and the beliefs of millions. Stop it, pick something else to inflate your ego and equate your opinions with that of the divine.

As you say, it's all about misunderstanding where one's opinion becomes fact.

Jac3510 wrote:Of course, everyone thinks that slavery really is wrong

No, they don't. There are more slaves in the world now than there were people on earth back when Aristotle was arguing animals are beasts of burden and certain people, of course not him, were natural slaves. Let's be correct about this "Jac thinks that everyone thinks that slavery is wrong"