"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
I hope you will not misunderstand what I am going to say. I am not
preaching, and Heaven knows I do not pretend to be better than anyone else.
I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year, or
this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practise
ourselves the kind of behaviour we expect from other people. There may be
all sorts of excuses for us. That time you were so unfair to the children
was when you were very tired. That slightly shady business about the
money-the one you have almost forgotten-came when you were very hard up. And
what you promised to do for old So-and-so and have never done-well, you
never would have promised if you had known how frightfully busy you were
going to be. And as for your behaviour to your wife (or husband) or sister
(or brother) if I knew how irritating they could be, I would not wonder at
it-and who the dickens am I, anyway? I am just the same. That is to say, I
do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone
tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses
as long as your arm. The question at the moment is not whether they are good
excuses. The point is that they are one more proof of how deeply, whether we
like it or not, we believe in the Law of Nature. If we do not believe in
decent behaviour, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having
behaved decently? The truth is, we believe in decency so much-we feel the
Rule or Law pressing on us so- that we cannot bear to face the fact that we
are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. For
you notice that it is only for our bad behaviour that we find all these
explanations. It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or
worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves.
These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human
beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave
in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do
not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it.
These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and
the universe we live in.
1. I think I did. You just can't handle the answer. You live your life by the examples I gave. You're merely trying to wriggle free from your constraint.humblesmurph wrote:
1.You didn't really answer the first question. I bet you are wrong often, I know I am. How do you know that your opinion about red lights, jumping queues, and being late is objective? I can say that I know that you are wrong. How do we prove who is correct?
2. Again, you didn't really answer the question. If I know something is wrong and I do it anyway, I haven't made a subjective judgment of morality. I've just done something wrong.
To answer your question: No, I am not denying objective truth. I know that 2+2=4. I don't have to explain inherent knowledge of right and wrong, because it isn't inherent, it's taught.
Exactly. The presence of moral disagreement does not in any way, shape or form indicate the absence of a universal morality. How on earth can you factor in behaviour when trying to invalidate the norm of what is right and what is wrong? How does this work? Anyone?jlay wrote:You are making a logical fallacy here. The issue with Muslims, or anyone who rapes, is only proof that people get it wrong. I would never say that if someone answers 2+2=5 that suddenly there is no objective standard for math. People getting morality wrong is not evidence against objective morality.
1. Respectfully, your answer just boils down to an opinion. I can say I know anything. If I can't prove it, it's just my opinion. That is true whether I am a Christian or Stephen Hawking. You can't prove your claims. I can't prove mine either, but at least I'm honest about it.DannyM wrote:1. I think I did. You just can't handle the answer. You live your life by the examples I gave. You're merely trying to wriggle free from your constraint.humblesmurph wrote:
1.You didn't really answer the first question. I bet you are wrong often, I know I am. How do you know that your opinion about red lights, jumping queues, and being late is objective? I can say that I know that you are wrong. How do we prove who is correct?
2. Again, you didn't really answer the question. If I know something is wrong and I do it anyway, I haven't made a subjective judgment of morality. I've just done something wrong.
To answer your question: No, I am not denying objective truth. I know that 2+2=4. I don't have to explain inherent knowledge of right and wrong, because it isn't inherent, it's taught.
2. Again, I think I did. You've just exposed your weak stance by saying "If I know something is wrong and I do it anyway..." Bingo! Your inherent knowledge of right and wrong is present in your very words. You do things that you KNOW to be wrong. You know you have erred from the right path. You are so conscious of it, in fact, that even when you try to deny it you can't help putting your foot in it and admitting it.
If I walked up to your mother and smacked her in the mouth, what would your first thought be right before you smack me right back?
DannyM wrote:Exactly. The presence of moral disagreement does not in any way, shape or form indicate the absence of a universal morality. How on earth can you factor in behaviour when trying to invalidate the norm of what is right and what is wrong? How does this work? Anyone?jlay wrote:You are making a logical fallacy here. The issue with Muslims, or anyone who rapes, is only proof that people get it wrong. I would never say that if someone answers 2+2=5 that suddenly there is no objective standard for math. People getting morality wrong is not evidence against objective morality.
This is just bad logic. A person who says they know nothing is disproving themselves with a self-defeating statement. Knowing that you know nothing, proves you do in fact know something. There we can prove it. Through logic. Just as we can prove OM.1. Respectfully, your answer just boils down to an opinion. I can say I know anything. If I can't prove it, it's just my opinion. That is true whether I am a Christian or Stephen Hawking. You can't prove your claims. I can't prove mine either, but at least I'm honest about it.
Aren't you just proving it here? Why would you be offended about your mother, unless you absolutely KNEW it was offensive? Please be consistent. Otherwise, what do you really have to be offended about.2. I typed "If" I know something is wrong. It was a hypothetical. Basically, I'm questioning how anybody could know for absolute fact that something is wrong, and do it anyway? Why do Muslims and Christians kill and rape? I never said I knew something was wrong, at least not in the concrete way that you claim to know.
I'll not have any part of any hypothetical where you slap my mother in the mouth unless you are willing to have the discussion face to face.
Just because you think you have not accessed it, and others fail to, does not mean that is true. In fact people can access truth all the time and still not yield to it. Have you ever done something even when you knew it was wrong? Also, if you accessed it even once, would that not prove it exists?What zoegirl provided me with was interesting reading, and greatly appreciated, but strictly speaking it wasn't objective proof. My point isn't that there is no objective morality, just that it is impossible for humans to access it with dependability.
No one is saying that there isn't a subjective morality, or that we don't live by subjective morality. Why do you think that?Therefore, for humans, morality is necessarily subjective. I am wrong often. I certainly hope I am wrong with regards to the objectivity of morality, but I haven't found that to be the case yet.
We've explained this several times. People's failures to live up to, or even recognize OM is not proof that it doesn't exist. Imagine if I started arguing against subjective morality, because people violate it. It doesn't hold up. For example, you have clearly accepted incorrect information and faulty logic to arrive at your pro-choice position. It was pointed out in multiple instances in this thread. Bottom line, you have facts wrong. Facts are objective. So, since you KNOW you have wrong obejctive facts, are you going to change your position? No. Why? Pride. You'd rather your worldview be right, than have to concede that you have some vital things very wrong. The truth can hit people right between the eyes, yet they will not concede to it. You've demonstrated that in this thread. Forgive my harsh criticism, but your above comment, just comes across as the ramblings of a frustrated person who doesn't want to address the case that has been presented to him. Instead of dealing with the facts presented, you take a rabbit trail approach, pointing fingers at the Supreme Court, etc. This is a very common thing we run into when discussing these matters. In fact, it is text book. Just to let you know, you are again jumping from the otonological issue to the epistemological one.DannyM, People with otherwise good sense disagree about big moral issues all the time. Capital punishment, abortion, and euthanasia are just 3 examples. These things are all legal in all or parts of the US, a democratic nation that is mostly Christian. How many people do you know with otherwise good sense who can't add up 2+2? Why even argue about DNA, eyes, spinal chords and all the rest when discussing the rights of a fetus? Why not just cite your "objective truth" to settle the matter quickly? Aren't most of the members of the Supreme court Christians? Lives are literally at stake. In every other argument that revolves around an incontrovertible fact, there is a way to settle it. If we disagree about who the first president was, we look it up and either you or I is proven wrong on the spot.
As judges in a secular society, aren't they SUPPOSED to check their Christianity at the court's doorstep...or would you have them start making decisions based on their religious beliefs?humblesmurph wrote:jlay,
Yes, I am jumping from ontological to epistemological. Once we establish that morality has an objective source, there is then the very real problem of trying to access this knowledge. I make an appeal to the Supreme Court because I am humble. I am the one that has never strayed from the fact that my account of morality could very well be wrong. The point is that you, a Christian who claims that truth is objective, is in direct opposition with a group of Christians appointed by other Christians whose sworn duty is to decide right and wrong. Who are you to say that they are wrong? Why should I take your opinion on morality of abortion to be fact?
If they know for a fact what is right and wrong, it isn't about religious "belief". It's about objective facts. Yes, I would want anybody with access to objective morality to apply that truth to the betterment of mankind.BavarianWheels wrote:As judges in a secular society, aren't they SUPPOSED to check their Christianity at the court's doorstep...or would you have them start making decisions based on their religious beliefs?humblesmurph wrote:jlay,
Yes, I am jumping from ontological to epistemological. Once we establish that morality has an objective source, there is then the very real problem of trying to access this knowledge. I make an appeal to the Supreme Court because I am humble. I am the one that has never strayed from the fact that my account of morality could very well be wrong. The point is that you, a Christian who claims that truth is objective, is in direct opposition with a group of Christians appointed by other Christians whose sworn duty is to decide right and wrong. Who are you to say that they are wrong? Why should I take your opinion on morality of abortion to be fact?
.
.
I guess that's the whole point you're not getting here. Without religion (i.e. God) there is no objective morality. Society dictates it's own morality and thus it is subjective from society to society and from person to person.humblesmurph wrote:If they know for a fact what is right and wrong, it isn't about religious "belief". It's about objective facts. Yes, I would want anybody with access to objective morality to apply that truth to the betterment of mankind.BavarianWheels wrote:As judges in a secular society, aren't they SUPPOSED to check their Christianity at the court's doorstep...or would you have them start making decisions based on their religious beliefs?humblesmurph wrote:jlay,
Yes, I am jumping from ontological to epistemological. Once we establish that morality has an objective source, there is then the very real problem of trying to access this knowledge. I make an appeal to the Supreme Court because I am humble. I am the one that has never strayed from the fact that my account of morality could very well be wrong. The point is that you, a Christian who claims that truth is objective, is in direct opposition with a group of Christians appointed by other Christians whose sworn duty is to decide right and wrong. Who are you to say that they are wrong? Why should I take your opinion on morality of abortion to be fact?
.
.
No, they are sworn to judge according to the constitution.whose sworn duty is to decide right and wrong
I'm not talking about the morality. I am talking about the biological facts.Why should I take your opinion on morality of abortion to be fact?
We agree that the US is not a theocracy, but every president that has appointed a Supreme Court justice has been a professed Christian. Every member of the Supreme court is a professed believer of God, I believe two are Jewish and the rest are Christian. The constitution and Congress are not the only sources for law in the US. Courts can and do make new laws, it's called case law.jlay wrote:The Supreme court is not a group of Christians. The USA is not a theocracy. The Supreme Court is not goverened by the New Testament. The SC is not appointed by Christians.No, they are sworn to judge according to the constitution.whose sworn duty is to decide right and wrong
I'm not talking about the morality. I am talking about the biological facts.Why should I take your opinion on morality of abortion to be fact?
Not saying you are lying, but I don't believe you here. You may not understand what you are implying.Yes, I would want anybody with access to objective morality to apply that truth to the betterment of mankind.
You would obviously have to address them to know that. All I know is that I have never seen a unanimous position from the SC. That tells me that there is not agreement. Each Justice is able to look at the exact same evidence (facts). Yet can and do come to different conclusions. Why? Well there are a lot of reasons. But two big ones are worldview and politics. In fact there is a very good case that Roe v. Wade was ruled wrong based on the FACTS.Why are Supreme Court Justices not able to make the same secular application of fact that you have made?
No HS, let's be honest here. Facts are facts. You made several statements that were in fact wrong. Not opinion, not interpretation, but facts. Therefore your position is based on wrong info. You are welcome to go back through the thread. Myself, Zoe, and maybe others pointed these issues out.It is your application of biological facts that renders all abortions acts of murder, therefore, wrong.
No BW. That can't be right. What good is objective morality is society can just dictate it away? You can certainly come to the conclusion that there is objective morality without God because moral objectivity is used in proofs for God.BavarianWheels wrote:I guess that's the whole point you're not getting here. Without religion (i.e. God) there is no objective morality. Society dictates it's own morality and thus it is subjective from society to society and from person to person.humblesmurph wrote:If they know for a fact what is right and wrong, it isn't about religious "belief". It's about objective facts. Yes, I would want anybody with access to objective morality to apply that truth to the betterment of mankind.BavarianWheels wrote:As judges in a secular society, aren't they SUPPOSED to check their Christianity at the court's doorstep...or would you have them start making decisions based on their religious beliefs?humblesmurph wrote:jlay,
Yes, I am jumping from ontological to epistemological. Once we establish that morality has an objective source, there is then the very real problem of trying to access this knowledge. I make an appeal to the Supreme Court because I am humble. I am the one that has never strayed from the fact that my account of morality could very well be wrong. The point is that you, a Christian who claims that truth is objective, is in direct opposition with a group of Christians appointed by other Christians whose sworn duty is to decide right and wrong. Who are you to say that they are wrong? Why should I take your opinion on morality of abortion to be fact?
.
.
.
.