|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Morality without God is impossible | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
It’s just a silly apologetic. Humanity is the frame of reference.
Throwing in blind chance to cover up the role of selection is just a rhetorical trick. Humans are not just randomly thrown-together chemicals. There has been a long and complex process of evolution to get this far, and that includes aspects of our minds as well as our physical bodies. No, evolution is not just blind chance. If it was we wouldn’t exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: And as I said it is obviously wrong that there is no frame of reference. There is no provably correct frame of reference, but that is true anyway. You can’t prove the 9/11 bombers wrong either.
quote: Which puts your views uncomfortably close to that of the 9/11 bombers. Their self-justification relied on the idea that their actions would be approved by God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Interesting that you agree that your point is obviously wrong.
quote: You miss the point. The God idea is not only not essential, it is actively dangerous as a basis for morality. That is not to say that other bases can’t be equally bad. In your own ideas the good comes from love, not the assumption that there is a God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I don’t think that follows at all. If there was a truly absolute morality I don’t see that it needs a source. It’s not even clear that it could have a source. And if it did have a source why should it be something capable of being moral ? Certainly morality existing is logically prior to being moral, so being moral can’t be a requirement to be the source. I note that you later claim that the Golden Rule is an absolute moral rule but if it is, is it because it is some external rule or is it because it is fundamental to the idea of morality? I would say that to the extent it is, the latter is the case, which again needs no external source.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Are you saying that you aren’t talking about an absolute morality? Because if you aren’t it’s just another relative morality so what’s the significance?
quote: The point is that being moral can’t be a requirement of the source, because being the source must logically precede being moral.So, how do you get that the source must be moral? quote: That completely misses the point, if the Golden Rule is simply a basic feature of human morality it doesn’t have to be absolute in the sense of being external to human nature. Indeed it seems to be based on the basic idea of fairness which fits well with an evolutionary origin.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Lewis sabotages his own point there. If it’s independent of what people think it can’t be a product of consciousness - because that’s thought. GDR’s argument falls to that point, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: That’s a problem that makes Lewis’ argument look *better*. Lewis’ argument is even worse than Stile’s example. The real problem is that you want Lewis to be right - even when he obviously isn’t.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Nope. Lewis’ claim is that you must have an objective standard which is untrue. If Lewis was making the claim you say, then there would be nothing to it. We have our ideas of good and evil and that’s all that is needed.
quote: I.e. the standard must be intersubjective. That’s fine but it doesn’t get you to objectivity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: First, whether we choose good all the time or not doesn’t matter.Second, our lack of access to the basis of our moral decisions only strengthens the case for subjectivity. quote: And you try to cover up the glaring error in Lewis’ argument to support that opinion. Which is not a good thing to do.
quote: Which does nothing to counter my claim. Intersubjectivity is a shared standard, and that is all we need. Therefore the idea that we need an objective standard for agreement - which we don’t have anyway - is incorrect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: The observed order of the fossil record is an easy one. The fact that the geological sequences associated with transgression and regression would not be produced by a year-long flood is another. The reliability of radiometric dating is another. The fact that a Genesis says nothing relevant to providing services to gay weddings is another. The fact that the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya only applies to avoiding persecution is another... We can go on and on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: No. They are all facts - so that is another example.
quote: Your Young Earth beliefs and your belief in Noah’s Flood are clearly part of your religion. Your attempt to justify the refusal to provide services to gay weddings is also supposed to be (but it isn’t really). That leaves only your attempts to stir up suspicion and hate against Muslims and people you want to accuse of being secretly Muslim....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Which amounts to simply repeating your denial of the facts. But OK, in the name of fairness you get a chance to make your point. Explain to me why the observed order of the fossil record is not a fact. And no, just calling it an interpretation is not an explanation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: As we’ve already seen you reject facts and try to excuse it by calling them interpretations. The observed order of the fossil record is a fact. And you know it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
On the basis of the instincts which underlie what we call morality I would say that it was always wrong.
In principle it might be possible to come up with a version that wasn’t. Some people point to the situation of domestic slaves in the Roman Empire, ignoring the abuses even they had to suffer as well as the situation of the majority of slaves at that time - claiming that it was better than the situation in the US. Absent the racism it really wasn’t much better. Of course the people who are doing that are trying to whitewash the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Since you regard disagreeing with your opinions as irrational - and you have made obviously irrational claims in the past, that doesn’t mean much. I’ll trust science over the opinions of someone with a long record of promoting falsehood and misrepresentation. Not to mention boasting of the “research” he’s done which is not where evident in his claims or falsely claiming that it’s “all about the truth” - when he’s only looking for excuses to prop up his belief. Or reacting with anger when his nonsense is exposed as nonsense. (One really wonders why the “still small voice” has put in no objection to this behaviour).
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024