Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morality and Subjectivity
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 166 of 238 (318425)
06-06-2006 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by CK
06-06-2006 6:29 PM


Re: "a sucker is born every minute" as Paper Collar Joe said
I see your reverting to your two line sniping again. Pity. You wrote a post of some length yesterday and had something to actually say. I was so flabbergasted I never even thought to respond (seriously, I was flabbergasted!)
You seem to be saying (for your pathological brevity forces me to speculate) that it is not possible for God to make himself objectively real to a person. He can make the Sun, Moon and stars but not do this. It seems there's a god-in-my-own-image-and-likeness born with about the same frequency as suckers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by CK, posted 06-06-2006 6:29 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by CK, posted 06-07-2006 4:02 AM iano has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 167 of 238 (318428)
06-06-2006 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by Chiroptera
06-06-2006 3:44 PM


Re: Certainty
That's what I like about mathematics. I like knowing for certain whether I am right or wrong.
That's what I hated about Maths. When I came out of an exam I knew I had failed - whereas with English and History I could hope for the two months it took for the results to be released and only then find out I'd failed.
When I was a kid the final exam you took on leaving school was called the Leaving Cert. In order to "pass your leaving" - many employers minimum entry requirement - you had to pass 5 subjects of the 8 or 9 taken. Me and my mate Barry (who happens to be a top drawer crime journalist these days) still hold a certain inverted pride of being in the position whereby if you added our results for the Leaving Cert together you still wouldn't manage to scrap together one pass!
I had a brief period in a good college in England where an insight into the power of maths and the beauty of it became apparent. I walked out of those exams knowing I'd scored a 90+. It didn't last long enough to really stick though. Pity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by Chiroptera, posted 06-06-2006 3:44 PM Chiroptera has not replied

jmrozi1
Member (Idle past 5893 days)
Posts: 79
From: Maryland
Joined: 12-09-2005


Message 168 of 238 (318437)
06-06-2006 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by iano
06-06-2006 6:26 PM


Re: "I am certain of this..." as the apostle Paul said
jmrozi1 writes:

Certainty about anything, especially the existence of God, is impossible.
iano writes:

I wouldn't gloss over your admission that the statement is a contradiction...All it would take is for God to make himself known to a person in a way that made them certain he existed.
I did acknowledge this:
jmrozi1 writes:

Short of God himself granting you the power of logical perfection, you are left only with the option to favor one side over the other.
I made the contradiction to prevent having to explain the long version. However, since you've challenged my statement, I will address three points in the following argument:
(1) The contradiction is trivial.
(2) It is arguably impossible for God to grant the power of logical perfection.
(3) Science is by no means a narrow field.
"Certainty about anything, especially the existence of God, is impossible" is a contradiction because the word impossible implies the certainty of the validity of the statement. This is fixed simply by saying, "Except for this statement, certainty about anything, especially the existence of God, is impossible." However, the point I was trying to make wasn't whether or not anything could be certain; it's that it doesn’t matter that you can’t be certain. Consider that we might have only been programmed to think logical truisms and mathematics can be proven. It is possible that our reality is nothing more than a subset of some greater existence, and the logic local to our perceived universe is nothing more than a system of rules organized by some God-equivalent from out of a completely chaotic and infinitely more expansive macrocosm. My question is, could this in any way impact our method of using logic and observations to define patterns and make predictions about the future? If it could, is there anything we could do about it? The answer is of course that we cannot, and that the only way we can function is to accept these uncertainties for the purpose of progression.
As far as God allowing you to be certain that he exists, consider that the only way for this to happen is for you to have infinite knowledge. This is the case because not only would you need to know everything about this universe (which is finite), but about how there is no potential for the presence of a greater logical being, a level of knowledge that can only be reached at infinity. However, the only way to have infinite knowledge is to be God himself, right? The only way for you to obtain this information, then, would be to become one with God. And I’m not talking about some kind of spiritual journey - you would have to be him, as in merge with him.
Finally, I cannot completely refute the claim that Science is a narrow field because narrow is a relative term. I can note, however, that science is practically infinite in its potential, and to say that it is “very narrow” seems to insinuate that it is grossly limited by its inability to be certain of anything. Again, certainty is possibly impossible, but being bounded by this has by no means discouraged the progression of science. If anything, being uncertain is what inspires and motivates it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by iano, posted 06-06-2006 6:26 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 06-06-2006 9:54 PM jmrozi1 has replied
 Message 185 by iano, posted 06-07-2006 6:23 AM jmrozi1 has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 169 of 238 (318455)
06-06-2006 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by jmrozi1
06-06-2006 8:32 PM


Re: "I am certain of this..." as the apostle Paul said
As far as God allowing you to be certain that he exists, consider that the only way for this to happen is for you to have infinite knowledge.
Not if God personally made Himself known to some people who wrote down his words, and when we believed those words He made Himself known to us too. That's how we are certain He exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by jmrozi1, posted 06-06-2006 8:32 PM jmrozi1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by jmrozi1, posted 06-07-2006 12:50 AM Faith has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 170 of 238 (318458)
06-06-2006 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by CK
06-06-2006 6:43 PM


Re: "a sucker is born every minute" as Paper Collar Joe said
You changed the subject. I'm claiming simply that I have the certainty that it was said one could not have, that God exists. Beyond that we can discuss how different my certainty is from someone else's, on another thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by CK, posted 06-06-2006 6:43 PM CK has not replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 171 of 238 (318486)
06-06-2006 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by robinrohan
06-06-2006 12:19 PM


Re: "What brute or blackguard made the world": A study of the moral argument against
You appear to be considering only two possibilities.
1) That the Judeo Christian creator God exists and the books compiled into the Bible are an accurate account of how that creator works.
or
2) A nihilism that is based from the Theory of Evolution and that says morality is entirely subjective therefore life is meaningless.
I've been trying to suggest since I first encountered your arguments about nilhilism that there are a range of other possibilities to consider. These two possibilities seem to stem largely from the tension in Western culture between Judeo Christian reliance on revealed religion and the Greek development of rationality that later has flowered into science including ToE and the political struggle occuring in the US schools and legal systems over secular vs. religous society.
If you limit yourself to the two choices as you appear to be doing then those are the only choices you have. Neither choice makes a lot of sense to me.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by robinrohan, posted 06-06-2006 12:19 PM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by robinrohan, posted 06-07-2006 1:53 AM lfen has replied

jmrozi1
Member (Idle past 5893 days)
Posts: 79
From: Maryland
Joined: 12-09-2005


Message 172 of 238 (318549)
06-07-2006 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by Faith
06-06-2006 9:54 PM


Re: "I am certain of this..." as the apostle Paul said
jmrozi1 writes:
As far as God allowing you to be certain that he exists, consider that the only way for this to happen is for you to have infinite knowledge.
Faith writes:
Not if God personally made Himself known to some people who wrote down his words, and when we believed those words He made Himself known to us too. That's how we are certain He exists.
Allow me to modify my earlier statement: It's possible to be absolutely certain of something because we are capable of making logical mistakes. To think that you are certain about something is probably synonymous with being certain about something. A person could be certain that he saw a ghost, even if it was in actuality nothing more than the hallucinogenic side-effect caused by his latest acid hit. His logical fallacy was that he didn't consider the possibility that the image he saw was nothing more than a mental fabrication.
The only way to be certain while remaining completely rational, however, would be to have infinite knowledge. My argument still stands that it would be illogical to be absolutely certain of something unless you are certain that there is no possibility for a greater realm of understanding - an understanding that only God himself can possess. The brain, containing about 100 billion neurons, has an obvious limit to the amount of information it can hold. If you believe that God is able to store an infinite amount of information in a finite space, you have granted God the power of logical immunity. This is scary to most people because it would mean that since his realm of understanding exceeds logic, he would be allowed to be good despite lying or intentionally misleading religious advocates.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by Faith, posted 06-06-2006 9:54 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 06-07-2006 12:57 AM jmrozi1 has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 173 of 238 (318554)
06-07-2006 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by jmrozi1
06-07-2006 12:50 AM


Re: "I am certain of this..." as the apostle Paul said
A person could be certain that he saw a ghost, even if it was in actuality nothing more than the hallucinogenic side-effect caused by his latest acid hit. His logical fallacy was that he didn't consider the possibility that the image he saw was nothing more than a mental fabrication.
What you are saying here is numbingly obvious and taken into account. I have certainty in a way you know not of.
Edited by Faith, : added quote

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by jmrozi1, posted 06-07-2006 12:50 AM jmrozi1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by jmrozi1, posted 06-07-2006 2:22 AM Faith has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 174 of 238 (318566)
06-07-2006 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by PaulK
06-06-2006 12:44 PM


Re: "What brute or blackguard made the world": A study of the moral argument against God
Firstly, I don't know why you keep phrasing your argument as one of evolution's compatibility with Christiaity when evolution per se has no real relevance to the argumetn. Even appealing to YEC views (because OEC views have the smae poblems) only solves part of the problem - and creates many more.
Well, I was thinking that the idea of the Fall would be a way of explaining human suffering. If by "more problems," you mean the issue of God's foreknowledge, I think maybe free will can be reconciled with it. I agree, however, that there are other issues (for example, why the descendents of Adam would be punished also).
It is not an argument agaisnt a more generic "God" wo migh be cruel.
As far as I know, nobody believes in such a god.
Logically it is not a problem if the argument only works if God exists. We may trivially save the argument by adding "God exists" as a premise. (e.g. "If God exists, then He is cruel" does not require us to assume that we can make moral objective judgements in the case that God does not exist). Thus this point is not a significant flaw in the argument.
This seems a little unclear to me. The "moral argument" against God is an argument about whether or not the (Judeo-Islamic-Christian) God exists. He doesn't exist because if He did,he would be cruel, and this God is not cruel. But our ideas about what's cruel are subjective, so they can't serve as evidence.
Perhaps I didn't understand your point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by PaulK, posted 06-06-2006 12:44 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by PaulK, posted 06-07-2006 2:20 AM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 175 of 238 (318568)
06-07-2006 1:53 AM
Reply to: Message 171 by lfen
06-06-2006 11:02 PM


Re: "What brute or blackguard made the world": A study of the moral argument against
I've been trying to suggest since I first encountered your arguments about nilhilism that there are a range of other possibilities to consider. These two possibilities seem to stem largely from the tension in Western culture between Judeo Christian reliance on revealed religion and the Greek development of rationality that later has flowered into science including ToE and the political struggle occuring in the US schools and legal systems over secular vs. religous society.
If you limit yourself to the two choices as you appear to be doing then those are the only choices you have. Neither choice makes a lot of sense to me.
These other possibilities would have to somehow reconcile human suffering with the notion of God, or have some way of providing purpose (objective purpose) without reference to God. I would need to be able to consider the possibility in a clear and distinct way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by lfen, posted 06-06-2006 11:02 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by lfen, posted 06-07-2006 2:17 AM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 176 of 238 (318570)
06-07-2006 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by jmrozi1
06-06-2006 4:00 PM


Re: "What brute or blackguard made the world": A study of the moral argument against God
Hopefully, you don't take these definitions too literally, but I want you to realize to points I'm trying to make:
(1) Almost all thought is a middle ground between these two extremes; maybe morality is subjective but it certainly isn't purely subjective.
(2) Even purely subjective thoughts have credence - they are based on logic. Even without observational support, logic is a phenomenon tempered by the patterns of our observed reality, which allows a person to function in society. By mere virtue of being able to function, logic isn't random, and therefore subjective thoughts can't be completely worthless. This is a pretty rough explanation, but hopefully you have some idea of what I'm talking about.
I think I do have an idea of what you mean, but I'm having trouble conceptualizing a moral system that is "partially" subjective and "partially" objective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by jmrozi1, posted 06-06-2006 4:00 PM jmrozi1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by jmrozi1, posted 06-07-2006 2:59 AM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 177 of 238 (318572)
06-07-2006 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by nwr
06-06-2006 3:39 PM


Re: Certainty
In mathematics you can have certainty. In real life, you cannot.
Perhaps one has a moral intuitional faculty as one has a rational intuitional faculty. And so there can be "axiomatic moral assumptions" as in mathematics. Some people would be better at morals than others, just as some are better at math than others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by nwr, posted 06-06-2006 3:39 PM nwr has not replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 178 of 238 (318577)
06-07-2006 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 175 by robinrohan
06-07-2006 1:53 AM


Re: "What brute or blackguard made the world": A study of the moral argument against
What if God has no purpose? What if God simply is?
Look how complex and difficult physics especially quantum mechanics is.
Popular religion offers simple formulations, stories that people can easily grasp. I'm suggesting that you need to look further than that.
On the contrary, Ashtavakra is very simple.
We are all one Self. The Self is pure awareness. This Self, this flawless awareness is God. There is only God.
Everything else is an illusion: the little self, the world, the universe. All these things arise with the thought 'I', that is, with the idea of separate identity. The little 'I' invents the material world, which in our ignorance we strive hard to sustain. Forgetting our original oneness, bound tightly in our imaginary separateness, we spend our lives mastered by a specious sense of purpose and value. Endlessly constrained by our habit of individuation, the creature of preference and desire, we continually set one thing against another, until the mischief and misery of choice consume us.
But our true nature is pure and choiceless awareness. We are already and always fulfilled.
It is easy, says Ashtavakra. You are the clear space of awareness (cidakasa), pure and still, in whom there is no birth, no striving, no 'I'
Translator's Introduction to The Heart of Awareness translated by Thomas Byrom
http://www.kundalini-matashakti.com/...%20of%20Awareness.doc

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by robinrohan, posted 06-07-2006 1:53 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by robinrohan, posted 06-07-2006 8:35 AM lfen has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 179 of 238 (318578)
06-07-2006 2:20 AM
Reply to: Message 174 by robinrohan
06-07-2006 1:48 AM


Re: "What brute or blackguard made the world": A study of the moral argument against God
Your argument was phrased in terms of animal suffering, prior to the existence of humans. Even christians who believe in evolution could expain human suffering in terms of the Fall. And I certainly wasn't thinking of the general problems of the Fall doctrine - more the huge weight of scientific evidence against a young Earth.
I would aslo add that even if nobody beleived in a cruel God, it would not make it impossible that such a God existed. Any general argument against the existence of A God has to deal with any Gods that could exist, not only Gods that are believed in.
quote:
This seems a little unclear to me. The "moral argument" against God is an argument about whether or not the (Judeo-Islamic-Christian) God exists. He doesn't exist because if He did,he would be cruel, and this God is not cruel. But our ideas about what's cruel are subjective, so they can't serve as evidence.
Perhaps I didn't understand your point.
My point is simple. According to you our ideas of morality are subjective only IF God does not exist. However if it is accepted that God does not exist then no further argument is needed (a God that does not exist cannot be cruel in reality). So, the argument is not hurt by modifying it to include the assumption that God does exist, which removes the problem. It's really a simple application of logic.
(I would further add that we do not need objectivity, only intersubjectivity. If we are agreed on what we mean by cruel and we agree that God cannot be cruel (as we mean it) it does not matter that the judgement of cruelty is not objective. It is only if "cruel" is so subjective that we cannot agree on these points that it would affect the argument).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by robinrohan, posted 06-07-2006 1:48 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by robinrohan, posted 06-07-2006 8:43 AM PaulK has replied

jmrozi1
Member (Idle past 5893 days)
Posts: 79
From: Maryland
Joined: 12-09-2005


Message 180 of 238 (318579)
06-07-2006 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Faith
06-07-2006 12:57 AM


Re: "I am certain of this..." as the apostle Paul said
I divided certainty into two groups: rational and irrational. My argument was that rational certainty is impossible; therefore, if it's that obvious, then obviously you've fallen into the category of irrational certainty. And I would agree that I know not of your certainty, for with the exception of math and science, I've never known any type of certainty. With that in mind, the only assumption math and science has made is that what we have perceived as logic is indeed logical, as assumption that is of no consequence.
Though I know not of your certainty, it has been categorized as irrational and illogical, and if everything I said is "numbingly obvious," then apparently you agree with this categorization. Since you're choosing not to base your certainty on logic, I ask that you don't present your view of certainty as evidence or support to any claim you want to have meaning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Faith, posted 06-07-2006 12:57 AM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024