Is belief in God madness in a modern world?

In the much heated thread Is morality decreasing with Time, Anglagard partially sums up his position on the issues with the following statement and message: http://EvC Forum: Morality Decreasing With Time? -->EvC Forum: Morality Decreasing With Time?He says:I will show that his is a logically incoherent statement. I do not want to impune Anglagard. We all make unthoughtful comments from time to time. It's more than forgivable, but the implications are invaluable.Anglagards comment, when taken into context with all of his comments in the thread, reveal that he is invoking 'reality' (which is absolute by definition) to give solid ground to the accusation that some of us are 'mad' in relation to that ground. But he does so all the while in defense of the position that 'reality' is not absolute, but relative.I believe that is the equivalent of him saying: It's also like the Agnostic professor who told a Christian professor, 'You are an anachronism. You believe in the concept of truth. You cannot arrive at the truth!' To which the Christian professor said, 'Then how did you arrive at that?'All of this finds it's context in the 'moral realm' (an integral part of reality whatever may be), wherein we find the only legitimate inference to confirming the existence of a transcendant reality within a philosophical dialog. So it is not just a blind appeal to conscious I offer you in my defense, but also one measured carefully by intellectual objectivity and consistency.Edited by scottness, : minor semantic adjustment... (transcendant)Edited by scottness, : No reason given.

---

If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows ” the only food that any possible universe ever can grow ” then we must starve eternally. (Lewis- The Problem of Pain)

Here is the full text of anglagards statement: You respond by saying: OK...the ball is in your court. One thing that I might point out, though, is that there is no direct correlation between morality and a belief in God. Some of us have argued that it is only through Gods influence that morality even exists...but there have been many moral people who had no outward sign of belief.Edited by Phat, : add

Very good! I agree with you wholeheartedly.And I don't recall any of the theists arguing that those who are naturalists cannot be good. But I'm sure we have at some point in this treacherous terrain. It's just that under the assumptions implicit in materialist philosophies, there is no compelling reason to be good.Many a naturalist has realized this contradiction (eg. Anthony flew).As such, the goodness of unknowing naturalists finds it's source purely in the cultural programming they received from a theistic source since past.And by continuing to be good in light of no philosophical motivation for it, they then conclude that they have choosen to do so, which confirms to them their own autonomous goodness.So ultimately they claim the work of others as their own, whereas you and I may remember to give credit to the original source and passed on to us as a gift. At the very least we should.No to do so is immoral at another level of morality (reasoned honesty). And since naturalism is gaining ground in our time, and along with it the claim to ownership of goodness, then conversely, this other level of morality is on the decline.

I think you're mistaken. Absolute and subjective are not antonymous.Absolute:Relative::
Objective:SubjectiveThere can an objective reality with no absolutes.

Maybe not compelling to you but the existance of moral atheists shows that it is compelling to some. The reason is that it is the right thing to do, in the particular person's opinion, or that it benefits the most people, or that it will make someone hapy. The materialist philosophy's implicit assumptions do not remove the already existing reasons for being good. I'd need support for that assertion to accept it but it might be off topic and, admittedly, its not of much interest to me.

I always thought that the definition of object was a belief arising from a source apart from ourselves whereas subjective meant that the belief was entirely of our own nature. Maybe we need to nail these definitions before we can make heads or tails of morality and absolutes.

You really need to stop misrepresenting what others have said.No one has denied that there are absolutes.What has been said is that so far No One has been able to produce an example of either Absolute Truth or Absolute Morality that stands up to examination.It is time that you stopped misrepresenting others and actually produce some evidence that is relevant to your position.In addition, NOTHING in your Original Post is in anyway related to the title of the thread.Which subject is it you would like to discuss, "Is belief in God madness in a modern world?" or your strawman argument about absolutes?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

It's madness not to believe in God. I personally do not have enough faith to not believe. Besides, when I believed, God has rewarded me thousands of times over as I continue to dilligently seek Him.Blessings

---

The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

That's like saying you don't have enough money to be poor.Whether or not believers are "mad", they certainly can make silly arguments. It's equally silly to assume that the rewards come from the belief - but it still might not be madness.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I don't undersatand your post: this seems like an inordinate amount of unsubstantiated bollocks.Sorry.Edited by Larni, : Correcting the spelling of bollocks.

​

Sorry.

More unsubstantiated bollocks.Sorry.

I am going to have to agree that your content does not exactly follow your topic heading. Anglagard did not say faith = madness. There is also no evidence that his position (that of morality increasing) excludes persons of any particular faith from sharing this view. In other words, there may be christians who believe morality is growing, and christians who believe morality is declining. The same could probably be said for followers of any other belief system.It is also true that morality is not a specifically christian concept and is not a product of any faith or relgious book. We may believe that it is a product of being made 'in the image and likeness of God' or we may believe that is a natural result of cause and effect and general observation by intelligent beings.However in spite of any argument in the previous thread, I must report a failure to see how, without a standard of comparison, we can come to the conclusion that morality is either decreasing or increasing. We are reduced to using our own personal moral code as a basis for our assertions. There may be communities or groups in society which use that same code, but the adoption of the code of one particular majority group might signify nothing in itself about the value of the code, except for the power in numbers or a herd mentality.All morality is relative, and subject to the limited view of reality which we see from our particular perspective.If a woman grows up in a small family community, and 50 years later can not step foot outside without fear of violence, is she 'mad' to assert that morality is in decline?If the governor of a certain state has seen a sharp decline in racial crime, is he 'mad' to say that morality is increasing?If a christian sees in his lifetime a drop in church attendance and more businesses open on Sundays, is he 'mad' to say that morality is decreasing?The thing is, it is impossible to make a determination in any of these cases without more information and a broader perspective. I doubt that any of us are in a position to call another person's perspective 'madness'. If we have no absolute to go by, and we were to attempt a global overview of morality, it would be very difficult. All that we have is our own personal standard by which to judge.

First I was going to agree, and then I wasn't... It's not that simple. An absolute has interesting qualities.Technically, you are correct. A subjective opinion, can also be absolute (I will explain). However, an absolute is always objective.It is a fact, that someone can hold a subjective opinion, that is also absolute.
For example, 'in my opinion, reality exists!'But we may also hold an absolute as an objective fact.
For example, 'reality exists!'An absolute is always objective by definition. Objectivity is how you arrive at absolute truth, but once found, it does not then become subjective.The existence of reality is both objective and absolute. Subjectivity really has no bearing on it's absolute nature. An absolute cannot be subjective, but some things subjective can be absolute. The difference is, an observer cannot change an absolute, but he can believe it.Perhaps I'll have to edit the original post for clarity. I'll consider it.Good point/question Catholic scientist! You have aided the discussion emensely. So your saying it is possible that there are absolutely no absolutes?That is incorrect. Reality exists! It cannot be absolutely:relative!That is antonymous for sure!Illogical (contradictory) assertions are always false unless they are qualified in some way.These things can be very difficult to see, so I am not berating anyone (maybe jar ). Just like one of those pieces of artwork that is computer generated (I forget what they're called), if you look long enough, and try to understand, it will appear. Just when you thought it was a joke, and everyone is pretending to see it... presto!Edited by scottness, : No reason given.Edited by scottness, : No reason given.Edited by scottness, : perceived arrogance avoidance edit...

---

If we will not learn to eat the only food that the universe grows ” the only food that any possible universe ever can grow ” then we must starve eternally. (Lewis- The Problem of Pain)

It would be helpful!Websters: Objective1: of, or relating to an object or end (my favorite)2: existing outside and independant of the mind (my other favorite)3: of, relating to or constituting a grammatical case marking typically the object of a verb or preposition. (irrelevant) 4: treating or dealing with facts without distortion by personal feelings or prejudices (my other favorite)

That's because Phat would not allow the entire length of the original post to be promoted, but you can find it in it's entire context. Seek and you will find. Well you and Anglagard would not allow moral absolutes to be affirmed in anything but material terms, so that is not possible. But since you brought up absolute truth in general, I will give you two of them in material terms...1. Reality exists!2. We will die physically at least once!
Perhaps you can use a metaphysical opinion to refute those!But all of this aside, I still think the title will do if things continue to progress so well.As for the rest of your post... kinda calling the kettle black aren't we jar?The reason you think everyone is misrepresenting you and your friends, is because you do not even understand the things you say. And you still don't, even when we patiently explain the logical outworkings for you.yawnEdited by scottness, : No reason given.Edited by scottness, : No reason given.Edited by scottness, : No reason given.