Another Christian Being Offered On The PC Alter?

[MaxVel]

I'm sure that's his reasoning, but when people specifically tell him that they do believe in objective morality, he should address their arguments from that framework, not double down and insist that they can't believe in objective morality when they DO.

I'm not sure that I agree. Certainly atheists here don't just accept that Jesus rose from the dead because Christians say that they believe He did. If seer believes that it's impossible to ground an objective morality without God as foundation, there's no reason he should just accept that people are right to believe that they can do that.This is not quite the same thing as saying "You don't believe in objective morality" - it's saying "You're not justified in believing in an objective morality given you other worldview commitments, ad what I believe objective morality to be."

[MaxVel]

No it doesn't, “religious people” are still free to think that homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord and preach such sentiments publicly. But if they're service providers under the provisions of the Civil Rights Act they are not permitted to exercise discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin …and rightly so. To demand otherwise is to demand favourable treatment.

You've just argued for what she's been saying.

[seer]

I'm sure that's his reasoning, but when people specifically tell him that they do believe in objective morality, he should address their arguments from that framework, not double down and insist that they can't believe in objective morality when they DO.

I would be happy to if some one would offer a rational argument. Why don't you?

[Tassman]

You've just argued for what she's been saying.

Not at all! One is free to think whatever one wants about homosexuality or anything else. But, as I said, if one is a service provider one is not free under the provisions of the Civil Rights Act to discriminate against others based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin...regardless of your personal views on the subject.

[Abigail]

Not at all! One is free to think whatever one wants about homosexuality or anything else. But, as I said, if one is a service provider one is not free under the provisions of the Civil Rights Act to discriminate against others based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin...regardless of your personal views on the subject.

This position discriminates against those religious people who wish to run businesses in accord with their religious persuasions. The problem your position also faces is that it is not secular on the issues of conflict since, for example, civil partnerships were the secular equivalents of marriage and people did not like them. Therefore the issue is complex and in those areas of conflict it does come down to peoples 'religiously' held views on how the world is. The secular should not go beyond food or drink to sustain a person or medical supplies to preserve a life. In your view someone could demand that a Muslim baker ices a picture of the prophet onto a cake. I wonder if a court in UK would have found in favour of the client on that issue. I doubt it.

[fm93]

I'm not sure that I agree. Certainly atheists here don't just accept that Jesus rose from the dead because Christians say that they believe He did.

But they don't argue with Christians by insisting that Jesus did NOT rise from the dead. They take it for granted, for the sake of argument, that Jesus rose from the dead, in order to specifically address the Christians are saying. Seer, on the other hand, tends to have "discussions" like this:

Seer: "Why do liberal atheists care about fairness when they don't believe in objective morality?"

Atheist: "Well actually, I do believe in objective morality, so--"

Seer: "Nonsense, aren't we just brute animals in your worldview? Everything is ultimately meaningless in your view."

Atheist: "That's a misrepresentation. Here's what I believe about morality, and why: [explains why he believes in objective moral values]."

Seer: "Nonsense, we're just meaningless specks of dust orbiting the sun in a cold universe. Morality is all subjective in the mind."

If seer believes that it's impossible to ground an objective morality without God as foundation, there's no reason he should just accept that people are right to believe that they can do that.

He doesn't engage with their explanations. He just decides beforehand that atheists can't believe in objective morality, and when they correct him and say that they do, he ignores their explanation and continues insisting that they can't believe in objective morality.

[Adrift]

But they don't argue with Christians by insisting that Jesus did NOT rise from the dead.

What? Yes they do.

They take it for granted, for the sake of argument, that Jesus rose from the dead, in order to specifically address the Christians are saying.

Someone like Tassman will routinely come back to the idea that the concept of God is ridiculous, or at the very least, completely unfounded, thus, whatever a Christian may say on a subject based on their belief in a God is nonsense.

Seer, on the other hand, tends to have "discussions" like this:

Seer: "Why do liberal atheists care about fairness when they don't believe in objective morality?"

Atheist: "Well actually, I do believe in objective morality, so--"

Seer: "Nonsense, aren't we just brute animals in your worldview? Everything is ultimately meaningless in your view."

Atheist: "That's a misrepresentation. Here's what I believe about morality, and why: [explains why he believes in objective moral values]."

Seer: "Nonsense, we're just meaningless specks of dust orbiting the sun in a cold universe. Morality is all subjective in the mind."


He doesn't engage with their explanations. He just decides beforehand that atheists can't believe in objective morality, and when they correct him and say that they do, he ignores their explanation and continues insisting that they can't believe in objective morality.

I don't really understand why seer's view is always painted this way. seer's approach is to hit upon the weak link in the non-theist's rationale and then hit it over and over again. The argument almost always boils down to something like...the morals that humanity gives itself are objective enough, or "I believe whatever does the least amount of harm is objectively morally good", or something like that. To which, seer then attempts to pick apart; He doesn't just repeat his own claim of his own belief over and over again. He needles at people who hold what he believes are inconsistencies. Honestly, I don't know why he does it. I'd get bored or annoyed well before the first 20 pages into a thread, but most of the skeptics here have the tenacity of a cockroach, and don't seem to mind going dozens and dozens and dozens of pages with him.

[Adrift]

By the way, there have been a couple of skeptics here over the years who have changed their position on the subject. If I'm remembering correctly, Carpedm, in particular, switched from the objective moral stance to the subjective one.

[seer]

Atheist: "That's a misrepresentation. Here's what I believe about morality, and why: [explains why he believes in objective moral values]."

No FM, if you think morals can exist independently of minds, then state your case. I have to see a rational argument defending this position. The second point, just as important, if such objective morals do exist what authority do they have over us?

[Starlight]

I don't really understand why seer's view is always painted this way. seer's approach is to hit upon the weak link in the non-theist's rationale and then hit it over and over again. The argument almost always boils down to something like...the morals that humanity gives itself are objective enough, or "I believe whatever does the least amount of harm is objectively morally good", or something like that. To which, seer then attempts to pick apart; He doesn't just repeat his own claim of his own belief over and over again. He needles at people who hold what he believes are inconsistencies. Honestly, I don't know why he does it. I'd get bored or annoyed well before the first 20 pages into a thread, but most of the skeptics here have the tenacity of a cockroach, and don't seem to mind going dozens and dozens and dozens of pages with him.

The whole line of argument is fundamentally absurd though... any argument the theist can make against atheistic objective morality applies the same to theistic objective morality, but usually more so.

As I discussed in the second half of this post, theists regularly insist their ideas of morality are 'objective' in the face of some pretty compelling obvious reasons to the contrary. They then turn around and try to argue that some of those failings apply to atheistic morality meaning that atheistic morality has to be 'relative'.

Depending on exactly how an individual defines the terms 'objective' and 'relative' and how they draw the line between them, I can accept that some people might regard both views as 'objective', while others might regard both views as 'relative', and still others might regard atheist morality as 'objective' and theistic morality as 'relative'. But there's just no logical grounds for calling atheistic morality 'relative' and theistic morality 'objective'... Seer can try as much as he likes but he'll never be able to square that logical circle.

[Tassman]

This position discriminates against those religious people who wish to run businesses in accord with their religious persuasions. The problem your position also faces is that it is not secular on the issues of conflict since, for example, civil partnerships were the secular equivalents of marriage and people did not like them.

No it rightly discriminates against these who want to refuse service to those they personally disapprove of for whatever reason, not just homosexual marriage. E.g. The Civil Rights Act was initially opposed by racists who objected to serving blacks.

Therefore the issue is complex and in those areas of conflict it does come down to peoples 'religiously' held views on how the world is. The secular should not go beyond food or drink to sustain a person or medical supplies to preserve a life. In your view someone could demand that a Muslim baker ices a picture of the prophet onto a cake. I wonder if a court in UK would have found in favour of the client on that issue. I doubt it.

Extreme examples aside, all that's required is that the standard service be available to all.

[seer]

Depending on exactly how an individual defines the terms 'objective' and 'relative' and how they draw the line between them, I can accept that some people might regard both views as 'objective', while others might regard both views as 'relative', and still others might regard atheist morality as 'objective' and theistic morality as 'relative'. But there's just no logical grounds for calling atheistic morality 'relative' and theistic morality 'objective'... Seer can try as much as he likes but he'll never be able to square that logical circle.

Of course I can. First define objective: Existing independent of or external to the mind. God's law, though subjective to Him, is objective to human minds, to humankind . It would exist whether any or all men recognized it or not. So God is the source for objective moral law (objective to man). What is the objective source for morality or ethics apart from God? Let us start with that. And as to your linked post, we are not speaking of epistemology, but of ontology. I have never argued that because because different cultures have differing moral ideals (though for the most part they are not that different) that that automatically makes non-theistic systems relative, but that the non-theist has no objective grounding for ethics or morality. That because all moral codes spring from the human mind they are necessarily relative or subjective.

[Starlight]

God's law, though subjective to Him, is objective to human minds, to humankind.

Well that's some nice goalpost shifting you've got going there right to begin with: Admit you've got a system that's subjective, but then assert a when-it's-God-doing-it-it-doesn't-count exemption.

So God is the source for objective moral law (objective to man).

When you say God is the source, do you mean God's will, God's commands, or man's knowledge of God's commands? Obviously not all Christians know all of the Bible. Obviously Christians who know all of the bible don't always agree with each other about what the bible says. Obviously not everything God has ever commanded of men of angels etc is recorded in the Bible. And obviously not everything that God wishes to happen is necessarily commanded by him. Which of those things is the 'objective' standard of morality? Please go ahead and subjectively choose one as the answer. Other Christians here can feel free to subjectively give an entirely different answer.

What is the objective source for morality or ethics apart from God? Let us start with that.

I like to use the analogy of distance: Two objects that are a mile apart would still be a mile apart regardless of God's existence. Humans can, of course, use various arbitrary measurements of that distance - some people says it's "one mile", others say "1.6km" etc - but the distance remains real and objective regardless of God's existence. So objective distance exists apart from God. Likewise with morality, which is about how people are affected by our actions. People are still helped or harmed by my actions, regardless of whether God exists. Bringing God into the discussion doesn't change the amount of objective harm I do to someone when I break their leg. Bringing God into the discussion doesn't change the amount of objective help I give someone when they are starving and I give them food. People are objectively real, and the harms or benefits done to them by actions and intentions are objectively real, and adding God doesn't change that. Morality is simply the harm and good done in interpersonal interactions. It is objectively real in a similar sense to how a mile is objectively real - you can change the length of your yard-stick, but the distance itself being measured fundamentally exists. In the same way, the help or harm done to others by my actions fundamentally exists, regardless of what words or measuring system anyone wants to use to measure it by. But the concept of morality itself is simply that interpersonal interactions can be positive or negative in their nature, and that seems to me to clearly be an objective reality. I can wish someone harm and set out to hurt them, or I can wish someone good and set out to help them. And any harm or help my actions provide them is likewise real.

To that rather simple objective reality, you seem to want to add a God who gives seemingly (from our perspective) arbitrary commands, not all of which we know, and not all of which his followers can agree about, and not all of which are thought to be still applicable in the present-day. And you seem to think that adding those layers of arbitrariness makes morality somehow more objective not less...

[JimL]

Of course I can. First define objective: Existing independent of or external to the mind.

By your own definition seer, morality, having no existence independent of a mind, is subjective. Perhaps you want to argue that your God is not a mind?

God's law, though subjective to Him, is objective to human minds, to humankind . It would exist whether any or all men recognized it or not.

The laws of society are objective to individual human minds as well, they would exist whether any individual recognised them or not.

So God is the source for objective moral law (objective to man).

If God is the source of morality, if morality is dependent upon a source, then morality is subjective. Anything that is not independently real is subjective.

What is the objective source for morality or ethics apart from God? Let us start with that.

If morals have an objective source, then they are subjective. Having an objective source does not make them objective in themselves.

And as to your linked post, we are not speaking of epistemology, but of ontology.

Ontology is the nature of existence, whether that existence has a source or not. You can argue that morals exist as subjective laws, and that they have a source, but then you can not on the other hand argue that they are objective in themselves. The Constitution exists, is a subjective document, the source of which is the minds of the founding fathers, and it is also objective to the individual members of society.

I have never argued that because because different cultures have differing moral ideals (though for the most part they are not that different) that that automatically makes non-theistic systems relative, but that the non-theist has no objective grounding for ethics or morality. That because all moral codes spring from the human mind they are necessarily relative or subjective.

All moral codes that spring from any mind are necessarily subjective. The only argument for the objectivity of morals is if they have onlological reality of their own, independent of any mind, including the mind of God.

[seer]

Well that's some nice goalpost shifting you've got going there right to begin with: Admit you've got a system that's subjective, but then assert a when-it's-God-doing-it-it-doesn't-count exemption.

No Star, I have always made clear that God's law is subjective to Him. But it remains objective to humankind.

When you say God is the source, do you mean God's will, God's commands, or man's knowledge of God's commands? Obviously not all Christians know all of the Bible. Obviously Christians who know all of the bible don't always agree with each other about what the bible says. Obviously not everything God has ever commanded of men of angels etc is recorded in the Bible. And obviously not everything that God wishes to happen is necessarily commanded by him. Which of those things is the 'objective' standard of morality? Please go ahead and subjectively choose one as the answer. Other Christians here can feel free to subjectively give an entirely different answer.

Let me try again: as a source for objective law we are not speaking of epistemology, but of ontology. God's law would still exist whether we all got it wrong or not. The color red would still objectively exist even if all men were born color blind.

I like to use the analogy of distance: Two objects that are a mile apart would still be a mile apart regardless of God's existence. Humans can, of course, use various arbitrary measurements of that distance - some people says it's "one mile", others say "1.6km" etc - but the distance remains real and objective regardless of God's existence. So objective distance exists apart from God. Likewise with morality, which is about how people are affected by our actions. People are still helped or harmed by my actions, regardless of whether God exists. Bringing God into the discussion doesn't change the amount of objective harm I do to someone when I break their leg. Bringing God into the discussion doesn't change the amount of objective help I give someone when they are starving and I give them food. People are objectively real, and the harms or benefits done to them by actions and intentions are objectively real, and adding God doesn't change that. Morality is simply the harm and good done in interpersonal interactions. It is objectively real in a similar sense to how a mile is objectively real - you can change the length of your yard-stick, but the distance itself being measured fundamentally exists. In the same way, the help or harm done to others by my actions fundamentally exists, regardless of what words or measuring system anyone wants to use to measure it by. But the concept of morality itself is simply that interpersonal interactions can be positive or negative in their nature, and that seems to me to clearly be an objective reality. I can wish someone harm and set out to hurt them, or I can wish someone good and set out to help them. And any harm or help my actions provide them is likewise real.

Well I'm not sure what your point is. I agree that we treat each other in particular ways, but my point is there, in your world is there an objective moral standard that can mediate between conflicting moral ideals? I'm not asking now, if we can know that standard, only if, even in theory, it exists - and how it could exist.