Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Why does God saying something make it objective?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why does God saying something make it objective?

    I ask because this was said:

    Originally posted by seer View Post
    Recently a new member here at TWEB attack biblical ethics as being subjective, subjective to God. Which makes sense, but God's law would still be objective to mankind.
    Apparently, I am that "new member".

    Now, I do not agree with the claim, and I've explained why before. To explain it again:

    Subjectivism results from making moral statements true or false in virtue of some mind's (or minds') views, such as attitudes, opinions, etc., (with an exception in the context of informed consent, which I won't go into here). So it would be subjectivism to claim that moral statements are true in virtue of something like God's command that one not rape, since God's commands express God's attitude.

    Furthermore, on the standard accounts of "subjective" or "objective" used to define "moral subjectivism" and "moral objectivism", it wouldn't make sense to talk about about something being objective from one point of view and subjective from another point of view. For example, it would make no sense to claim that it's objective from my point of view and subjective from God's point of view. Instead, they would be objective simpliciter or subjective simpliciter.

    To put it another way: if it's mind-dependent, then it's mind-dependent from any perspective. And it depends on X's view, then it depends on X's view from anyone's perspective. For example, the statement "Jichard dislikes cake" would be subjectively true simpliciter, since it's true or false in virtue on my attitude. That would be the case from my perspective, God's perspective, or anyone else's perspective. Similarly, "God commands X" would be subjectively true simpliciter or subjectively false simpliciter because it's true or false in virtue of God's expressed attitude. And that would be the case from my perspective, God's perspective, or anyone else's perspective. And that's the case regardless of whether some theists make empty appeals to how "God's law would still be objective to mankind".

    That's why divine command theory is recognized as a form of moral subjectivism: because it makes moral statements true or false in virtue of God's attitudes, as expressed in God's commands. This point is so apparent that's it's even on Wikipedia, though other, more reputable sources make much the same point:


    So if you think "God's law" just amounts to "God's commands", and you think that morality just amounts to God's law, then congrulations: you're a moral subjectivist, and on your position morality is subjective.

    Given this, why should I accept the above poster's claim otherwise?
    Last edited by Jichard; 07-16-2015, 03:00 PM.
    "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

  • #2
    Well, two points: God is not human - His nature is different from ours, which is why we are made in His image, but not 'like Him'. Reflections rather than clones. Since God is not like us the issue of subjectivity doesn't really apply. The question, turned around, gives us the answer: how can an all knowing Being be subjective? Subjectivity depends on point of view and variations of knowledge - neither of which apply to God (all knowing kinda kills the POV issue).

    Second: subjectivity as you are applying it makes no sense in the case. I think, probably in the course of the other argument, that you (collectively - I've done my own rounds with Seer) got 'subjective' substituted for 'arbitrary'. Laws are objective; interpretation of laws, eh, maybe, maybe not. Really badly written laws probably could be called subjective to a degree, but in reality, laws are objective, not subjective. Do not kill other people isn't really up for much in the way of discussion and you cannot make a successful appeal on the basis that it wasn't killing from your point of view (yes, I know I'm simplifying here).

    Now, human laws can and often are arbitrary. They can be unfair, unnecessary and unconscionable. But that is because humans lack perfect knowledge and are not good by nature - unlike God. I wouldn't argue that we understand the reasons behind all of God's laws but we do understand enough of them to rationally conclude that God uses good reasoning for the few we don't fully get (assuming we didn't just flat misinterpret it - which is possible but insufficiently common to be a real issue for the argument here). Ergo, we can safely conclude God's laws aren't arbitrary, either.


    The fancier way to state this is that God, being by nature good and all knowing, created laws which are not arbitrary. God, being sovereign, has the right to enforce those laws. Since God is not subject to the perils of subjectivity, we can also safely conclude that His laws are rational as well as objective (which they are by definition anyway).


    ETA: Commands and laws are different things but God's commands, coming from the Sovereign, can have the same effect as law. If the command is not specific to time, place or person then it probably is also a law.
    Last edited by Teallaura; 07-16-2015, 03:30 PM.

    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

    My Personal Blog

    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

    Comment


    • #3
      Would I be wrong to claim that conventions (as in any particular language) are in a way objective?
      The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

      [T]he truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance -— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Truthseeker View Post
        Would I be wrong to claim that conventions (as in any particular language) are in a way objective?
        They aren't.
        "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
          Well, two points: God is not human - His nature is different from ours, which is why we are made in His image, but not 'like Him'. Reflections rather than clones. Since God is not like us the issue of subjectivity doesn't really apply.
          Which wouldn't be relevant since the notion of "subjective" isn't limited to humans. It applies to any subject; that is: any mind. So the only way it wouldn't apply to God was if God was not a mind.

          The question, turned around, gives us the answer: how can an all knowing Being be subjective?
          The issue isn't whether the being is subjective. The issue is instead whether the claims it's makes are objectively true/false vs. subjectively true/false, and whether statements of the form "the being commands Y" are objectively true/false vs. subjectively true/false. Really, the issue is in virtue of what are it's statements true or false or in virtue of what do it's statements hold.

          One of the points I'm making is that a statement of the form "X commands that Y" is never objectively true, regardless of what X is. That includes X being a deity. Instead, at best, the statement can only be subjectively true or subjectively false, since it's true in virtue of X's command that expresses a desire. So if God's laws are just God's expressed commands, then God's law is not objective.

          Subjectivity depends on point of view and variations of knowledge - neither of which apply to God (all knowing kinda kills the POV issue).
          Conscious minds, by definition, have a point of view, and God is (supposedly) a conscious mind. So God has a point of view. Being omniscient does not change the fact that one has a point-of-view. Even most theists admit this, since they go on and on about how God has a different point of view from humans, in terms of God having more knowledge, more experience, etc. Basically, to deny that God has a point of view entails denying that God is conscious.

          Second: subjectivity as you are applying it makes no sense in the case. I think, probably in the course of the other argument, that you (collectively - I've done my own rounds with Seer) got 'subjective' substituted for 'arbitrary'.
          I know the difference between them. "arbitrary" means (roughly) "lacking a good reason". So "subjective" would not entail "arbitrary" since there could be subjectively true claims which one has good reason to accept, and subjective commands (really, all commands are subjective) that one has good reason to accept. For example, one could be a moral subjectivist in the form of accepting ideal observer theory, and think that moral statements are true or false in virtue of what hypothetical ideal observers would recommend one do. So moral statements would be subjectively true or false. However, one could still have a good reason for following hypothetical recommendations made by these hypothetical observers, since the observers can be defined as being perfectly rational, omnibenevolent, have all true beliefs, etc., and thus their recommendations would be rational, fully-informed, compassionate, and so on.

          Laws are objective; interpretation of laws, eh, maybe, maybe not.
          Depends on what you mean by "Laws".
          1 : If you mean "Laws" in a roughly legal sense, where one is talking about commands, recommendations, etc. made by minds (ex: Congress made a law against abortion), then all commands are subjective, since it's true or false that something is a law in virtue of a minds' views on the matter. For example, in a dictatorship, laws are the expressed attitudes of the dictator. In the US, laws are the expressed attitudes of various governing bodies, such as the Congress.

          2 : If you mean "Laws" in the sense used in topics like science and mathematics, where one is talking about (roughly) descriptions of phenomena, patterns, properties had by particulars, etc., then some laws are objective, since the laws can be true or false in virtue of something that depends on no mind' views on the matter. For example, one might state a biological law like "all mammals given birth to live young". That law is true or false in virtue of whether a certain group of organisms (mammals) do a certain thing (give birth to live young), not on what some minds happen to think on the matter. So if humans, aliens, God, etc. got together and agreed that statement was true, that would not make the statement true. Instead, the statement would be true if and only if a certain type of organism did a certain type of thing.


          So the question is: which do you think moral laws are akin to?
          If you think they're more akin to 1, then you're either a moral subjectivist (if you think some moral laws are true of the actual world), a moral non-cognitivist (if you think moral laws cannot be true [ex: they are commands]), or a moral nihilist (if you think they are all false).

          If you think they're more akin to 2, then you're either a moral objectivist (if you think some moral laws are true of the actual world) or a moral nihilist (if you think they are all false).

          Really badly written laws probably could be called subjective to a degree, but in reality, laws are objective, not subjective. Do not kill other people isn't really up for much in the way of discussion and you cannot make a successful appeal on the basis that it wasn't killing from your point of view (yes, I know I'm simplifying here).
          If you think moral laws are akin to commands like "Do not kill other people", then moral laws cannot be objectively true not objectively false since commands are neither true nor false, and commands are not objective since they express emotions and hold in virtue of emotions. So no version of moral objectivism (and thus no account of objective morality) could make moral statements true or false simply of virtue of God's commands. That's why divine command theory is a form of moral subjectivism, not moral objectivism, as I noted in the OP.

          Now, human laws can and often are arbitrary. They can be unfair, unnecessary and unconscionable. But that is because humans lack perfect knowledge and are not good by nature - unlike God. I wouldn't argue that we understand the reasons behind all of God's laws but we do understand enough of them to rationally conclude that God uses good reasoning for the few we don't fully get (assuming we didn't just flat misinterpret it - which is possible but insufficiently common to be a real issue for the argument here). Ergo, we can safely conclude God's laws aren't arbitrary, either.

          The fancier way to state this is that God, being by nature good and all knowing, created laws which are not arbitrary. God, being sovereign, has the right to enforce those laws.
          Since God is not subject to the perils of subjectivity, we can also safely conclude that His laws are rational as well as objective (which they are by definition anyway).[/Quote]

          Addressed above.

          And as I noted before with the example of ideal observer theory, showing that a claim is "not arbitrary" does nothing to show that claim is objectively true or objectively false. Being non-arbitrary is compatible with being subjective.

          ETA: Commands and laws are different things but God's commands, coming from the Sovereign, can have the same effect as law. If the command is not specific to time, place or person then it probably is also a law.
          God's commands don't provide an objective morality, for the reasons discussed above.
          Last edited by Jichard; 07-16-2015, 07:02 PM.
          "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

          Comment


          • #6
            I can definitely accept the idea of objective moral absolutes in the commands: do not lie, steal, hate, commit adultery or fornication, kill, worship idols, homosexual acts, etc. But I can also where applications of those laws in real-life situations may be subjective. I've grown to dislike the term "situation ethics", but I can see it to a degree:

            Lying: Elisha lied to the king's army (1 Kings 6:19). Rahab lied to the king of Jericho (Joshua 2:4-5). The midwives lied (Exodus 1:19). Michal lied (1 Samuel 19:14-17). Christians concealing Jews in Nazi Germany lied.

            Murder (not to mention respecting parents): I instructed the doctors to remove life support from my mother.

            Dress modestly: What women wear today in churches would be scandalous in colonial America. I was personally offended when a missionary to the Amazons or the Congo, or somewhere like that, showed videos of topless natives. That was natural to them.

            The Bible, expecially 1 Corinthians 8, talks about questionable things, such as meat offered to idols. I stress the importance of deference, yielding our freedoms and rights to do things which we feel are permitted, if it would cause a weaker brother to stumble.

            I remember two missionaries, one from Africa and one from Europe, getting into a heated argument about whether we should use wine or grape juice for communion. You can probably guess which was which.

            In one sense, I see God's commands as absolute and objective. But in practice I see them as basic principles which we need to apply. And especially, to call upon the Holy Spirit, our teacher, to guide us in making the proper decisions.

            Comment


            • #7
              Before I address your response, would you clarify something for me? How can an omniscient Being be 'subjective'? Yes, it's a mind issue - but not a necessary quality. Subjectivity as a quality (which is the only reason to care about it) results from deficiencies of the mind (inability to 'see' from another POV, insufficient knowledge, etc.) none of which apply to an omniscient. How then do you see a Being that knows all being able to not know enough or not understand completely a different POV?


              Thanks.

              ETA: Er, define objective for me as well - no, I'm not being sarcastic. I think I see a problem but I want to know for sure how you're using the term. If it's as defined in your response, then - well, let's get this first.

              Thanks again.
              Last edited by Teallaura; 07-16-2015, 09:40 PM.

              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

              My Personal Blog

              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                Before I address your response, would you clarify something for me? How can an omniscient Being be 'subjective'?
                The issue isn't whether the being is subjective. The issue is instead whether the claims it's makes are objectively true/false vs. subjectively true/false, and whether statements of the form "the being commands Y" are objectively true/false vs. subjectively true/false. Really, the issue is in virtue of what are it's statements true or false or in virtue of what do it's statements hold.

                Yes, it's a mind issue - but not a necessary quality. Subjectivity results from deficiencies of the mind (inability to 'see' from another POV, insufficient knowledge, etc.) none of which apply to an omniscient. How then do you see a Being that knows all being able to not know enough or not understand completely a different POV?
                That is't what "subjective" means in this context. I think you're likely confusing what "subjective" means in other contexts, with what it means here. It isn't an epistemic notion.
                "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                Comment


                • #9
                  This thread places the following statement into a different light:

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Except without God there no fundamental moral truth, just moral opinion - subjective and relative.
                  As this thread shows, one can appeal to God and still end up with moral subjectivism. So why think that appeal to God is neceesary to avoid moral subjectivism?
                  "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                    The issue isn't whether the being is subjective. The issue is instead whether the claims it's makes are objectively true/false vs. subjectively true/false, and whether statements of the form "the being commands Y" are objectively true/false vs. subjectively true/false. Really, the issue is in virtue of what are it's statements true or false or in virtue of what do it's statements hold.



                    That is't what "subjective" means in this context. I think you're likely confusing what "subjective" means in other contexts, with what it means here. It isn't an epistemic notion.
                    Okay, that clears up both points for me.

                    The answer to your original question is it doesn't matter at all. Not being sarcastic - but if we aren't discussing subjective as a quality (which I guarantee Seer was) then it really is pedantic as applied to God. There is no substantive difference and no qualitative difference between objective and subjective in that limited sense when applied to an omniscient. Applied to God it makes even less difference - He can speak things into existence so what difference is there between the two for Him?

                    You can regard God's laws as subjective in the limited sense of 'having originated in a mind' with no issue. HOWEVER, the big problem is that you cannot apply the qualitative sense of 'subjective' to God, and that would also mean it cannot be applied to His laws. The qualitative issues with subjectivity - which is almost always what is meant when the term is used in this context, do not apply to an omniscient - that's irrational.

                    So, you can be the word nazi (sorry, I can't come up with a good term that has no negative connotations at all) and take the point - but you're gonna end up arguing in circles with most folks because they aren't using the limited sense. The qualitative sense is actually not only more common, it's the relevant one. That God's laws originate in His mind tells us only that they should be qualitatively better (perfection not likely to result in imperfection in this case). It's the question of righteousness of God's laws that is really at the heart of the matter - objectivity/subjectivity are only relevant in that context.

                    Later!

                    "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                    "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                    My Personal Blog

                    My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                      This thread places the following statement into a different light:


                      As this thread shows, one can appeal to God and still end up with moral subjectivism. So why think that appeal to God is neceesary to avoid moral subjectivism?
                      Oh, that's because it originated with Him. Mike writes the law. Bob and Mary debate what it means. Of the three, which one can say absolutely what was intended? Mike, right? Same basic idea - just on steroids.

                      As for the moral subjectivism, you only get there being pedantic. Yeah, you get there but it isn't meaningful.

                      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                      "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                      My Personal Blog

                      My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                        Okay, that clears up both points for me.

                        The answer to your original question is it doesn't matter at all. Not being sarcastic - but if we aren't discussing subjective as a quality (which I guarantee Seer was) then it really is pedantic as applied to God.
                        That couldn't be what seer meant, unless he's misrepresenting me. To see why, see his post that I mentioned in the OP:
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Recently a new member here at TWEB attack biblical ethics as being subjective, subjective to God. Which makes sense, but God's law would still be objective to mankind.
                        That "new member" is me. So he's trying to represent my position. And I made it painfully clear to him what I meant by "subjective": it's the meaning I gave in the OP. So either seer meant the same thing I did by "subjective", in whic hcase you'd be incorrect about what he meant. Or he meant what you claimed he meant, in which case he misrepresent me in his above post.

                        There is no substantive difference and no qualitative difference between objective and subjective in that limited sense when applied to an omniscient.
                        There is a difference: it's the difference between moral objectivism and moral subjectivism. It's the difference I explained in my response to your first post. For example:
                        "1 : If you mean "Laws" in a roughly legal sense, where one is talking about commands, recommendations, etc. made by minds (ex: Congress made a law against abortion), then all commands are subjective, since it's true or false that something is a law in virtue of a minds' views on the matter. For example, in a dictatorship, laws are the expressed attitudes of the dictator. In the US, laws are the expressed attitudes of various governing bodies, such as the Congress.

                        2 : If you mean "Laws" in the sense used in topics like science and mathematics, where one is talking about (roughly) descriptions of phenomena, patterns, properties had by particulars, etc., then some laws are objective, since the laws can be true or false in virtue of something that depends on no mind' views on the matter. For example, one might state a biological law like "all mammals given birth to live young". That law is true or false in virtue of whether a certain group of organisms (mammals) do a certain thing (give birth to live young), not on what some minds happen to think on the matter. So if humans, aliens, God, etc. got together and agreed that statement was true, that would not make the statement true. Instead, the statement would be true if and only if a certain type of organism did a certain type of thing.
                        "

                        Applied to God it makes even less difference - He can speak things into existence so what difference is there between the two for Him?
                        That fact that he can speak things into existence, doesn't the distinction between the mental and the non-mental. For instances, mammals do not become beliefs/attitudes, just because God can speak things into existence.

                        You can regard God's laws as subjective in the limited sense of 'having originated in a mind' with no issue.
                        Not the sense of "subjective" that I meant.

                        HOWEVER, the big problem is that you cannot apply the qualitative sense of 'subjective' to God, and that would also mean it cannot be applied to His laws. The qualitative issues with subjectivity - which is almost always what is meant when the term is used in this context, do not apply to an omniscient - that's irrational.

                        So, you can be the word nazi (sorry, I can't come up with a good term that has no negative connotations at all) and take the point - but you're gonna end up arguing in circles with most folks because they aren't using the limited sense. The qualitative sense is actually not only more common, it's the relevant one.
                        The qualitative sense is not the most relevant sense, since it isn't the sense used in defining terms like "moral subjectivism", "subjective morality", etc. in meta-ethics. Instead, the sense that's used in meta-ethics is the sense I'm using.

                        And I get that some folks don't use that sense. But that's no more relevant than pointing out that some folks don't use the sense of "theory" or "evolution" used in science. If one is going to discuss science or evolutionry biology, then one needs to use the sense of "theory" and "evolution" used in those subjects, and not some other sense that some folks like. Similarly, if one is going to discuss meta-ethics, then one needs to use the sense of "subjective" used in that subject, as opposed to the sense some folks like.

                        That God's laws originate in His mind tells us only that they should be qualitatively better (perfection not likely to result in imperfection in this case). It's the question of righteousness of God's laws that is really at the heart of the matter - objectivity/subjectivity are only relevant in that context.
                        Actually the "objectivity/subjectivity" point matters quite a bit, and subjectivist positions have recurrent problems, as noted in the literature. For example:
                        Precis of Ethical Intuitionism
                        “Subjectivism holds that they [simple, paradigmatic ethical claims] express propositions that are made true or false by subjects’ attitudes towards the things that are said to be good, bad, right, or wrong (192) […] In chapter three [of my book], I turn to subjectivist theories, which come in individualist and cultural relativist varieties, in addition to the divine command theory and the ideal observer theory. Each variant faces problems of its own, but there are certain recurring problems (193).”

                        Additionally, one objection to subjectivist positions (including subjectivists advocating your theistic position) is that they make moral statements true or false in virtue of the wrong kind of things. So take speaker subjectivists make moral statements true or false in virtue of the views of the speaker, disregarding more plausible objectivist candidates for what makes moral statements true or false (ex: character traits, effects of welfare). The same type of objection applies to theistic subjectivist positions like divine command theory: they make moral statements true or false in virtue of the views of God, disregarding more plausible objectivist candidates for what makes moral statements true or false.
                        Last edited by Jichard; 07-16-2015, 10:23 PM.
                        "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
                          Oh, that's because it originated with Him. Mike writes the law. Bob and Mary debate what it means. Of the three, which one can say absolutely what was intended? Mike, right? Same basic idea - just on steroids.
                          Maybe I'm mising something, but I don't see how what you wrote above was relevant to th post you were responding to. You can explain if you wish.

                          As for the moral subjectivism, you only get there being pedantic. Yeah, you get there but it isn't meaningful.
                          I get there by using the sense of "subjective" used in meta-ethics. just as biologists get to conclusions about evolution by using the senses of "theory" and "evolution" used biology, as opposed to the senses some Young Earth Creationists want to use. There's nothing pedantic about using a term in a way appropriate to a discipline, when discussing that discipline's subject matter. And it's meaningful for the reasons I explained.
                          "Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they [denialists] employ and identifying them publicly for what they are."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Quick point - qualitative difference. I read your responses the first time through - there is no qualitative difference for an omniscient, and according to your own response, God does create objective laws (gravity, et al).


                            Sorry, I gotta go - I will get back to you with a better response in a day or two. I probably won't have time before then.

                            Later.

                            "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                            "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                            My Personal Blog

                            My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jichard View Post
                              Maybe I'm mising something, but I don't see how what you wrote above was relevant to th post you were responding to. You can explain if you wish.



                              I get there by using the sense of "subjective" used in meta-ethics. just as biologists get to conclusions about evolution by using the senses of "theory" and "evolution" used biology, as opposed to the senses some Young Earth Creationists want to use. There's nothing pedantic about using a term in a way appropriate to a discipline, when discussing that discipline's subject matter. And it's meaningful for the reasons I explained.

                              Second point (I have to figure out the problem on the first one since it seems self evident to me - I just don't see your issue yet): I saw the reasons you explained - and it isn't meaningful. The problem is you aren't limited to one discipline but are crossing into two - philosophy and theology. That something originates in a human mind is substantively different from what originates in a goldfish's little noggin (we hope); all the more so when the mind of origin is God's. Now you're (general) in theological territory and is it incorrect to disregard the nature of the mind in question. Both omniscience and God's nature now come into play because without them, we cannot speak to relevance or truth. God can say 'let there be light' and light comes into objective reality - omnipotence also comes to play - but we have a significant difference in how real the issues of S/O apply to reality when the Being in question creates reality.

                              ARGH! I don't have time to do this!!!!

                              My fault - I shouldn't have started knowing I was busy. I'm quitting now. See you in a few days.. I hope.

                              Thanks for the conversation so far - sorry I'm being so abrupt!

                              "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot


                              "Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman

                              My Personal Blog

                              My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by lee_merrill, 10-30-2020, 09:01 PM
                              28 responses
                              120 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post thormas
                              by thormas
                               
                              Started by Whateverman, 07-26-2020, 11:01 AM
                              330 responses
                              6,602 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Electric Skeptic  
                              Started by shunyadragon, 09-09-2016, 03:27 PM
                              1,251 responses
                              55,018 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Tassman
                              by Tassman
                               
                              Working...
                              X