Originally posted by Jichard
View Post
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
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
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostGod may say something that is true, but it isn't objectively true just because God says it.
Comment
-
There's been some recent comments suggesting that the notion of "subjective" cannot be applied to God's mind. This can often involve limiting the notion of "subjective" to humans. For example:
Originally posted by Cornell View PostHow in the world are you defining 'subjective'?
I define it as mind-dependent with respect to humans
But since some people might not trust Wikipedia on this, I thought I might provide some other resources on this, to clear up on any confusion on when "subjective" includes dependency on God's mental states:
“it may be that what determines the difference in the two contexts is something ‘mind-dependent’—in which case it would be subjectivist relativism—but it need not be. Perhaps what determines the relevant difference is an entirely mind-independent affair, making for an objectivist relativism…Suppose the moral facts depend on the attitudes or opinions of a particular group or individual (e.g., ‘X is good’ means ‘Caesar approves of X,’ or ‘The Supreme Court rules in favor of X’ or ‘God commands X,’ etc.), and thus moral truth is an entirely mind-dependent affair [emphasis added] (2007, Supplement 1.1).”
“After all, the anthropological perspective is possible even in a Berkeleyan universe of pure minds, and something has surely gone wrong if even facts in Bishop Berkeley's globally idealistic world count as objective [emphasis added]. Recall, first, that Berkeley was no error theorist about ordinary objects like tables and chairs; rather, he thought that all along what we mean to refer to with “table” is an idea, so that when Fred thinks “There's a table,” then, even though all he perceives is an idea of a table, he has, by Berkeley's lights, thought something true (2007, Supplement 5.1).”
"“…if moral principles are to be objective, as moral realists tend to want them to be, they cannot be based on God’s commands. To accept the divine-command theory is to accept a kind of grand subjectivism, where the subject creating the values is God [emphasis added]. God may be all knowing and powerful, but if there are no principles to appeal to in justifying his commands, then they are arbitrary and nonbinding (96).”"
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doug Shaver View PostI agree that his saying so would not make it so. But if I correctly understand what Christians say about God, he could never say so unless it actually was so. When I say "If God says X, then X is true," I am affirming a logical relationship, not a cause-and-effect relationship.Last edited by JimL; 08-29-2015, 09:13 PM.
Comment
-
My apologies. I promised a response and didn't get around to it. I haven't kept up with the thread so I am just going to apologize and bow out."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)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostQuick point - qualitative difference. I read your responses the first time through - there is no qualitative difference for an omniscient, . . .
In reality morals and ethics are neither objective nor subject, they are . . .
The term “morality” can be used either
1.descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, a. some other group, such as a religion, or
b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2.normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
What “morality” is taken to refer to plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories. To take “morality” to refer to an actually existing code of conduct put forward by a society results in a denial that there is a universal morality, one that applies to all human beings. This descriptive use of “morality”is the one used by anthropologists when they report on the morality of the societies that they study. Recently, some comparative and evolutionary psychologists (Haidt, Hauser, De Waal) have taken morality, or a close anticipation of it, to be present among groups of non-human animals, primarily other primates but not limited to them. “Morality” has also been taken to refer to any code of conduct that a person or group takes as most important. [/cite]
This source also describes the possibility that some may propose a 'moral theory attribute to God, but this remains a nebulous concept has weaknesses and inconsistences as to what these morals consist of and how they apply. Other than being from God, these morals have not been consistently defined. Just simply claiming 'objective morality' is from God is not adequate to be to survive scrutiny as what is 'objective.'
God's spiritual Laws in the scripture come closest to what may be called 'objective morality,' but the problem of applicability and the diversity of what different people interpret God's laws and which apply and when they apply.
. . . and according to your own response, God does create objective laws (gravity, et al).
The use of objective and subjective in this context has no constructive meaning in communicating what people believe concerning morals and ethics and the reality of the social and cultural nature of our societies, because they are human constructs.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
|
39 responses
186 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 03:32 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
132 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
80 responses
428 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 12:33 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
305 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM | ||
Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
|
406 responses
2,518 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 05:49 PM
|
Comment