Is Morality Objective or Relative?

[siam]

There will be a communication gap here between the Atheist/Agnostic, and the Theist concerning "coming from and returning to." whether referring to the souls or Revelation. The Atheist/Agnostic will expect objective evidence for support of this concept in the relationship between humanity [Creation] and God. The meaning from the Theist perspective is simply that the human relationship with the Creator is humanity comes from and returns to God, or the spiritual realms of God.

The difference between the Baha'i view and more ancient religions, such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam, is that "coming from and returning to" is a more universal relationship, than taught by Judaism, Christianity nor Islam, involving the spiritual journey of all humanity through the universal evolving spiritual nature of Revelation and Creation. I do not believe there is any direct objective evidence that would convince the Atheist/Agnostic of this belief. I do believe there is evidence for this spiritual nature of humanity, but it remains subjective and anecdotal. The only rational view for this relationship is that it is universal with ALL of humanity through the history of humanity, which is not accepted by the more ancient religions.

I don't understand...can you elaborate?

[JimL]

@ JimL

Does "material" "exist" in a singularity?....there seem to be proposals/theories that in a singularity---everything turns into "data" because the laws of mass and space-time ..etc are very different...?.....

If we are to understand this "process" of Separation---we are likely going to need more knowledge?.....but, still, we could speculate.....?....

The existence of an actual singularity is hypothetical, but if you believe that something can come from nothing, that the material world can just be thought into existence, well then, I guess thats what you believe, but as for myself, I see no good reason to believe that.

[shunyadragon]

I am not sure this is the case for Islam....If I remember correctly, the Quran proposes a beginning (big bang) and an ending (the big crunch) of all creation---I think it means that we came from a singularity and will return to a singularity---but, imo, the singularity itself "came from" God....?....(therefore will return....?....) At any rate---our souls (plural) were a singularity before they broke into multiplicity and the "spirit" is still a singularity....

I consider this view an interpretation of scripture and not necessarily what scripture says. The description of 'beginnings' in the Bible and the Quran are now often interpreted by many as a 'singularity,' but ignoring the fact that science does not consider the 'singularity' an absolute beginning, but one of many possible beginnings in a greater Quantum World containing possible multi-verses. I the Baha'i Faith there are an infinite possible 'beginnings' within the Greater Eternal Creation.

I believe that the origin of souls is also an interpretation also.

The Baha'i Faith considers Creation as eternal with God as a shadow is with any object. As long as God exists eternally Creation exists. All possible universes and and multiverses in the eternal matrix of the Quantum World are Created as a natural consequence of the Natural Law of God.

The concept that everything that is Created returns to the Creator is also an interpretation which I can understanding the beginnings being the Creation of all things by God's Laws, but the return is not as clear in scripture as you describe.

[shunyadragon]

Well, first off shunya, the assertion, as it was put to me, was that all of creation, not just humanity or the spiritual nature of what are otherwise material beings, but all of creation, the material world itself, the universe, flows from and returns to god. So its not immaterial souls that we are talking about when discussing all of creation. My objection is not about what some believe to be a spiritual nature flowing from and returning to god, though I don't buy that either, but my objection is about all of material existence, which in my opinion, if it flows from god, then god himself would need be material, or god would need be one and the same substance as that of his creation, otherwise the material world was created out of nothing. There are only two options that I can see, either the material world is itself an eternal existence of ever changing forms, or it was created out of nothing, out of non-existence.

The view that all Creation originates from God in one way or another is simply a fundamental Theist view. The concept of the return? is a more specific belief that is not shared by all Theists. As far as our physical existence and all possible worlds, universes, and multiverses, they all come from and return to the Greater Eternal Universal Quantum World of Creation.

Your reply only deals with an existence for which there is no evidence, an existence you call spirit, which is a negative argument anyway, an un-falsifiable argument, strictly a belief, which leaves no room for debate.

This is clearly understood upfront as previously acknowledged. The reasons for me believing in God and the Baha'i Faith is not based on and objective evidence for the existence of God. The only clearly specific argument I do present is that IF God exists, God is a more universal Source of all that exists, and a more universal compassionate God than that believed by the ancient religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

I consider the more universal perspective of God and the relationship with all of humanity presented by siam is in reality the Baha'i view and not the reality of Islam in scripture nor in the facts of Islamic history.

So what about the material world, do you believe it comes from god, i.e that it was created out of nothing, or did it come from god because god is material, or do you believe that the substance out of which the material world was formed is itself eternal?

The highlighted above reflects the view of the Baha'i Faith.

We have had this discussion at least several times before. I do not, and cannot argue the Theist view based on objective evidence as most secular humanists like yourself would require. I can only describe the view of God and Creation from the perspective of the Baha'i Faith, and I consider it in harmony with the scientific nature of our physical existence.

The assertion on your part that if god Creates the physical, God must be physical represents a rather Newtonian view of God based on what you believe must be the nature of God if God exists. Regardless of
how God and Creation is described from the Theist perspective, you would not accept nor consider this a reality. Your view here is more definitely more atheist and not agnostic. The ultimate reality is that if God exists, neither you, siam nor I, nor any other fallible human can remotely specify what is necessary for God to exist.

The Baha'i view is simple, Creation has existed eternally with God as the nature of God's existence. The equivalent of this from the scientific perspective is the Quantum World, from which all possible universes and multi-verses are Created by God's Natural Law. All souls are Created in this process as a part of the nature and image of God, and as with our physical existence, all souls are Created in the image and attributes of God.

There is no objective evidence for or against the existence of God, nor this Creation scenario. All I can argue is that it is more in harmony with today's science than other ancient scripture nor their view in Creation.

[Jim B.]

I believe a theological assumption if God does not exist, nothing would exist, is an old unworkable assumption not really relevant to a real discussion today like; "If you do not see the light go off in the refrigerator when you close the door, the light remains on."

How is the light in a refrigerator analogous to what I wrote? This isn't an empirical hypothesis. It is the notion that IFF there is a sufficient reason, ie explanation for the world (which includes all worlds), then that thing would be God. If God is not necessary being, then God is just another being alongside other beings, just more powerful, more knowing, etc. That's an unworkable assumption.

[Jim B.]

Well, first off shunya, the assertion, as it was put to me, was that all of creation, not just humanity or the spiritual nature of what are otherwise material beings, but all of creation, the material world itself, the universe, flows from and returns to god. So its not immaterial souls that we are talking about when discussing all of creation. My objection is not about what some believe to be a spiritual nature flowing from and returning to god, though I don't buy that either, but my objection is about all of material existence, which in my opinion, if it flows from god, then god himself would need be material, or god would need be one and the same substance as that of his creation, otherwise the material world was created out of nothing. There are only two options that I can see, either the material world is itself an eternal existence of ever changing forms, or it was created out of nothing, out of non-existence. Your reply only deals with an existence for which there is no evidence, an existence you call spirit, which is a negative argument anyway, an un-falsifiable argument, strictly a belief, which leaves no room for debate. So what about the material world, do you believe it comes from god, i.e that it was created out of nothing, or did it come from god because god is material, or do you believe that the substance out of which the material world was formed is itself eternal?

Okay, why couldn't it have been created out of non-existence, or out of that which transcends (is not limited by) existence? Again, I ask what is this thing we call "material"? Matter may just be a way of imposing certain kinds of conceptual categories onto reality. If present human understanding of matter is tenuous at best, then understanding of the meaning of matter flowing into and out of some substratum would also be tenuous.

[Jim B.]

I am not sure this is the case for Islam....If I remember correctly, the Quran proposes a beginning (big bang) and an ending (the big crunch) of all creation---I think it means that we came from a singularity and will return to a singularity---but, imo, the singularity itself "came from" God....?....(therefore will return....?....) At any rate---our souls (plural) were a singularity before they broke into multiplicity and the "spirit" is still a singularity....

Yes, Genesis also has a sort of "Big Bang" if you will. Teasing apart the many strands of meaning and tradition in these early texts is a big interpretive problem in the West. I assume it is in Islam as well(?) How do you know how literally this "Big bang" is to be taken? It's important not to get lost in the details (missing the forest for the trees) but to focus on the spiritual intent of these passages. The details are probably beyond human comprehension anyway...

[Jim B.]

Branching off---There are many Christianities, the Christian philosophies that would have most influenced Islamic philosophy would have been the various types of Eastern Christianities than the Western ones....

Knowledge/will---It is interesting that the (metaphorical) description that the Quran gives of God is that of light---and the Arabic word also means knowledge. It is also interesting that while God's will likely operates under a fullness of "knowing", human will operates with much knowledge hidden/veiled. For example...the future is veiled/hidden from us so that our choices are impacted only by what we "know" (through experience or learning) from the past or the evaluation of the present circumstances.....That is why, even under similar outward circumstances---2 individuals can come up with different choices---simply because what they "know" is different.....

Philosophy---The Mutazili and Ashari philosophers were influenced by Greek philosophy, Plato/Aristotle...the Mutazili were the "rationalists" and in turn influenced Western Renaissance and Enlightenment philosophers/thinkers. The Ashari were/are what one might label today as "post-Modernists"---they questioned the assumptions of the Mutazili view. The Ashari view is what generally prevails in Islamic philosophy---though I somewhat favor the Mutazili views when it comes to some aspects such as free-will....etc.....The difference is mostly in the nuance. (Al Ghazzali (the philosopher I mentioned previously) was of Ashari school of philosophy) Some of the Mutazili philosophers that influenced Western thought are Al-Kindi, Al-Farabi (influenced Thomas Aquinas), Averroes (Ibn Rushd) Avicenna (Ibn Sina)---etc. Also---there were (Eastern) Christian scholars that translated the Greek works into Arabic---so Christian contribution was there from the start too...

Modern/Classical Sharia---Modern law (pretty much all Modern forms of law)---are primarily concerned with Retributive Justice. In this system of Justice, the main focus is on punishment for crime. The Quran is primarily concerned with Restorative Justice. The main purpose of this system is not punishment---but repentance. This is because God's attributes of compassion and mercy are emphasized so in human Justice systems, it is felt that the application of Justice (human right) must be balanced by the application of compassion and mercy (human responsibility) because this benefits the human soul. To encourage repentance (because if a criminal repents there is no punishment)---in some cases Deterrent Justice/laws were used. These harsh laws were not meant to be implemented---rather used as a means to encourage repentance and as deterrence. But (IMO) in Modern law---the application of Justice is confined to punishment and this has distorted the purpose of what law was meant to be.... In part, the environment has played a role in this distortion, because Modern systems of Law are made by the State (government)---and States can abuse power---particularly dictatorships/Monarchies and such. Traditional Sharia was (somewhat) independent from the State....Sharia is also plural (more than one) and competition restrained abuse of power....
Wahabism is really about "identity" and not particularly about philosophy (or ethics for that matter). It has ditched "tradition" (and history) in favor of "Utopia" ---of some supposed "Pure" Islam that allegedly existed. ("identity" is an important aspect of being "human" and there is no problem of having multiple identity-constructs as long as this is balanced by "Unity"---the concept of the brotherhood of all humanity---and, imo, this (imbalance) is really the main problem of Wahabism and other "Purists" movements....)

hyper-individualism---It is an imbalance. It allows us to accept privilege and entitlements without guilt or responsibility. It also imbalances our human nature which needs both self-interest and altruism---(the highest form of altruism is "to do" for God). It is good that Calvinism/Protestant empowered people to pursue God (spirituality), individually and intimately---but it would have been better if it had retained a balance.....

Wahabism sounds similar in some ways to Christian fundamentalism (literalism) and other movements that seek to restore a lost Utopia (Make America Great Again).

[JimL]

The view that all Creation originates from God in one way or another is simply a fundamental Theist view. The concept of the return? is a more specific belief that is not shared by all Theists. As far as our physical existence and all possible worlds, universes, and multiverses, they all come from and return to the Greater Eternal Universal Quantum World of Creation.

True, this I agree with, and that leaves no need of a god. If the quantum world is eternal, then it wasn't created and the existence of temporal worlds is simply the result of the eternal existence of the quantum world. I'm not seeing why you add god to the equation unnecessarily.

This is clearly understood upfront as previously acknowledged. The reasons for me believing in God and the Baha'i Faith is not based on and objective evidence for the existence of God. The only clearly specific argument I do present is that IF God exists, God is a more universal Source of all that exists, and a more universal compassionate God than that believed by the ancient religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

I consider the more universal perspective of God and the relationship with all of humanity presented by siam is in reality the Baha'i view and not the reality of Islam in scripture nor in the facts of Islamic history.

So what then is your belief in god based on shunya, subjective evidence? I can understand why you would want to believe that god, if he exists, is compassionate and all that, but you must have some logical reason to believe in a creator in the first place.

The highlighted above reflects the view of the Baha'i Faith.

I think you forgot to highlight it shunya.

We have had this discussion at least several times before. I do not, and cannot argue the Theist view based on objective evidence as most secular humanists like yourself would require. I can only describe the view of God and Creation from the perspective of the Baha'i Faith, and I consider it in harmony with the scientific nature of our physical existence.

And, if I have understood you correctly, the perspective of the Baha'i Faith is that the world is co-eternal with god which means that the Baha'i is just adding god into the equation without reason, no? I kow that you think I am being antagonistic, but that is not my intention, I'm just trying to understand why it is that you believe what you do.

The assertion on your part that if god Creates the physical, God must be physical represents a rather Newtonian view of God based on what you believe must be the nature of God if God exists. Regardless of
how God and Creation is described from the Theist perspective, you would not accept nor consider this a reality. Your view here is more definitely more atheist and not agnostic. The ultimate reality is that if God exists, neither you, siam nor I, nor any other fallible human can remotely specify what is necessary for God to exist.

Well no, that is not my view of god, my view of "the idea of god" is in accordance with most theistic views which is that of a being that is distinct from his creation, a creation that is distinct in nature from that of its creator and was created out of nothing, which is the main reason that I don't believe in god. And if, according to your view, creation is co-eternal with god, then in my opinion it makes no sense to call it creation, god and creation would be one in the same thing, one and the same substance. And again, I am fully aware that I can not prove false a negative claim, but at the same time I see no good reason to believe such a claim. On what grounds should I believe the claim that anything at all can be created out of nothing?

The Baha'i view is simple, Creation has existed eternally with God as the nature of God's existence. The equivalent of this from the scientific perspective is the Quantum World, from which all possible universes and multi-verses are Created by God's Natural Law. All souls are Created in this process as a part of the nature and image of God, and as with our physical existence, all souls are Created in the image and attributes of God.

The way I read you shunya is that you believe god and creation to be one and the same thing, of one and the same eternal nature. So what I don't understand is the dichotomy you then make between that one and the same thing.

There is no objective evidence for or against the existence of God, nor this Creation scenario. All I can argue is that it is more in harmony with today's science than other ancient scripture nor their view in Creation.

Well I disagree with the notion that there is no evidence either way, the evidence is that there is no such thing as creation out of nothing and so existence would need be eternal, not created.

[JimL]

Okay, why couldn't it have been created out of non-existence, or out of that which transcends (is not limited by) existence? Again, I ask what is this thing we call "material"? Matter may just be a way of imposing certain kinds of conceptual categories onto reality. If present human understanding of matter is tenuous at best, then understanding of the meaning of matter flowing into and out of some substratum would also be tenuous.

I'm a realist, in my opinion the material world is not just conceptual, it exists, its real, and if it doesn't then you have an even bigger problem to struggle with. Anything is possible, but creation out of nothing is highly unlikely, and there is absolutely no good reason for me to believe it.

[shunyadragon]

How is the light in a refrigerator analogous to what I wrote? This isn't an empirical hypothesis. It is the notion that IFF there is a sufficient reason, ie explanation for the world (which includes all worlds), then that thing would be God. If God is not necessary being, then God is just another being alongside other beings, just more powerful, more knowing, etc. That's an unworkable assumption.

Not intended to be an empirical hypothesis. If you read my posts I already stated that there is none such evidence. I have already stated many times at the chagrin of many theists that there is no specific explanation of objective evidence that would make God a necessary being. Te reasons I believe in God are not addressed here.

If God is an unnecessary being? What a question since you do not believe in God anyway.
The light in the refrigerator going off is something that cannot observed from outside the refrigerator when the door is closed. The concept that our physical existence would no exist if God did not exist, is something we cannot objectively observe nor determine without simply believing God is the Creator.

[siam]

@ Shuny, JimB, JimL

Beginning/End, Soul/Singularity---etc....

The Quran is not a science text so ofcourse there are interpretations and speculations...The Sufi's would probably have more discussions on the metaphysical aspects---I think mainstream Islam is somewhat more pragmatic/legalistic....?...the Prophet (pbuh) was a Trader/Businessperson....

lets experiment....
I am giving some out-of-context verses from the Quran---could you give your (Non-Muslim) interpretations/speculations on what they might mean?.....
(...variety encouraged)

1)There is an Arabic/Quranic phrase that Muslims generally say when they receive news of someones death or in times of troubles It is ---(translation) We surely belong to God and to Him we shall return.(Arabic=Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un)---its one of those stock phrases such as Inshallah (God willing) Subanallah (Praise to God)---etc...

It comes from a verse in Surah 2 (verses 156-157)
Who, when disaster strikes them, say, "Indeed we belong to Allah , and indeed to Him we will return."
Those are the ones upon whom are blessings from their Lord and mercy. And it is those who are the [rightly] guided.

2) (a possible "big crunch" scenario?) 3 different translations of Surah 21 verse 104

Sahih International: The Day when We will fold the heaven like the folding of a [written] sheet for the records. As We began the first creation, We will repeat it. [That is] a promise binding upon Us. Indeed, We will do it.

Pickthall: The Day when We shall roll up the heavens as a recorder rolleth up a written scroll. As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it. (It is) a promise (binding) upon Us. Lo! We are to perform it.

Yusuf Ali: The Day that We roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books (completed),- even as We produced the first creation, so shall We produce a new one: a promise We have undertaken: truly shall We fulfil it.

....A similar verse is also in the Bible---Isiah 34:4
And all the host of heaven shall rot away.
and the heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll;
all their host shall wither
as the leaf from the vine withers
and as a withered one from the fig tree.
from--https://scibible.wordpress.com/2013/06/15/heavens-rolled-up-like-a-scroll/

(JimB might want to give the Christian interpretation of that one?...)

3) The Arabic word for "soul" is nafs (self/consciousness)

Sahih International: O mankind, fear your Lord, who created you from one soul and created from it its mate and dispersed from both of them many men and women. And fear Allah , through whom you ask one another, and the wombs. Indeed Allah is ever, over you, an Observer.

Pickthall: O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women. Be careful of your duty toward Allah in Whom ye claim (your rights) of one another, and toward the wombs (that bore you). Lo! Allah hath been a watcher over you.

Yusuf Ali: O mankind! reverence your Guardian-Lord, who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, His mate, and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women;- reverence Allah, through whom ye demand your mutual (rights), and (reverence) the wombs (That bore you): for Allah ever watches over you.

[siam]

I consider the more universal perspective of God and the relationship with all of humanity presented by siam is in reality the Baha'i view and not the reality of Islam in scripture nor in the facts of Islamic history.

WOW!...I am Bahai!!!????
or...perhaps
....U r Muslim?

[JimL]

@ Shuny, JimB, JimL

Beginning/End, Soul/Singularity---etc....

The Quran is not a science text so ofcourse there are interpretations and speculations...The Sufi's would probably have more discussions on the metaphysical aspects---I think mainstream Islam is somewhat more pragmatic/legalistic....?...the Prophet (pbuh) was a Trader/Businessperson....

lets experiment....
I am giving some out-of-context verses from the Quran---could you give your (Non-Muslim) interpretations/speculations on what they might mean?.....
(...variety encouraged)

1)There is an Arabic/Quranic phrase that Muslims generally say when they receive news of someones death or in times of troubles It is ---(translation) We surely belong to God and to Him we shall return.(Arabic=Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji'un)---its one of those stock phrases such as Inshallah (God willing) Subanallah (Praise to God)---etc...

It comes from a verse in Surah 2 (verses 156-157)
Who, when disaster strikes them, say, "Indeed we belong to Allah , and indeed to Him we will return."
Those are the ones upon whom are blessings from their Lord and mercy. And it is those who are the [rightly] guided.

2) (a possible "big crunch" scenario?) 3 different translations of Surah 21 verse 104

Sahih International: The Day when We will fold the heaven like the folding of a [written] sheet for the records. As We began the first creation, We will repeat it. [That is] a promise binding upon Us. Indeed, We will do it.

Pickthall: The Day when We shall roll up the heavens as a recorder rolleth up a written scroll. As We began the first creation, We shall repeat it. (It is) a promise (binding) upon Us. Lo! We are to perform it.

Yusuf Ali: The Day that We roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books (completed),- even as We produced the first creation, so shall We produce a new one: a promise We have undertaken: truly shall We fulfil it.

....A similar verse is also in the Bible---Isiah 34:4
And all the host of heaven shall rot away.
and the heavens shall be rolled up like a scroll;
all their host shall wither
as the leaf from the vine withers
and as a withered one from the fig tree.
from--https://scibible.wordpress.com/2013/06/15/heavens-rolled-up-like-a-scroll/

(JimB might want to give the Christian interpretation of that one?...)

3) The Arabic word for "soul" is nafs (self/consciousness)

Sahih International: O mankind, fear your Lord, who created you from one soul and created from it its mate and dispersed from both of them many men and women. And fear Allah , through whom you ask one another, and the wombs. Indeed Allah is ever, over you, an Observer.

Pickthall: O mankind! Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women. Be careful of your duty toward Allah in Whom ye claim (your rights) of one another, and toward the wombs (that bore you). Lo! Allah hath been a watcher over you.

Yusuf Ali: O mankind! reverence your Guardian-Lord, who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, His mate, and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women;- reverence Allah, through whom ye demand your mutual (rights), and (reverence) the wombs (That bore you): for Allah ever watches over you.

I think a good non-muslim, or non-religious interpretation would be that "we, like all of creation," are just temporal forms of eternal existence and like the stars in the sky and the leafs on a tree, all temporal forms of the eternal run their course and cease to exists as forms, their substance decomposing back into that out of which they originally formed, the necessary existence, which the religious would call God. But the necessary existence is eternal so it will continue to re-create new forms out of the substance of the old. In other words all things are temporal with respect to themselves, but they are eternal with respect to their cause. The religious think of the necessary existence as a being, as a mind, or as god, but they also, illogically in my opinion, set up a false divide between the eternal and the temporal as if they are two distinct natures so that the temporal forms are created by the eternal out of nothing.

[siam]

I think a good non-muslim, or non-religious interpretation would be that "we, like all of creation," are just temporal forms of eternal existence and like the stars in the sky and the leafs on a tree, all temporal forms of the eternal run their course and cease to exists as forms, their substance decomposing back into that out of which they originally formed, the necessary existence, which the religious would call God. But the necessary existence is eternal so it will continue to re-create new forms out of the substance of the old. In other words all things are temporal with respect to themselves, but they are eternal with respect to their cause. The religious think of the necessary existence as a being, as a mind, or as god, but they also, illogically in my opinion, set up a false divide between the eternal and the temporal as if they are two distinct natures so that the temporal forms are created by the eternal out of nothing.

Impressive---very well articulated and the bolded is interesting....
Some types of Hinduism propose that "reality" is an illusion (Maya)---and some others are even proposing that "reality" is really a hologram....
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/essays/maya.asp

In the case of Islam, the divide was philosophically necessary---1) the pre-Islamic culture gave powers to "nature" creating poly-theism---It is the same concept that Modern science is based on---except a God-concept is weak/absent. So, a divide was necessary so that powers are not attributed to "nature" but the Source that created "nature" (its forms, its laws, and its materials). 2) It is also an important construct for the concept of Unity (Tawheed) from which other concepts such as equality are formulated, and without a wholistic concept of equality (equivalent value of all humanity) then wholistic justice would not be possible.....etc....IMO, the Islamic God-concept works very well as a glue that holds all the other principles and concepts together within the Islamic framework/paradigm....