A shared challenge regarding the foundation of ethics

[Tassman]

Charles, the law of God would exist even if we all completely misunderstood it or ignored it. Its existence does not, or would not, depend on us. You are again confusing epistemology with ontology.

You don't know that the law of God exists. You may believe it does, but you don't know it does. I don't believe it does.

Because God is universal, and has the authority and means to enforce His law.

This is merely a bald assertion. Why should I believe you?

[seer]

Yes all cultures do believe that causing wrongful deaths is wrong. The difference between some is the definition of "wrongful".

I get it, so when the Hutu majority government slaughtered the minority Tutsi population it was not wrong because they said so.

[seer]

You don't know that the law of God exists. You may believe it does, but you don't know it does. I don't believe it does.

The point Tass is that if it does exist, it would exist apart from our knowledge of it.

This is merely a bald assertion. Why should I believe you?

I don't expect you to believe me, after all you are about the most fundy atheist on these boards.

[Charles]

That is nonsense Charles, again if the law of God exists it would still exist even if we never knew about it, or completely misunderstood it. Just as the laws of logic would still be valid even if there were no rational creatures to apprehend them. And please stop with the "prove" thing, we know how many things you believe are true without proof. Don't be hypocritical.





The point is only such a God can offer a source or ground for universal ethics. I certainly don't expect you to agree, but if you don't give up any idea of universal moral truths or find an alternative - which you have been able to do.

1) We can all make up stuff, claim it is universal and then say that since it is universal or true it goes whether you believe it or not. A Muslim could do that. I could base an entire religion based on claims like that. Would you believe it? Your "Don't be hypocritical." is the most hypocritical statement you can come up with in this context. You keep asking very skeptical questions to every member on this board. But as soon as we get to your ideas we cannot ask critical questions. You said: "And please stop with the "prove" thing[...]". In how many other cases than when it comes to your own presentation of your own ideas would you go for this claim? When I talk, when Tassman talks, When shunyadragon talks. Or only when seer talks?

2) You have completely failed to show that this is the case.

Have another go, seer. See if you can come up with something more than just claims.

[Charles]

The point Tass is that if it does exist, it would exist apart from our knowledge of it.



I don't expect you to believe me, after all you are about the most fundy atheist on these boards.

1) But that is no reason to believe it exists. If Allahs moral law is the universal truth it is so even if you believe it or not. Convinced? Not so much...

2) So because Tassman is an atheist you cannot really show it? It does not appear too convincing, seer?

[Anomaly]

Siam, I like the way you pursue a workable moral/ethical synthesis, good food for thought.

My version: Truth is the cause of all goods--unity, balance, harmony peace, etc. Goods are effects of this single ground. Like the various theories of truth (correspondence, pragmatic, coherence, etc.), harmony, balance, unity, etc. are descriptions of what truth does, not what it is.

articulations of the change of various values (horizontal, speed, mass, impact, spin, etc.) at various points of particularization.

Science finds these "patterns" and confirms/tests the replication of these patterns (laws)....and we come "to know" these as "facts" that govern reality.....to mix the metaphysical and physical is confusing...so, to see this in another way....

value and particularizationsolidity, the charge of electrons and protons, the spin, there are certain numbers of elements (particularity) of various weights

Knowledge (Truth) exists (a priori) but it is necessarily interpreted through the human mind/form---this "interpretation" is the perceived "reality" but its articulation is diverse (different worldviews). The "Truth" is in the essence of "reality" and not its various articulations/interpretations. This quality of "Truth" makes wisdom (Wisdom = subset of Knowledge/Truth) timeless. "to Know" = to understand/interpret timeless wisdom into the particulars of our lived reality (environment, circumstances) makes this acquired "knowledge" timebound. ---in other words----our mind/form interprets the environment/circumstances around us (relationally) forming our perceptions of "reality". This "reality" is individual and universal and "to know" its realtionality is aqcuired knowledge and to know its essence is wisdom. This is to know "Truth".

false belief held as true, provide the impetus to automatic resistance in the apprehension of a conflicting true proposition, i.e., to truth itself. I find this view of diversity in value leading to correlated diversity in worldviews to be strongly applicable to the reality I find myself in.

I like your amalgam of relational apprehension of individual and universal, even though we have somewhat different notions of how truth works. I agree that truth is in essence, but believe that true and false exist also and are conveyed in articulated/interpreted information. Every expression of information is one of value and referent(s) (particular(s) to which it applies) as I see it. Seems to me this is necessary because all information has to have this shared structure (value/particularization) from tiniest bit to full blown universe as informational construct.

This brings me back full circle to the question: if value exists in our reality, what is its source? Given the most recent exchanges in this thread, I'm curious to know how my atheist brethren answer this...?

[seer]

1) We can all make up stuff, claim it is universal and then say that since it is universal or true it goes whether you believe it or not. A Muslim could do that. I could base an entire religion based on claims like that. Would you believe it? Your "Don't be hypocritical." is the most hypocritical statement you can come up with in this context. You keep asking very skeptical questions to every member on this board. But as soon as we get to your ideas we cannot ask critical questions. You said: "And please stop with the "prove" thing[...]". In how many other cases than when it comes to your own presentation of your own ideas would you go for this claim? When I talk, when Tassman talks, When shunyadragon talks. Or only when seer talks?

Yes Charles we can all make things up, like your Moral Realism, or Utilitarian ethics or Ethical Relativism, etc.. which are believed or held to without any real deductive proof or evidence.

2) You have completely failed to show that this is the case.

Have another go, seer. See if you can come up with something more than just claims.

The problem Charles is that you are asking me to defend a claim I'm not making. I'm not asking you to believe me, I'm not claiming proof - what I'am saying is that God (akin to the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God) could logically be a source for universal values, and that I see no other option for said universal ethics. As we have discussed.

[seer]

2) So because Tassman is an atheist you cannot really show it? It does not appear too convincing, seer?

We Charles, according to my worldview sin has effected or stunted our rational and moral cognitive abilities.

[seer]

This brings me back full circle to the question: if value exists in our reality, what is its source? Given the most recent exchanges in this thread, I'm curious to know how my atheist brethren answer this...?

Me too...

[Charles]

Yes Charles we can all make things up, like your Moral Realism, or Utilitarian ethics or Ethical Relativism, etc.. which are believed or held to without any real deductive proof or evidence.




The problem Charles is that you are asking me to defend a claim I'm not making. I'm not asking you to believe me, I'm not claiming proof - what I'am saying is that God (akin to the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God) could logically be a source for universal values, and that I see no other option for said universal ethics. As we have discussed.

1) Even if that was true it does nothing to help your case. You may like to change the focus but that is basically all you are doing.

2) I would like to see you show how God could logically be a source for universal values. Where is the logic in that?

[seer]

1) Even if that was true it does nothing to help your case. You may like to change the focus but that is basically all you are doing.

2) I would like to see you show how God could logically be a source for universal values. Where is the logic in that?

Charles, like I said a universal Mind, and minds are the only thing I know of that contain moral ideals, can hold these universal ideals - and since God has a universal presence these ideals can be universally applied and have universal authority. The logic follows, if it doesn't show me why not. And of course what I said is true about other ethical systems - unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

[Charles]

Charles, like I said a universal Mind, and minds are the only thing I know of that contain moral ideals, can hold these universal ideals - and since God has a universal presence these ideals can be universally applied and have universal authority. The logic follows, if it doesn't show me why not. And of course what I said is true about other ethical systems - unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

You do not know if God has a univsersal presence and by that simple fact it follows that you do not know if any moral ideals you subjectively think God could hold can be universally applied. Even if we pretend your line of reasoning is right you will never be in a position to prove it. You may claim you know it. But that is a claim. I can claim the opposite.

Second, how do you establish the fact that God's opinion, ideas or ideals about the universe are universally applicable and have authority? Why is he of a specific opinion? What is his reason for finding love better than hate? What if I disagree. How does God's opinion prove me wrong if all it is is an opinion or an idea based on nothing but his own will? Now you will probably reply with some "Nonsense Charles" to this part. But be careful. You do not want to justify the approach the extremists go for. And then you can hide behind a "but God is good" claim. But that is as circular as it gets because that would be a label God would have to put upon himself. If my ideas had universal presence would that make them universal?

[seer]

You do not know if God has a univsersal presence and by that simple fact it follows that you do not know if any moral ideals you subjectively think God could hold can be universally applied. Even if we pretend your line of reasoning is right you will never be in a position to prove it. You may claim you know it. But that is a claim. I can claim the opposite.

Sheesh Charles, I'm not claiming to prove anything, just offering a logical source for Universal ethics! Do you have a better source for universal ethics?

Second, how do you establish the fact that God's opinion, ideas or ideals about the universe are universally applicable and have authority? Why is he of a specific opinion? What is his reason for finding love better than hate? What if I disagree. How does God's opinion prove me wrong if all it is is an opinion or an idea based on nothing but his own will? Now you will probably reply with some "Nonsense Charles" to this part. But be careful. You do not want to justify the approach the extremists go for. And then you can hide behind a "but God is good" claim. But that is as circular as it gets because that would be a label God would have to put upon himself. If my ideas had universal presence would that make them universal?

Charles we have been through this! If you claimed that something is good you too will end up in a circle, there is no way around it. I'm simply saying that a universal moral Mind can be the source of universal moral truths. It doesn't matter if your opinion agrees with His law or not, or even if you know His law or not. That is not the argument, the argument is that logically a universal moral Mind could be the source for universal ethics.

[Tassman]

I get it, so when the Hutu majority government slaughtered the minority Tutsi population it was not wrong because they said so.

The point Tass is that if it does exist, it would exist apart from our knowledge of it.

I don't expect you to believe me, after all you are about the most fundy atheist on these boards.

[seer]

That makes no sense Tass, how can what the Hutu's did to the Tutsi be a moral atrocity if the Hutu government did not define it as "wrongful?"


Yes, I do believe that His law exists, especially as articulated by Christ and the New Testament in general. But my point is that the law of God is not dependent on our knowledge of it, just as the laws of logic would be valid even if there were no rational beings to understand them.



I'm not sure what your point is. Sin can blind us from the reality of God and His law.