Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

[seer]

Can you prove that you love your mother?

Well sin has stunted you ability to accept these things. To quote Paul: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

If most people got their math sums wrong or got contradicting answers it does not follow that there isn't a right answer.

[carpedm9587]

OK, but that does not mean they are fiction, its just that you personally have not found a convincing argument...

It means that I conclude they are fiction. I don't think people are intentionally creating these fictions - I think they have long history. But if fiction means, "literature in the form of prose, especially short stories and novels, that describes imaginary events and people," then this claim is a form of fiction, IMO.

Well might may not make right but it certainly defines and enforces right. God as the supremely good, all knowing Creator claims the right to order society as He only, knows best.

I suspect part of our disagreement has been a difference in the way we use "binding" and what that means for morality. But there is the further problem of showing a) this god exists, and b) it is supremely good. Even if existent, this god could claim the right to order society and, by virtue of their power, enforce the claim. As a sentient being, I retain the responsibility for my moral code and following it. If this god says, "homosexual love is immoral in all circumstances," I will say, "umm, sorry dude, but that's just not right. I'm not going there." If the response is "you're going to hell," then to hell I will go. I am not compromising my moral code just to avoid a punishment. At the risk of being inflammatory, to me, for this topic, this god would not be much better than Hitler. I would not follow Hitler on this - I'm certainly not going to follow a god.

Well as a Christian I see that most of the New Testament ethical teachings are pretty clear, along with our better moral intuitions. But my point remains, our limited knowledge prevents us from understanding the long term consequences of both our good acts and bad.

You keep coming back to "consequences" as the sole metric for what is right/wrong, good/evil. That is not the sole metric for me. A moral act can have a bad outcome. An immoral act can have a good outcome. That doe snot make the moral act immoral and the immoral act moral.

Ok, so you claim ignorance, that is fine.

I acknowledge ignorance. I don't know everything, and would never claim to. When I don't know something, I say, "I don't know." I do not fill the gap with "it must be a god."

I had to use your screen name, but no worries, God knows who you are? ; )

My name is Michel. I have made, in the past, many friends online. I would be happy to count you among them.

[seer]

It means that I conclude they are fiction. I don't think people are intentionally creating these fictions - I think they have long history. But if fiction means, "literature in the form of prose, especially short stories and novels, that describes imaginary events and people," then this claim is a form of fiction, IMO.

I think you realize that you have a finite understanding of the world and things in general, so I'm not sure how you could come to any firm conclusions on such issues.

I suspect part of our disagreement has been a difference in the way we use "binding" and what that means for morality. But there is the further problem of showing a) this god exists, and b) it is supremely good. Even if existent, this god could claim the right to order society and, by virtue of their power, enforce the claim. As a sentient being, I retain the responsibility for my moral code and following it. If this god says, "homosexual love is immoral in all circumstances," I will say, "umm, sorry dude, but that's just not right. I'm not going there." If the response is "you're going to hell," then to hell I will go. I am not compromising my moral code just to avoid a punishment. At the risk of being inflammatory, to me, for this topic, this god would not be much better than Hitler. I would not follow Hitler on this - I'm certainly not going to follow a god.

Well and that is the bottom line isn't it. You don't believe that God has the right to set the boundaries for human sexuality. Therefore, yes, one day you will have to be removed from civil society (some call that hell).

You keep coming back to "consequences" as the sole metric for what is right/wrong, good/evil. That is not the sole metric for me. A moral act can have a bad outcome. An immoral act can have a good outcome. That doe snot make the moral act immoral and the immoral act moral.

As a Christian I do believe that acts are good in and of themselves (as they align with the law of God). And that God can mitigate the negative consequences of both our bad and good acts. But I don't understand why consequences would not be paramount in your thinking. Aren't results the most important consideration? If not results, what?

My name is Michel. I have made, in the past, many friends online. I would be happy to count you among them.

Most certainly!

[carpedm9587]

I think you realize that you have a finite understanding of the world and things in general, so I'm not sure how you could come to any firm conclusions on such issues.

Because I do not think in absolutes, Seer. I do not have to have all of the information of the cosmos to come to a conclusion. When I have what I believe to be adequate evidence for a proposition, I accept the proposition as true. When I have adequate evidence against a proposition, I reject the proposition as false. When I have neither, I say "I don't know." I have adequate evidence, for me, that the concept of gods is a human construct created by our forbears and passed down generation to generation. So I accept this as true. Should new evidence come to light that calls that conclusion into question, I will re-examine the position. I have adequate evidence that morality in the human person works as I have described, and pretty much NO evidence that a universal/absolute/eternal framework either exists, or is functional. Indeed, even if I were shown to be wrong about gods, this model of morality still does not appear to work.

Well and that is the bottom line isn't it. You don't believe that God has the right to set the boundaries for human sexuality. Therefore, yes, one day you will have to be removed from civil society (some call that hell).

I believe, if this god were to exist, that it would have the power to enforce its views. I do not believe that makes those views automatically "right." As I noted, "might does not make right." If a moral position is put forward that is arbitrary and has no basis other than "god said it," that is the very definition of a dictator. What do they say, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?"

As a Christian I do believe that acts are good in and of themselves (as they align with the law of God). And that God can mitigate the negative consequences of both our bad and good acts. But I don't understand why consequences would not be paramount in your thinking. Aren't results the most important consideration? If not results, what?

Consequences are a factor, but not the only factor, and (in morality) not even the predominant one. To go down that moral route is to adopt an "ends justifes the means" morality. That is not a morality I can or would countenance. In morality, the intent of the actor is paramount. Every act has an infinite number of consequences. A single actor does not make moral decisions on the basis of these countless, and mostly unintended, consequences.

Most certainly!

[seer]

Because I do not think in absolutes, Seer. I do not have to have all of the information of the cosmos to come to a conclusion. When I have what I believe to be adequate evidence for a proposition, I accept the proposition as true. When I have adequate evidence against a proposition, I reject the proposition as false. When I have neither, I say "I don't know." I have adequate evidence, for me, that the concept of gods is a human construct created by our forbears and passed down generation to generation. So I accept this as true. Should new evidence come to light that calls that conclusion into question, I will re-examine the position. I have adequate evidence that morality in the human person works as I have described, and pretty much NO evidence that a universal/absolute/eternal framework either exists, or is functional. Indeed, even if I were shown to be wrong about gods, this model of morality still does not appear to work.

I still don't see how you can come to such a conclusion, knowing how limited you intellectual reach is. You have posted nothing I have seen that would be a compelling defeater for universal moral norms.

I believe, if this god were to exist, that it would have the power to enforce its views. I do not believe that makes those views automatically "right." As I noted, "might does not make right." If a moral position is put forward that is arbitrary and has no basis other than "god said it," that is the very definition of a dictator. What do they say, "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?"

Except in our concept of God neither His law nor His moral Character are arbitrary or capricious. He is the fount of goodness, and if He does exist your moral sense could no more rise above His than a stream could rise above its source.

Consequences are a factor, but not the only factor, and (in morality) not even the predominant one. To go down that moral route is to adopt an "ends justifes the means" morality. That is not a morality I can or would countenance. In morality, the intent of the actor is paramount. Every act has an infinite number of consequences. A single actor does not make moral decisions on the basis of these countless, and mostly unintended, consequences.

Well you know that Consequentialism is a very popular meta-ethical theory among Philosophers. They don't seem to have reservation that you do. But again here is my point, your good acts could eventually case great harm. An all knowing Being however would not have that limitation and is therefore in a better position to judge particular acts or behaviors. Remember my drowning example? If you knew that the 17 year old boy that you saved would get drunk in the next few days to celebrate being save and plowed his car into a family, killing them all, would you still save him? Why?

[carpedm9587]

I still don't see how you can come to such a conclusion, knowing how limited you intellectual reach is. You have posted nothing I have seen that would be a compelling defeater for universal moral norms.

I never set out to do so. I have simply been showing how a subjective moral framework is perfectly functional, and accurately describes how morality works globally. But in the process, I've also pointed out how, because morality is a sentient being distinguishing between "ought" and "ought not," it is (as you noted in your OP) intrinsically subjective. Indeed, I have to admit to a biit of wry amusement when I went back to review the OP yesterday, and noted that you were essentially arguing for what I have been saying all along: morality is subjective to a sentient mind.

You simply want to take it further to declare that one sentient mind, your god's, subjective morality is THE morality that all others should align with as the "correct" morality. It does not seem to me that necessarily follows, and (if it did) it requires showing that this god actually exists. I do not believe this god exists. If it did, I do not see that this automatically makes their morality "the morality all should align with." For an individual to forfeit responsibility for their moral code and hand that responsibility over to another is to abandon responsibility for moral reasoning. That is counter to morality, IMO.

Except in our concept of God neither His law nor His moral Character are arbitrary or capricious. He is the fount of goodness, and if He does exist your moral sense could no more rise above His than a stream could rise above its source.

So say you. However, your claim requires support. You would have to show a) that this god exists, and b) that this god is necessarily "perfectly good." I do not believe a) is true, so b) is moot.

Well you know that Consequentialism is a very popular meta-ethical theory among Philosophers. They don't seem to have reservation that you do. But again here is my point, your good acts could eventually case great harm.

Yes - they could. However, since I did not intend that harm, and may not even know of it as a possibility, I am not morally culpable for it.

An all knowing Being however would not have that limitation and is therefore in a better position to judge particular acts or behaviors.

A moral framework does not shift for each consequence, Seer. The framework remains, and the application of that moral code then needs to be made to circumstance. These are two separate steps. If it is immoral to intentionnaly kill an innocent person, then it is immoral to intentionally kill an innocent person. So if I meet Hitler as a 12 year old, killing him because I know someday he is going to be THE Hitler remains immoral. I do not know the future or what choices might be made. At 12, if Hitler is an innocent child, wantonly killing him remains immoral.

Remember my drowning example? If you knew that the 17 year old boy that you saved would get drunk in the next few days to celebrate being save and plowed his car into a family, killing them all, would you still save him? Why?

The question is impossible, so I don't see the need to respond to it. I cannot know what the 17 year old will do in a few days, so it cannot factor into my moral decision making. And if you are suggesting that god would see it as moral to protect those other children, then I find your god's morality wanting. I cannot justify an immoral act to prevent someone else from commiting an immoral act. The ends does not justify the means.

[seer]

I never set out to do so. I have simply been showing how a subjective moral framework is perfectly functional, and accurately describes how morality works globally. But in the process, I've also pointed out how, because morality is a sentient being distinguishing between "ought" and "ought not," it is (as you noted in your OP) intrinsically subjective. Indeed, I have to admit to a biit of wry amusement when I went back to review the OP yesterday, and noted that you were essentially arguing for what I have been saying all along: morality is subjective to a sentient mind.

Carp, I never denied the subjective nature of God's law (though objective to humankind), only that it is universal and again binding and authoritative. And I'm not sure why you would think that gassing Jewish children was perfectly functional. We have a history of war, murder, rape, greed, selfishness, etc... and this is functional? What would be dysfunctional in your world?

You simply want to take it further to declare that one sentient mind, your god's, subjective morality is THE morality that all others should align with as the "correct" morality. It does not seem to me that necessarily follows, and (if it did) it requires showing that this god actually exists. I do not believe this god exists. If it did, I do not see that this automatically makes their morality "the morality all should align with." For an individual to forfeit responsibility for their moral code and hand that responsibility over to another is to abandon responsibility for moral reasoning. That is counter to morality, IMO.

Well first, according to my worldview unbelievers are morally and spiritually stunted. Sin colors these issues and our conclusion. So when you say that you question the existence of God I say that "The Heavens Declare the Glory of God." Creation demonstrates a Creator. But you will not accept that because of your nature so we are at an impasse.

So say you. However, your claim requires support. You would have to show a) that this god exists, and b) that this god is necessarily "perfectly good." I do not believe a) is true, so b) is moot.

How could I prove the color red to a man born blind?

Yes - they could. However, since I did not intend that harm, and may not even know of it as a possibility, I am not morally culpable for it.

So intent matters more than consequences no matter the resulting harm...You have subjectively decided that that is the criterion. Why should anyone see that as valid?

A moral framework does not shift for each consequence, Seer. The framework remains, and the application of that moral code then needs to be made to circumstance. These are two separate steps. If it is immoral to intentionnaly kill an innocent person, then it is immoral to intentionally kill an innocent person. So if I meet Hitler as a 12 year old, killing him because I know someday he is going to be THE Hitler remains immoral. I do not know the future or what choices might be made. At 12, if Hitler is an innocent child, wantonly killing him remains immoral.

But your moral view is subjective, why couldn't you change it at will? Especially if you knew it would save lives? Why wouldn't you? Is your personal integrity more important than saving a life (or in this case countless lives).

The question is impossible, so I don't see the need to respond to it. I cannot know what the 17 year old will do in a few days, so it cannot factor into my moral decision making. And if you are suggesting that god would see it as moral to protect those other children, then I find your god's morality wanting. I cannot justify an immoral act to prevent someone else from commiting an immoral act. The ends does not justify the means.

My only point is that God would be in a position to see and know all of history as it unfold so it would be near impossible to judge what He allows or doesn't allow from our limited vantage point.

[JimL]

Carp, I never denied the subjective nature of God's law (though objective to humankind), only that it is universal and again binding and authoritative.

The subjective nature of gods law? How do you figure seer? How did god come up with these laws?

[seer]

The subjective nature of gods law? How do you figure seer? How did god come up with these laws?

Jim subjective means that God is the subject. His law proceeds from His immutable and supremely good nature. They come from His mind.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, I never denied the subjective nature of God's law (though objective to humankind), only that it is universal and again binding and authoritative. And I'm not sure why you would think that gassing Jewish children was perfectly functional.

This is the kind of statement that I find reprehensible, Seer. You know, quite well, I have never said that, implied that, or thought that. To even suggest I have is beneath you, and a reprehensible twisting of what I actually HAVE said. I'm not going to bother repeating what I have said, but I AM going to say that I'm finished with this conversation if you repeat this underhanded tactic again.

We have a history of war, murder, rape, greed, selfishness, etc... and this is functional?

We have a history of all of these things in the religious "absolute/universal/eternal moral code" world as well. Religion has been one of the major drivers of war throughout history. I never claimed that subjective morality leads to a perfect world. Your model also clearly does not. It is functional in so far as it explains how humans moralize.

What would be dysfunctional in your world?

At this monent, your underhanded way of discussing a concept.

Well first, according to my worldview unbelievers are morally and spiritually stunted. Sin colors these issues and our conclusion. So when you say that you question the existence of God I say that "The Heavens Declare the Glory of God." Creation demonstrates a Creator. But you will not accept that because of your nature so we are at an impasse.

I am familiar with your worldview, having been a follower for the first half of my life. As for the offered evidence for a creator/god, I try not to let "awe" drive my beliefs. I am in awe of the universe and many aspects of it. That awe does not lead me to "creator/god." It has nothing to do with my "nature," it has to do with my examination of the offered evidence, and my finding it wanting. If that puts us at an impasse, so be it.

How could I prove the color red to a man born blind?

According to your worldview, Seer, your god apparently wants me this way, or I would not have been "born blind." Your position here is more than a little arrogant. You are the enlightened one and anyone who sees/thinks differently from you is "blind?" I think you are right, we are at an impasse. But the impasse has been created by you. I am happy to discuss with you, and would never demean you by suggesting you lack the capacity to understand what I am thinking and saying. If that is your view of me, then I suggest you return to your community and simply devote your time to praying for me. Your conversation with me is apparently a waste of your time.

So intent matters more than consequences no matter the resulting harm...You have subjectively decided that that is the criterion. Why should anyone see that as valid?

It appears to be how we moralize. We cannot know all possible outcomes; we cannot be responsible for tangential outcomes we cannot foresee. Indeed, even the christian absolute/universal/eternal moralist does not hold the individual responsible for future unanticipated outcomes. I have no idea why you are arguing down this path, or what you expect to gain, but you are making an irrational argument. Even YOU do not live or act or moralize this way.

But your moral view is subjective, why couldn't you change it at will?

I've answered this question multiple times. If you do not recall the answer, it is not clear to me repeating it will help. If you refuse to recall the answer, or are ignoring it, it is (again) not clear to me that repeating it will help.

Especially if you knew it would save lives? Why wouldn't you? Is your personal integrity more important than saving a life (or in this case countless lives).

Yes, my moral integrity is more important than "saving lives." I do not subscribe to "ends justifies the means." I cannot justify an immoral act to gain a desired outcome.

My only point is that God would be in a position to see and know all of history as it unfold so it would be near impossible to judge what He allows or doesn't allow from our limited vantage point.

And that is not how moralizing works even in the Christian worldview, as I have noted. The moral code does not shift for each person in each circumstance to guaranty optimal long-term results. The decalogue does not say, "Thou shalt not kill (unless god tells you that long term it will save millions of lives)." It does not say "thou shalt not bear false witness (unless god tells you to lie your pants of because it will save 20 people in 200 years). I have no idea why you are even trying to go down this path, since it's not what you do either.

[seer]

This is the kind of statement that I find reprehensible, Seer. You know, quite well, I have never said that, implied that, or thought that. To even suggest I have is beneath you, and a reprehensible twisting of what I actually HAVE said. I'm not going to bother repeating what I have said, but I AM going to say that I'm finished with this conversation if you repeat this underhanded tactic again.

Then I have no idea what you mean by:"a subjective moral framework is perfectly functional." Especially in light of the fact that subjective moral frameworks would include the very things I mentioned. Perhaps you need to flesh that out more. BTW Carp, when I bring up these points they are not a personal attack against you - I hope you realize that.

We have a history of all of these things in the religious "absolute/universal/eternal moral code" world as well. Religion has been one of the major drivers of war throughout history. I never claimed that subjective morality leads to a perfect world. Your model also clearly does not. It is functional in so far as it explains how humans moralize.

At this monent, your underhanded way of discussing a concept.

But they are often not functional. I'm just trying to find out how any of it could be dysfunctional given your belief in subjectively. Also, is your view of what constitutes a
perfect world - an objective goal or just your opinion of what such a world should look like.

I am familiar with your worldview, having been a follower for the first half of my life. As for the offered evidence for a creator/god, I try not to let "awe" drive my beliefs. I am in awe of the universe and many aspects of it. That awe does not lead me to "creator/god." It has nothing to do with my "nature," it has to do with my examination of the offered evidence, and my finding it wanting. If that puts us at an impasse, so be it.

I'm not speaking of awe, but the fact that creation points to a Creator. And that often the sinner refuses that truth. See Carp, I don't think any of us are unbiased.

According to your worldview, Seer, your god apparently wants me this way, or I would not have been "born blind." Your position here is more than a little arrogant. You are the enlightened one and anyone who sees/thinks differently from you is "blind?" I think you are right, we are at an impasse. But the impasse has been created by you. I am happy to discuss with you, and would never demean you by suggesting you lack the capacity to understand what I am thinking and saying. If that is your view of me, then I suggest you return to your community and simply devote your time to praying for me. Your conversation with me is apparently a waste of your time.

Perhaps Carp, there is a different way of knowing God or contacting him that is not merely dependent on natural evidences.

It appears to be how we moralize. We cannot know all possible outcomes; we cannot be responsible for tangential outcomes we cannot foresee. Indeed, even the christian absolute/universal/eternal moralist does not hold the individual responsible for future unanticipated outcomes. I have no idea why you are arguing down this path, or what you expect to gain, but you are making an irrational argument. Even YOU do not live or act or moralize this way.

It was a what if argument, but if you don't want to play...

Yes, my moral integrity is more important than "saving lives." I do not subscribe to "ends justifies the means." I cannot justify an immoral act to gain a desired outcome.

But it is only immoral because you deemed it so, you could just as well decide that saving the lives was a more important act.

And that is not how moralizing works even in the Christian worldview, as I have noted. The moral code does not shift for each person in each circumstance to guaranty optimal long-term results. The decalogue does not say, "Thou shalt not kill (unless god tells you that long term it will save millions of lives)." It does not say "thou shalt not bear false witness (unless god tells you to lie your pants of because it will save 20 people in 200 years). I have no idea why you are even trying to go down this path, since it's not what you do either.

Right, that is why I said that only God would be in a position to mitigate our good acts and our bad. If there is no God then this mitigation, largely, can not happen. In that case I think survival would be paramount, more so than even your integrity. How does the saying go - it is better to be a live dog than a dead lion...

[JimL]

Jim subjective means that God is the subject. His law proceeds from His immutable and supremely good nature. They come from His mind.

Well that's kind of an odd term to apply to a mind that can't change. Subjective usually means opinion based. If god has no choice in the matter, in the making of moral laws, then the moral laws are as objective to god as they are to anyone.

[seer]

Well that's kind of an odd term to apply to a mind that can't change. Subjective usually means opinion based. If god has no choice in the matter, in the making of moral laws, then the moral laws are as objective to god as they are to anyone.

No they are not objective to God Jim, they come from His mind, not an independent source outside of Him. And subjective does not necessarily mean changeable.

[carpedm9587]

Then I have no idea what you mean by:"a subjective moral framework is perfectly functional." Especially in light of the fact that subjective moral frameworks would include the very things I mentioned. Perhaps you need to flesh that out more. BTW Carp, when I bring up these points they are not a personal attack against you - I hope you realize that.

I do not take them as a personal attack. I do take THAT one as an unscrupulous twist of what has been said. No moral framework, yours nor mine, guarantees a world with no attrocities. In the name of universal/absolute/eternal moral codes, horrendous arttrocities have been committed over the ages. Functional, as I used it, refers to the way moral codes are formed, and the mechanisms used to resolve moral conficts between individuals and groups.

But they are often not functional. I'm just trying to find out how any of it could be dysfunctional given your belief in subjectively. Also, is your view of what constitutes a
perfect world - an objective goal or just your opinion of what such a world should look like.

Subjective morality becomes dysfunctional in the same ways and places that your universal/absolute/eternal framework does: when people fail to live up to their moral framework. When someone is raised in a context in which what they value deviates significantly from "usual" human values (life, liberty, trust, etc.), then that person (or society's) moral code will deviate from the "norm" triggering the need for convincing, isolation/separation, or contention. That is how it works, and it is perfectly functional, at least as much so as hypothetical universal/absolute/eternal frameworks.

I'm not speaking of awe, but the fact that creation points to a Creator. And that often the sinner refuses that truth. See Carp, I don't think any of us are unbiased.

I agree none of us are unbiased. I disagree that all of existence points to a creator. When you call it "creation," you are necessarily led to a creator. For me it is merely "existence;" the universe. It does not point to a creator from my perspective.

Perhaps Carp, there is a different way of knowing God or contacting him that is not merely dependent on natural evidences.

I never limited the evidence to "natural" evidences. That would be foolish, given the claim is for a supernatural agent. I do not find evidence in the natural world, or any compelling evidence of any other kind, that leads me to belief that a god exists. There is, on the other hand, an enormous body of evidence I find compelling, from various disciplines, that "gods" are human inventions, for perfectly understandable reasons.

It was a what if argument, but if you don't want to play...

"What if" arguments should be meaningful and related to the issues, IMO. This one does not appear to be.

But it is only immoral because you deemed it so, you could just as well decide that saving the lives was a more important act.

No - not just as easily. Compromising a moral code can only be rationally done in one context: when the options are constrained to immoral choices. Then we are obkigated to chose such as to minimize harm. It does not make the act moral, but the moral choice is to choose the least immoral act.

Right, that is why I said that only God would be in a position to mitigate our good acts and our bad. If there is no God then this mitigation, largely, can not happen. In that case I think survival would be paramount, more so than even your integrity. How does the saying go - it is better to be a live dog than a dead lion...

Even in the context of your god being existent, Seer, your argument makes no sense, for the reasons I cited. Even universal/absolute/eternal moral codes do not require a limited/finite/temporal being to make choices on unknown outcomes, nor is there a history of this god providing individuals with all of the information necessary to make decisions based on virtually limitless future consequences of present choices. You are presenting a meaningless hypothetical. I do not even understand why you are trying to go here.


Seer, at one point in my Christian life, I remember talking to a young man who was of a different faith, and I was "very" Christian. We were exchanging views about our religions. At one point, believing I was being incredibly ecumenical, I said to the young man, "I believe that, whatever you may call your god, we all fundamentally worship the same god." It wasn't exactly that set of words, but the context of the statement left the clear impression that, whatever he called "god," he was actually worshipping the same god I worshipped, making us all "children of god." He looked at me, shook his head, and said, "I don't think you have a clue how incredibly arrogant what you just said actually is." He got up and walked away. I remember taking that back with me, praying and reflecting on it. It took me a while, and some conversations with my spiritual director, before I realized what he was trying to tell me. His faith was important to him, and I just told him that, whether or not he knew it, he was actually worshipping my god, not his. I dismissed hundreds of years of theology with one quick wave of the hand.

You essentially just did the same thing with your "blind man" comment. You eliminated the possibility that someone who doesn't believe as you do could ever actually understand it. You eliminated, in one fell swoop, any reason for further discourse. Why bother? I lack the ability to see, and apparently your god wants it that way, because that is the way I am. How can anyone control "blindness." It's a circumstance of fate that one has to live with.

There is enormous difference between "understanding" and "agreeing." You appear to be of the view that someone who has been atheist and then became Christian can easily understand and appreciate both worldviews, but someone who has been Christian for half of his life, and then becomes atheist is not. That's an arrogant perspective. It is the same road traveled in opposite directions. I'm going to assume you actually don't think that way, and simply spoke without thinking. You're not a stupid person, and it would be an act of utter folly to continue, as you say, a conversation about color with a blind man. But if you actually DO think that way, then I would ask that you acknowledge it, and let's be done with the discussion. As I have noted, I think you are a good person. But if your mind is THAT closed, and if that is how you truly see me, then further discussion truly IS pointless, and I don't enjoy wasting my time.

[carpedm9587]

Well that's kind of an odd term to apply to a mind that can't change. Subjective usually means opinion based. If god has no choice in the matter, in the making of moral laws, then the moral laws are as objective to god as they are to anyone.

It also means: relating to or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used for the subject of a sentence. In other words, belonging to a particular subject. Something that is subjective to me is, in some way, unique to me. I am the subject that holds the view. That is how I believe the word is being used here. It is in contrast to objective, which is something that lies outside the person and not subject (if I may use the word) to that person's perspective.

An elephant is an objective reality. My view of that elephant is subjective to me. It has nothing to do with opinion, but it does have to do with the specific perspective/vantage I have.