If no God - What Meaning ?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by sonship
[b]Now I would really like to know what difference any kind of life makes if there is no God. I don't know to start a new thread. Maybe, I'll just ask it here.

Now if God does not exist then what difference does it make that anyone lived, anything existed, how we behaved, what we "lived" for ?

Honestly. What di ...[text shortened]... d be extremely unloving not to tell others of this." http://creation.com/atheist-god-hate

"Why do atheists hate God?" Editorial by Don Batten

"Recently, I have had a lot of conversations with atheists. Many express a strong hatred of God. I have been at a loss to explain this. How can you hate someone you don’t believe in? Why the hostility? If God does not exist, shouldn’t atheists just relax and seek a good time before they become plant food?

He is quite right, it is utterly nonsensical to 'hate' something you have no belief in the existence of. I suspect that he has mis-heard or mis-understood the people he was 'listening' to. Maybe they considered the kind of god as described by specific religions as a being that would be worthy of hatred if it existed.

Penguin

Originally posted by Penguin
[quote]"Why do atheists hate God?" Editorial by Don Batten

"Recently, I have had a lot of conversations with atheists. Many express a strong hatred of God. I have been at a loss to explain this. How can you hate someone you don’t believe in? Why the hostility? If God does not exist, shouldn’t atheists just relax and seek a good time before they become pla ...[text shortened]... cribed by specific religions as a being that would be worthy of hatred if it existed.

Penguin

Isn't it fascinating to reflect on these conversations which go back and forth day in and day out year after year wresting with the pros and cons of the existence of a personal and eternal supreme deity with the attributes of absolute justice and divine righteousness, omniscience and omnipotence, unfailing love and grace forgiveness, immutability and veracity. If there is no such God to ever have existed or been revealed, wouldn't one of the thoughtful theists here wake up with the realization of having embraced a cheap fiction or one of the thoughtful atheists here give up defending their entrenched positions as a colossal waste of energy and discretionary online time? Wouldn't this public forum fail to attract contributors and die? If...?

Originally posted by LemonJello

As someone who spends a considerable amount of time parsing out with laser-like precision what the definition of is is, I gotta imagine that you can see how imprecise, how un-examined the concept of brute moral facts truly is.

Huh?

[quote]You are just as guilty of the 'lack of inquiry' charges leveled at theists who shrug their ...[text shortened]... u're just playing dumb again, right? Feel free to lay your head back down and go back to sleep.

Oops.
My bad.
I hadn't read the entire post, nor the follow up to settle the issue on brute moral facts.

😳

Originally posted by Penguin
[quote]"Why do atheists hate God?" Editorial by Don Batten

"Recently, I have had a lot of conversations with atheists. Many express a strong hatred of God. I have been at a loss to explain this. How can you hate someone you don’t believe in? Why the hostility? If God does not exist, shouldn’t atheists just relax and seek a good time before they become pla ...[text shortened]... cribed by specific religions as a being that would be worthy of hatred if it existed.

Penguin

If this is the original article, then at no point does he cite an atheist saying he/she hates God.

http://creation.com/atheist-god-hate

Again, I ask the question, why do theists need to make this stuff up?

The rest is pretty much a pack of lies as well.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
If this is the original article, then at no point does he cite an atheist saying he/she hates God.

http://creation.com/atheist-god-hate

Again, I ask the question, why do theists need to make this stuff up?

The rest is pretty much a pack of lies as well.

If this is the original article, then at no point does he cite an atheist saying he/she hates God.
Huh?
Not only was it quoted for you, it's right there in the second sentence, as well as in other places within the brief essay.

"Recently, I have had a lot of conversations with atheists. Many express a strong hatred of God."

Were you expecting his summary to have actual quotes?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]If this is the original article, then at no point does he cite an atheist saying he/she hates God.
Huh?
Not only was it quoted for you, it's right there in the second sentence, as well as in other places within the brief essay.

"Recently, I have had a lot of conversations with atheists. Many express a strong hatred of God."

Were you expecting his summary to have actual quotes?[/b]

That is just a statement by him of what he claims atheists have said to him, which I believe is untrue.

If you look at the posts below the article, nearly every one from an atheist flatly contradicts this view and eventually the author concedes that 'true' atheists could not feel the way he has claimed.

So he appears to be talking about atheists who believe God exists (which he appears to claim includes Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins).

Enough said, really.

But par for the course for creation.com.

Originally posted by sonship

[b]If you had some "final judge" who determines moral status (goodness of badness) through some sort of decree or something, then that would not be an objective account of morality.

If we recognize evil then we must have in mind good.
We would not know what crooked is unless we had some concept of what straight is.

The Divin ...[text shortened]... His eternal love is accompanied by His eternal justice. There should be no obscurity about this.[/b]

If we recognize evil then we must have in mind good.

Not that I think it is particularly relevant to the current discussion, but I see no good reasons to think these types of statements are true. This statement rests on an implicit assumption that evil is merely a privation of good. I see no reason to accept that assumption. A paradigmatic case of 'evil' would be, say, a case where suffering is brought on an innocent through actions carried out under malicious intent by some other party. Are there reasons to think that this just is a case whereby this innocent is simply being deprived of good? No, not that I can tell.

There may, of course, be a sense in which our experiential understanding and appreciation of good (or evil) is heightened or focused through our acquaintance with evil (or good), but that is a different claim.

The Divine and Uncreated Judge's nature defines the ultimate good. That is part of what God is.

Fine, then this is your great "objective" account of morality, that God's nature is simply definitive of goodness. Just like I suspected, you are like the emperor with his new clothes: I hate to break this to you, but that is clearly NOT an objective account of morality. It falls under subjectivism because at the end of the day morals are constitutively dependent on an agent, God. Moral status and truth conditions, on your view, depend on the nature and character, etc, of this agent and are mind-dependent, or subjective. So here you are in this thread, ragging on atheists because you (wrongly, in accordance with your ignorance on secular ethics) claim they cannot have objective grounds for morality; when, in fact, it is your own view that lacks an objective grounding for moral norms. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and -- instead of claiming that you are being just shamelessly hypocritical -- claim that you are being sloppy in your terminology. What you apparently require is not that moral foundations are "objective" but rather that they are universal (in the sense that they will bind all human moral agents) and unchanging. Your view, despite being subjectivist, can still admit of this; but, of course, you will still be wrong in claiming that atheists cannot have a view that provides for the same.

At any rate, you have bigger problems. They include the facts that (1) your view will suffer from a Euthyphro-type dilemma and (2) you will be able to offer nothing of substance in response to any sincere moral inquiries.

For (1), the question is about explanatory priority. Is something that is good as such because it is consistent with God's favor; or is it consistent with God's favor because it is good? You have already chosen the former when you simply stipulate that God defines goodness. The problem with this, of course, is that it makes morals literally arbitrary because there are no independent reasons that explain and constrain the goodness of that thing; it is merely stipulative that God is definitive of goodness. For example, God's having good properties should admit of some reasonable explanation in virtue of which those properties are indeed good; whereas, on your view, God's having good properties boils down to God's having God-properties, which is tautological and vacuous. Further, on your view, it could not be that God has good reasons in virtue of which He champions love or compassion or temperance, etc; because it would be in virtue of those good reasons that such things are worthy of being championed, which contradicts your view that God is explanatorily prior to, or simply definitive of, the worthiness or goodness of such things.

For (2), your view has nothing of substance to offer a moral inquirer. If one asks you why he or she ought to be good, you would be able to respond that it is because he or she will thereby be in keeping with the essential nature of God. But this is bizarre and unsatisfactory and just begs the question of why God? Why not some other agent, or why not just make reference to objective facts? You will only be able to answer that, well, it is simply better to be like God. But since, on your view, it is stipulatively true that God is definitive of goodness, this boils down to saying that it is more Godlike to be Godlike. Vacuous....

In contrast, my view is (a) objective, whereas yours is subjectivist (b) does not suffer from a Euthyphro like dilemma, whereas yours does and (c) has actual substance to offer a sincere moral inquirer, whereas yours has none. My view, as I already mentioned, deals with norms of practical rationality, in reference to things that ideal rational creatures are naturally disposed to value and care about and which conduce to a flourishing way of life. It is simply an objective matter whether or not these norms are satisfied or violated, in that it doesn't depend on what any agent(s) think about it. (Thus my account is objective and there is no threat that moral status will hinge on prevailing social attitudes, such as those in your hypothetical.) The things at issue that went on in the Holocaust count as objectively wrong, on my view, because they are obvious violations and failures of practical rationality in just the sense described above. For example, it is simply a failure of rationality to be deeply disposed to care about your own sphere of consciousness and your own safety and freedom to live characteristically free from pain and suffering; and yet to fail to value, on even a minimal level, those same things in another. Further, they constitute failures of practical rationality because they fail, in obvious ways, to foster or promote things that conduce to a flourishing way of life for rational creatures such as us, including justice, fairness, compassion, etc. On my view, violations and failures of practical rationality cannot be simply codified into neat little rules that tell us what is right or wrong in black and white terms (and if this is what you are looking for, then you need to return from fantasyland and rejoin reality). But, notwithstanding, the Holocaust is easy pickings. I'm glad you agree that we all have a normative or moral bedrock somewhere (this pretty much must be the case for anyone who exercises practical rationality). For me it bottoms out into things that, again, rational creatures are naturally disposed to care about and things that conduce to a flourishing way of life. This imbues moral life with actual content; whereas, on your view that bottoms out stipulatively in some mysterious agent, I find no actual content that satisfies or makes sense.

I still have not had a chance to look at the link you provided (by the way, I think it is Kagan, not Kagin).

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Oops.
My bad.
I hadn't read the entire post, nor the follow up to settle the issue on brute moral facts.

😳

No worries....

LemonJello.

Not that I think it is particularly relevant to the current discussion, but I see no good reasons to think these types of statements are true. This statement rests on an implicit assumption that evil is merely a privation of good. I see no reason to accept that assumption. A paradigmatic case of 'evil' would be, say, a case where suffering is brought on an innocent through actions carried out under malicious intent by some other party. Are there reasons to think that this just is a case whereby this innocent is simply being deprived of good? No, not that I can tell.

Sounds like a strawman argument you are setting up there. And its pretty easy to knock over.

There may, of course, be a sense in which our experiential understanding and appreciation of good (or evil) is heightened or focused through our acquaintance with evil (or good), but that is a different claim.

Different claim ? Oh well.
Anyway, practically speaking, day in and day out, we certainly have a sense of goodness and evilness. Even in our drive to the store or work, we know. We are especially sensitive when we are on the receiving end of bad behavior.

Then I think if we are smart we wonder if the behavior was intentional or perhaps done ignorantly or accidentally. This additional consideration should temper our reaction.

Concerning the Uncreated divine life of God, the final Judge and the following comments -

Fine, then this is your great "objective" account of morality, that God's nature is simply definitive of goodness. Just like I suspected, you are like the emperor with his new clothes: I hate to break this to you, but that is clearly NOT an objective account of morality.

I haven't seen yours yet. Just like I suspected, so far, you have just looked for some problems with me saying God is the ultimate goodness. As of yet no reply to my question for your answer though I have asked several times now.

So neither one of us is surprised up to this point. Let me read on.

It falls under subjectivism because at the end of the day morals are constitutively dependent on an agent, God.

Pardon ?

The scenes of the last judgment were not about the subjectivism of the day. They were about a final accounting according to truth.

Now you may not believe it. But "But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth upon those who practice such things" (Romans 2:2)

The judgment of God "is according to truth".

Being omniscient God is qualified to judge all men according to truth.

Moral status and truth conditions, on your view, depend on the nature and character, etc, of this agent and are mind-dependent, or subjective. So here you are in this thread, ragging on atheists because you (wrongly, in accordance with your ignorance on secular ethics) claim they cannot have objective grounds for morality; when, in fact, it is your own view that lacks an objective grounding for moral norms.

I am not ragging. Maybe you feel ragged against.

The reasons I believe the statements in the Bible grounding the goodness and the righteousness in God Himself is because of the track record of the 66 books of the Bible. Through thousands of cases, fine and difficult cases, we read of God's discernment.

Take for example the case of Solomon the young boy king. He requested of God only wisdom to reign over Israel. God was pleased and granted him great wisdom.

Immediately afterwards we have the account of the two women fighting over the ownership of a infant. "My baby is the live one, and your baby is the dead one." The other said "Oh no. Your baby is the dead one and my baby is the live one."

Solomon had keen discernment from God. Solomon said cut the living baby in half and give half to each woman. Immediately one woman said "No! No! Give the baby to her. Give it to her!"

Solomon said "THAT'S the true mother. Give the baby to her."

This is only one of many many instances when we are given the confidence that God will judge rightly because of His great wisdom.

I am sorry if you mistakenly believe that any Supreme Being is liable to be subjective or worse incompetent. You can run with that if you wish. But we have a track record of at least a good number of insights into God's ability to judge "according to truth".

And we have the Son of God, Jesus, in history further nourishing our confidence. This kind of assurance is furnished us by reading through the resume of God in the Bible.

Yet even without the written revelation, it is safe to assume that a Creator who had the knowledge to design us and the universe probably has the wisdom to define for all beings what is the highest goodness.

You know that Einstien showed that matter and energy were the same thing that could undergo a conversion principle. E = MC2.

Well, I believe that the creative power behind the universe can undergo somewhat analogous conversion principle, not mathematical of course, but conceptually. As powerfully creative as the Creator was to produce the creation He is also authoritative to define by His very being - the ultimate goodness and righteousness of life.

It makes not sense that He has to come to us to learn this. How could He bestow upon His creatures more than what He had to give ? The effect cannot be greater than the cause.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and -- instead of claiming that you are being just shamelessly hypocritical -- claim that you are being sloppy in your terminology.

Sloppy like this ?

constitutively dependent

Your generosity is touching, but so far I think it is kind of irrelevant.

My eloquence may not be that good, Granted. But this is a simple matter. The ultimate righteousness is in God's nature. We were created in the image of God and have some corresponding echo of His own nature in our nature - in our conscience.

I think my utterance is adequate at least. And I still have not seen your alternative explanation of what constitutes the real objective standard of righteousness.

now the hypocrisy part ? ? I am not sure what you mean. But I daily live according to this belief. That God is righteous and that no one can possibly get away with anything, is as real to me as a piece of toast - more so.

"The fear of the Lord is the hatred of evil" Elsewhere I'm informed that the fear of the Lord God makes the eyes clear, enlightening them.

The complaint about miss-trustful God's subjectivism is nonsensical sounding to me. And I have in history the testimony of Jesus Christ to confirm that your view doesn't speak as powerfully as the life of Jesus. He called God "Righteous Father" .

Your speculations are He was mistaken ? I don't think so.

What you apparently require is not that moral foundations are "objective" but rather that they are universal (in the sense that they will bind all human moral agents) and unchanging. Your view, despite being subjectivist, can still admit of this; but, of course, you will still be wrong in claiming that atheists cannot have a view that provides for the same.

Where is it now that I have requested it several times. Each time you seem to respond that the question is not being asked right.

I am not sure about your complaint above. Difficult moral cases do not mean there is no ultimate moral law. Difficulties which humans may not be able to agree upon do not mean no moral absolute exists. Mathematical laws exist in spite of some very difficult mathematical problems.

I said God overlooks no detail and makes no error in ascertaining the nature of a man's act. We have Genesis to Revelation to encourage us that "the judge of all the earth will do ... justly" (Genesis 18:25)

There are innocent people in human prisons.
There are guilty people walking free.
Man may err.
God cannot err.

And now I think I will retire and look at other comments tomorrow.
"GOOD night" lol.

Originally posted by LemonJello

If we recognize evil then we must have in mind good.

Not that I think it is particularly relevant to the current discussion, but I see no good reasons to think these types of statements are true. This statement rests on an implicit assumption that evil is merely a privation of good. I see no reason to accept that assumption. A paradig ...[text shortened]... not had a chance to look at the link you provided (by the way, I think it is Kagan, not Kagin).

At any rate, you have bigger problems. They include the facts that (1) your view will suffer from a Euthyphro-type dilemma and (2) you will be able to offer nothing of substance in response to any sincere moral inquiries.

I'll have to catch up on this bit of sophistication - "Euthyphro-type dilemma."

Psalm 94:9 aptly says in terms of simplicity - "He who planted the ear, does He not hear? And He who formed the eye, does He not see?"

We could go on, ie. "And He who gave us conscience to intuitively sense good and evil, does He not know the same?"

I think you have the dilemma rather than me. If man is the ultimate measure of judging moral issues with the clearest accuracy, then WHO in history would you say most likely exemplifies this ability?

Would Jesus of Nazareth be on your short list ? Seriously now. On your top so candidates, would Jesus of Nazareth's ability as a definer of the highest standard of goodness, be listed ? Maybe along with Bertrand Russell or Confucius or Mahatma Ghandi ?

If so, we have to take seriously that Jesus obviously spoke much of the existence of His Father - God. Now if Jesus had been an atheist, then I would have to concede to an all-encompassing humanism declaring man alone is the final measure of righteousness.

As it stands, Jesus said though He had known intimately His Father, the world was still in ignorance of His righteous nature -

"Righteous Father, though the world has not known You, yet I have known You, and these have known that You have sent Me." (John 17:25)

We cannot make light of this Person behind some fancy philosophical footwork or some "Euthyphro-type dilemma". History bears out that Christ as defining His Father as intrinsically THE righteousness cannot be so easily dismissed.

For (1), the question is about explanatory priority. Is something that is good as such because it is consistent with God's favor; or is it consistent with God's favor because it is good? You have already chosen the former when you simply stipulate that God defines goodness. The problem with this, of course, is that it makes morals literally arbitrary because there are no independent reasons that explain and constrain the goodness of that thing; it is merely stipulative that God is definitive of goodness. For example, God's having good properties should admit of some reasonable explanation in virtue of which those properties are indeed good; whereas, on your view, God's having good properties boils down to God's having God-properties, which is tautological and vacuous.

If there is a higher manifestation of goodness displayed in human history than the life and treaching of Jesus, simply point it out to me. I would like to start there.

Armchair philosophy is nice. But we have history to deal with.

You have heard the humorous line from the movies "Show me the money!"
Well, I say "Show me the Righteousness!"

Your talk is no doubt freshly informed by some texts of secular atheist ethics. But where is the EXAMPLE in history of that which most likely qualifies to be the highest morality ?

What I hear you complaining about is that though Christ taught of His Father being the ultimate righteous One, because of some dubious mental gymnastics this cannot be trusted. We have to look elsewhere in the nimble minded tautologies of atheists.

Which one ?
Bertrand Russell couldn't remain faithful to his own wife. And this in spite of the rather wise ethical views he had on the subject of marriage.
Wikopedia -

He soon fell in love with the puritanical, high-minded Alys, who was a graduate of Bryn Mawr College near Philadelphia, and, contrary to his grandmother's wishes, married her on 13 December 1894. Their marriage began to fall apart in 1901 when it occurred to Russell, while he was cycling, that he no longer loved her.[82] She asked him if he loved her and he replied that he didn't. Russell also disliked Alys's mother, finding her controlling and cruel. It was to be a hollow shell of a marriage and they finally divorced in 1921, after a lengthy period of separation.[83] During this period, Russell had passionate (and often simultaneous) affairs with a number of women, including Lady Ottoline Morrell[84] and the actress Lady Constance Malleson.[85]

After his son died they asked him how life looked to him.
"Pretty dark" I am told was his reply.

Compared to the triumph of Christ's resurrection over the darkest opposition to His goodness, I'm more inclined to believe He knew and better demonstrated where the greatest goodness lay, and its power to be indestructible.

Russell also said "I would never die for my beliefs, I could be wrong."

Compare this to the absoluteness of Jesus for the will of His Father, His "Righteous Father". He died the death of a torturous cross and voluntarily.

Show me the Righteousness.

For (2), your view has nothing of substance to offer a moral inquirer. If one asks you why he or she ought to be good, you would be able to respond that it is because he or she will thereby be in keeping with the essential nature of God. But this is bizarre and unsatisfactory and just begs the question of why God? Why not some other agent, or why not just make reference to objective facts? You will only be able to answer that, well, it is simply better to be like God. But since, on your view, it is stipulatively true that God is definitive of goodness, this boils down to saying that it is more Godlike to be Godlike. Vacuous....

The objection is "Why pick God's nature as definitive of the Good?"

By definition God, is the greatest conceivable being, and a being which is the paradigm of goodness, is greater than a being which merely exemplifies goodness.

You have to recognize some ultimate standard of value, unless you are a nihilist. And in this, God, the greatest conceivable being, is the least arbitrary end of our conceiving - the stopping point.

Originally posted by sonship
LemonJello.

[quote] Not that I think it is particularly relevant to the current discussion, but I see no good reasons to think these types of statements are true. This statement rests on an implicit assumption that evil is merely a privation of good. I see no reason to accept that assumption. A paradigmatic case of 'evil' would be, say, a case where suff ...[text shortened]... r.

And now I think I will retire and look at other comments tomorrow.
"GOOD night" lol.

The reasons I believe the statements in the Bible grounding the goodness and the righteousness in God Himself is because of the track record of the 66 books of the Bible.

You have already tied God to goodness definitionally, claiming that God is simply definitive of goodness. Exactly how would the "track record" of the bible support this? It's stipulative that you so define it this way. This is your moral bedrock and it is supported by nothing. As I have already said, that's fair enough as it goes in the sense that all will have some normative bedrock. But, one problem with yours, again, is that it is very unsatisfactory to stipulatively make the bedrock some mysterious subject, as opposed to say, for example, objective facts regarding about what creatures such as us are rationally and naturally disposed to care. The latter at least has some obvious traction with our intuitions and those things that naturally imbue our lives with meaning; whereas the former is strange and mysterious, subjective and arbitrary.

now the hypocrisy part ? ? I am not sure what you mean.

Obviously, it has to do with the fact that you keep calling for an "objective" foundation for morals, as if this is required for any adequate account; whereas your own view is in fact subjectivist. I'm sorry that you think I was playing the fool before by merely pretending to not understand your question; but, no, I honestly think your question made little or no sense. God is a subject, definitionally. God, on your view, represents a person, a mind, and therefore a subject. So if you constitutively tie moral status and the truth conditions of moral claims to God, you are thereby making such things mind-dependent. That makes your view a form of subjectivism. Of course, 'objective' and 'subjective' can be used in different ways; additionally, a view can possess some dimensions that are objective while at the same time others that are subjective. Notwithstanding, yours is a subjectivist view, no doubt. It is a basically a subjectivist view where only one subject matters, God. Presumably, not only would you need to show that this is a reasonable framework for moral foundations (that they be dependent, constitutively, on some agent) but also defend why one subject matters to their determination, to the exclusion of all other subjects. It's a very bizarre view! Perhaps you cannot divorce yourself from the view long enough to stand back and see how queer it is on the face of it.

Originally posted by sonship

At any rate, you have bigger problems. They include the facts that (1) your view will suffer from a Euthyphro-type dilemma and (2) you will be able to offer nothing of substance in response to any sincere moral inquiries.

I'll have to catch up on this bit of sophistication - "Euthyphro-type dilemma."

Psalm 94:9 aptly says in term ...[text shortened]... r". He died the death of a torturous cross and voluntarily.

Show me the Righteousness.[/b]

I think you have the dilemma rather than me. If man is the ultimate measure of judging moral issues with the clearest accuracy, then WHO in history would you say most likely exemplifies this ability?

How should I know who, as a matter of historical fact, most fully exemplifies or exemplified the ability to amass moral knowledge? That question is irrelevant to my moral view. Again, perhaps this is hard for you to stand back and grasp because you are so entrenched in a subjectivist mindset regarding moral foundations: my view, unlike yours, is objective in that it holds that moral status and truth conditions are independent of what any agent thinks or has thought. You cannot say the same. For, on your view, moral status and truth conditions depend on one particular agent, God.

Would Jesus of Nazareth be on your short list ? Seriously now. On your top so candidates, would Jesus of Nazareth's ability as a definer of the highest standard of goodness, be listed ?

I don't have a specific list in mind. But, of course not! If I had to guess I would think Jesus in his day was probably somewhat above average in moral faculty and intellect, though probably regrettably sidetracked by some mysticism. And if you somehow transported him to today, he would probably be relatively dumb or just average on moral matters at least when it comes to moral knowledge, though he might still be above average in displayed virtue. After all, we reap the benefits of ~2000 years of study and documentation on these topics to which Jesus never had access. He would not make my list either in terms of moral knowledge or in terms of moral behavior. But, at any rate, regarding his historical life it is hard to separate fact from fiction in what has been attributed to him. Not really sure how any of this is relevant to the discussion, though. Would you care to explain how it is relevant?

If there is a higher manifestation of goodness displayed in human history than the life and treaching of Jesus, simply point it out to me. I would like to start there.

Again, what does this have to do with anything?

As I already said, I don't think Jesus was anything special when it comes to moral matters. Honestly, I would never take the bible seriously as a text on morals or ethics. There are many reasons for this, but I'll just name a few here. First, I seriously doubt the bible should be taken on any level other than the metaphorical. Second, if forced into a more literal interpretation, the bible does not read to me as being consistent on moral matters. Third, nowhere in its proscriptions and prescriptions does it actually argue for any of them or provide reasons that would satisfy a sincere moral inquirer. And, since many of those proscriptions and prescriptions are either non-obvious or seemingly dubious, it would be very hard to take any of it seriously. The bible is not a text to be taken seriously in this capacity.

Your talk is no doubt freshly informed by some texts of secular atheist ethics. But where is the EXAMPLE in history of that which most likely qualifies to be the highest morality ?

Again, you're just confused. I have no need here for attempting to identify who in the history of mankind most likely qualifies as the most moral. That's irrelevant to my normative view (though it might make for an interesting historical fact).

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] For (2), your view has nothing of substance to offer a moral inquirer. If one asks you why he or she ought to be good, you would be able to respond that it is because he or she will thereby be in keeping with the essential nature of God. But this is bizarre and unsatisfactory and just begs the question of why God? Why not some other agent, or why not ...[text shortened]... e greatest conceivable being, is the least arbitrary end of our conceiving - the stopping point.

By definition God, is the greatest conceivable being, and a being which is the paradigm of goodness, is greater than a being which merely exemplifies goodness.

Why should I agree with this statement? In the way you are using 'paradigm' here, you mean it as the definitive standard. So what you are saying here implies that a being that is the definitive standard of goodness is "greater" than a being that merely perfectly exemplifies an external standard of goodness. But why should we think that is true? "Greater" how? You cannot mean that it is morally greater because that would be contradictory: a being that perfectly exemplifies a standard of goodness is already, on supposition, perfect in that respect: no being could be "greater" in that sense. So, again: greater how?!? Please explain. The only thing I can see that the first being has going for it that the second being does not is that it simply is the definitive standard of goodness; but, since you simply define goodness in terms of that being, this says nothing more than just that this being simply is whatever it essentially is, which is vacuous and tautological. Is it somehow an article of "greatness" to be identic with oneself? If so, then even a stinky turd will be great in this sense, since anything is identic with itself. So, again: "greater" how?????

You have to recognize some ultimate standard of value, unless you are a nihilist. And in this, God, the greatest conceivable being, is the least arbitrary end of our conceiving - the stopping point.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "ultimate" here, but I pretty much agree with the first statement: any agent, to the extent that he or she acts at all, thereby "recognizes" some source of value. Ultimately, this bottoms out into his or her moral bedrock. But, sorry, I don't agree that God is the "least arbitrary" stopping point. In fact, on my understanding, it ties for the most arbitrary. 'Arbitrary' literally means something like based on a subject's attitudes unconstrained by or in the lack of external reasons or laws. That's precisely what your view holds: that moral explanation ultimately terminates in a subject, God, and the Euthyphro Dilemma shows that you have no recourse to any further external reasons. That's as arbitrary as it gets. On the other hand, one who bottoms out into objective facts presumably will not suffer this problem.

Originally posted by sonship
[b]

That is not the most encouraging comment for a starter. If you yourself don't even know what your "atheist view of the universe" is [b]( "whatever that means" ) we seem to be in relativity land already.

I have a view of the universe based on what I do believe.
You do also. You're getting ready to tell me about it.
[quote] ...[text shortened]... erstand your point of view, this is a discussion that I return to again to give it some thought.[/b]

Here he is debating Bill Craig - "Is God Necessary For Morality?"

YouTube

I took at a look at this link and watched the video (15mins within a larger debate). Yes, Kagan here is talking very sensibly on the issue. Nothing he brings up here is original or ground-breaking in any way. Were there any particular points you wanted to discuss from this link? Kagan is correct that God is not necessary for morality and provides very basic, common sense, dialogue on the topic. By the way, the view that he outlines very, very cursorily here -- contractarianism -- is just one of many ethical views that provide objective foundations for morality without making any appeal to God (and Kagan correctly frames it as such in context). If you continue to study the topic in a sincere manner, you could also look at contractualism, utilitarianism of various stripes, virtue ethics approaches, Kantian deontic approaches, etc, etc. Secular ethics is a rich field.