02 Aug 11
Originally posted by bbarrI agree: the theist has an all-encompassing explanation for why morality makes sense, given the perspective of the built-in nature of moral man. The atheist, however, appears to assign morals as accouterments--- something value-added, for lack of a better way of saying it.
Hey Freaky, nice to see you, too! I hope everything is going well on your end.
I admit to being confused about the relevance of questions of ultimate origins to accounts of why morality is authoritative or binding, or, less strongly, why it gives us practical reasons (reasons to act, live, or be a certain way). Suppose that the theist is correct, and that ...[text shortened]... better footing, because grounded in a conception of God, then I guess I'd like to know why.
Take God (the Creator) out of the equation and the theist says the whole thing is moot, that morals become simple false conventions without any ultimate meaning. The atheist doesn't have the same problem, since God isn't required for existence. For the atheist, morals are considered for their utility, but I cannot see how the atheist reconciles the meaning they give morals in the face of ultimate meaninglessness.
This is why I consider one's explanation for existence to be paramount to the conversation. If this all sprang from nothing and will return thusly in due order, morals are akin to pissing in the wind: perhaps temporarily cooling, but eventually dissatisfying. The same holds true for the one who considers existence to have an always-been nature. We're equally significant to ants, with no real need for morals.
Another aspect of the consideration which troubles the atheist is how either of the two God-less scenarios spawned morals.
And, on a more basic level, in light of a God-less scenario, the atheist is left with natural causes as the impetus, the explanation for everything... thus the invocation of chemistry/physics in the OP. Naturally-speaking, how is a moral to be categorized?
02 Aug 11
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou contend that "an idea of origin exists"? Not to be a broken record, but I confess I do not know what that means.
LJ has gone to great lengths to avoid the question of origin (those pesky brute facts), but I contend that--- whether articulated or not--- an idea of origin exists.
You contend that "an idea of origin exists"? Not to be a broken record, but I confess I do not know what that means. Anyway, you still have not explained why an atheist would need to ...[text shortened]... sumest to take out a speck from the atheist's eye whilst having a log in thine own?[/b]
I don't believe you're being sincere. If so, then let's get to that issue.
Q.: How do you account for the existence of the universe?
a.) The universe has always been, in one form or anther
b.) The universe sprang forth from a single point
c.) The universe was created by God
d.) What universe?
02 Aug 11
Originally posted by FreakyKBHCheating science will display 30000 words of intellectual wizardry in their scientific papers basically to say in the beginning there was nothing and now we have everything.
Read these recently on another website, thought they were pretty interesting food for thought... for those inclined.
• If everything ultimately must be explained by the laws of physics and chemistry, what is a moral value (does it have mass, occupy space, hold a charge, have wavelength)?
• How did matter, energy, time and chance result in a set of ob ...[text shortened]... ry? Why can't it simply be ignored? Won’t our end be the same (death and the grave) either way?
And for this they give each other diplomas and recognition of achievement.
Parts of this wizardry include an unfathomable ordered cosmos with the laws of physics all coming out of an explosion from something.
And conscious life appearing out of a muddy puddle from non conscious life.
Also the acceptance that chemicals produce consciousness, mind, cognition, determinism, desire, intellect and emotions even though they cannot ever show a consciousness chemical, or a intellect chemical, or a determinism chemical and so forth, but more interestingly that these chemicals act under their own volition without plan or cause.
Honest persons call this the BIG BLUFF perpetrated by cheating science.
02 Aug 11
Originally posted by DasaHow do you keep it up?
Cheating science will display 30000 words of intellectual wizardry in their scientific papers basically to say in the beginning there was nothing and now we have everything.
And for this they give each other diplomas and recognition of achievement.
Parts of this wizardry include an unfathomable ordered cosmos with the laws of physics all coming out of an ...[text shortened]... ithout plan or cause.
Honest persons call this the BIG BLUFF perpetrated by cheating science.
You are some sort of Baron of Bullshlt to be sure. I'm growing to like you*
*but not in a 'let's go for a beer and shoot the breeze' sort of way
Originally posted by bbarrNow, if you think that the theist's strategy here is on better footing, because grounded in a conception of God, then I guess I'd like to know why.
Hey Freaky, nice to see you, too! I hope everything is going well on your end.
I admit to being confused about the relevance of questions of ultimate origins to accounts of why morality is authoritative or binding, or, less strongly, why it gives us practical reasons (reasons to act, live, or be a certain way). Suppose that the theist is correct, and that better footing, because grounded in a conception of God, then I guess I'd like to know why.
(I'll throw my two cents in here, if Freaky doesn't mind.)
I would proffer William Alston's reformulated divine command theory, in order to avoid the Euthyphro dilemma:
God is not bound by his own commands because God is perfectly good. His commands, however, will constitute moral obligations for all creatures for whom disobedience is at least metaphysically possible. Further, the divine commands themselves, rather than being retrieved from some Platonic realm separate from God, should be conceived as expressions of God's essentially good character—God Himself being the supreme standard of moral goodness.
The atheist materialist, it seems to me, by contrast, is stuck with grounding moral obligation in social convention.
02 Aug 11
Originally posted by epiphinehasAnd so are theists, they just want to transfer responsibility.
[b]Now, if you think that the theist's strategy here is on better footing, because grounded in a conception of God, then I guess I'd like to know why.
(I'll throw my two cents in here, if Freaky doesn't mind.)
I would proffer William Alston's reformulated divine command theory, in order to avoid the Euthyphro dilemma:
God is not bound by his ...[text shortened]... t seems to me, by contrast, is stuck with grounding moral obligation in social convention.[/b]
02 Aug 11
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasThis is a framework, largely circular and lacking in substance. Pushing aside, for the moment, the conspicuous absence of any identifiable cosmic constable in our everyday lives, would someone please produce this code of morals that this hypothetical god has allegedly supplied? Is it just supposed to be the Bible in its entirety? Or has it been divined using tea leaves and chicken entrails? Or is it a combination of both?
[b]Now, if you think that the theist's strategy here is on better footing, because grounded in a conception of God, then I guess I'd like to know why.
(I'll throw my two cents in here, if Freaky doesn't mind.)
I would proffer William Alston's reformulated divine command theory, in order to avoid the Euthyphro dilemma:
God is not bound by his t seems to me, by contrast, is stuck with grounding moral obligation in social convention.[/b]
02 Aug 11
Originally posted by SoothfastDon't forget coffee grounds and casting bones. Just as valid as the bible.
This is a framework, largely circular and lacking in substance. Pushing aside, for the moment, the conspicuous absence of any identifiable cosmic constable in our everyday lives, would someone please produce this code of morals that this hypothetical god has allegedly produced? Is it just supposed to be the Bible in its entirety? Or has it been divined using tea leaves and chicken entrails? Or is it a combination of both?
02 Aug 11
5 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasThe whole "theory" is semantic in nature. Reverse the positions of the words "good" and "god," along with their corresponding adjectives, adverbs and pronouns:
[b]Now, if you think that the theist's strategy here is on better footing, because grounded in a conception of God, then I guess I'd like to know why.
(I'll throw my two cents in here, if Freaky doesn't mind.)
I would proffer William Alston's reformulated divine command theory, in order to avoid the Euthyphro dilemma:
God is not bound by his t seems to me, by contrast, is stuck with grounding moral obligation in social convention.[/b]
Good is not bound by its own commands because good is perfectly divine. Its commands, however, will constitute moral obligations for all creatures for whom disobedience is at least metaphysically possible. Further, the righteous commands themselves, rather than being retrieved from some Platonic realm separate from good, should be conceived as expressions of good's essentially divine character—good itself being the supreme standard of moral divinity.
What we have is that "God is good because good is God."
03 Aug 11
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI was being sincere. You stated you contend that "an idea of origin exists". I have no idea what you mean.
[b]You contend that "an idea of origin exists"? Not to be a broken record, but I confess I do not know what that means.
I don't believe you're being sincere. If so, then let's get to that issue.
Q.: How do you account for the existence of the universe?
a.) The universe has always been, in one form or anther
b.) The universe sprang forth from a single point
c.) The universe was created by God
d.) What universe?[/b]
Regarding your question, I do not endorse any of a) through d). I do not profess to know the answer to that question, and I withhold judgment on the topic pending what I would take to be sufficient evidence to warrant a particular judgment this way or that.
Now, I have several comments/questions regarding your argumentative tack. First, when someone repeatedly asks for clarification, they are probably being sincere and you ought to at least attempt to accommodate their request. Second, when are you going to explain why you think it is requisite that one have some account of cosmological origins in order to provide description of, say, what a moral value is; when are you going to provide actual reasons in support of this idea? Third, asking me questions of the type above does not constitute an argument or any sort of support for your main thesis. Fourth, I do not take this question of yours above to be a faithful copy of your earlier questions in this thread. You asked earlier for me to fill in the blank of "existence began as a result of []". I do not see how that is the same as asking me how I account for the existence of something like our universe. If you fill in the blank of the first with God, then I still think that is just incoherent. If, on the other hand, in response to the latter you say that God somehow brought about the universe, then I would say you have put forth a coherent statement, albeit one that has no evidential backing as far as I can tell. Lastly, did you miss the section of my last post that deals with the subject of "those pesky brute facts"? You seemed to take real issue with my suggestion that an atheist may well endorse that some brute fact exists, to the point that you "cried foul". However, your own view by your own admission embraces at least one brute fact. You said that if I were implying that some brute fact within the atheistic view were to "be given credit for existence" (which is not something I was implying there, but was rather just based on your atrocious reading), then you said that would constitute an "avoidance package" and would be "weak". But, in fact, your own view is guilty of this, since you give credit for existence unto the fact that there is a God; and you also maintain that the fact that there is a God is brute.
Can we at least agree that your earlier implication that atheists are committed to the idea that the laws of physics/chemistry explain everything was an absurd one?
03 Aug 11
Originally posted by SoothfastI agree and I've said as much. God is the ultimate Good. His commands, therefore, aren't arbitrary, since they proceed from His nature. Neither is God bound by His commands since there is no metaphysical possibility of God ever contradicting them.
The whole "theory" is semantic in nature. Reverse the positions of the words "good" and "god," along with their corresponding adjectives, adverbs and pronouns:
Good is not bound by its own commands because good is perfectly divine. Its commands, however, will constitute moral obligations for all creatures for whom disobedience is at least metap ...[text shortened]... d of moral divinity.
What we have is that "God is good because good is God."