1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterSo if someone else sees human nature in the world, and sees "objective" value in humanity by virtue of that nature, what right do you have to criticise?
"Perhaps you see your "objectively real" god in the world? Yet you won't accept experience of human nature and behaviour as good grounds for believing in a certain type of "objectively real" morality. So that can't be it." DOTTWELL
I DOo believe in an objective morality , it's called God. And I do see God in the world. I've been playing devil's adv ...[text shortened]... lso see objective morality , he just doesn't accept the leap of faith he is making.
At least they can explain why they see humanity as valuable.
You call it god; I simply call it the point where language, and reason, ends.
Originally posted by dottewellI can't prove objectively that my wife loves me or that Hitler was wrong but I can convince many a person of these facts even though I can't put them in a testube.
If it is entirely "personal", it's no kind of "proof" in the ordinary sense of the word. And if it were proof, it wouldn't be a "leap of faith", would it?
From an objective viewpoint, your subjective "proof" is no more use to me than a raving lunatic who claims he can see invisible elephants many miles above the sky. Why don't you subject ...[text shortened]... ounces?
You've dug your sceptical hole. Either jump in or put the earth back.
You are right it's not really a leap of faith . What it is is the kind of proof that you would not accept maybe because your skeptism would not allow room for it. Some faith is needed.
I do not need my subjective proof to be any use to you neither do I expect it to be useful to you. I'm simply illustrating that we have things we believe in but can't verify. Things like the idea that morality or God exists objectively. Or beauty.
Do you really think I can prove God scientifically?
Originally posted by knightmeisterI don't believe morality is real in the sense of being a moral realist.
"Only in some KM fantasy world would this be considered an "objective" account. You're an ethical subjectivist. Either re-evaluate or deal with it. As it stands, the atheist who thinks some things are objectively wrong merely "just because" is a moral realist -- you, on the other hand, are not." LEMON JELLO
Let me put it another way. God is made of ...[text shortened]... k . God will do his thing and love will prevail (in my fantasy world)
Right. I'm glad we cleared that up.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMoral truth is dependent upon God's character
You think moral truths supervene on God's will: although you think in some fuzzy way that His will is immutable, if hypothetically God's will were to change, then and only then would moral truths change.
Either you don't understand supervenience, or you just aren't getting the concept. Moral truth is dependent upon God's character, not[/ bjective[/i] is to hypothesize a change in God... which, as stated, is not a possibility.
And what does that mean exactly? Do you mean to say that all moral facts are reducible to facts about God's character?
That immutability renders all truths reflective of His character objective. The only way you can call this dependence subjective is to hypothesize a change in God
No. You don't understand what it means for some thing to be objective.
Originally posted by knightmeisterI can't prove objectively that my wife loves me
I can't prove objectively that my wife loves me or that Hitler was wrong but I can convince many a person of these facts even though I can't put them in a testube.
You are right it's not really a leap of faith . What it is is the kind of proof that you would not accept maybe because your skeptism would not allow room for it. Some faith is needed.
...[text shortened]... God exists objectively. Or beauty.
Do you really think I can prove God scientifically?
You could do brain scans.
that Hitler was wrong
Because this is subjective, not objective.
Originally posted by LemonJelloDon't allow yourself that this means what you might think it means. Moral realism is to me a purely arbitrary philosophical term compared to the reality of God's love and holiness. I still believe moral law (ie God's love) to be a fixed objective reality against which all subjective opinions about morals will be judged. In any case , this is self evidently what all Christians have to believe by implication.
[b]I don't believe morality is real in the sense of being a moral realist.
Right. I'm glad we cleared that up.[/b]
Originally posted by LemonJelloMoral truth is dependent upon God's character
Moral truth is dependent upon God's character
And what does that mean exactly? Do you mean to say that all moral facts are reducible to facts about God's character?
That immutability renders all truths reflective of His character objective. The only way you can call this dependence subjective is to hypothesize a change in God
No. You don't understand what it means for some thing to be objective.[/b]
And what does that mean exactly? Do you mean to say that all moral facts are reducible to facts about God's character?
All truth is--- in some fashion or another--- reflective of any given aspect of God's character and not an independent phenomenon or mere 'fact,' unconnected to reality. God is the ultimate reality, all of which hinges upon Him.
No. You don't understand what it means for some thing to be objective.
Objective is used in this sense as independence from transient influences. As moral truths are based upon God's unchanging nature, they are by default objective.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAll truth is--- in some fashion or another--- reflective of any given aspect of God's character
[b]Moral truth is dependent upon God's character
And what does that mean exactly? Do you mean to say that all moral facts are reducible to facts about God's character?
All truth is--- in some fashion or another--- reflective of any given aspect of God's character and not an independent phenomenon or mere 'fact,' unconnected to reality. Go . As moral truths are based upon God's unchanging nature, they are by default objective.[/b]
And I repeat: what does that mean exactly?
Objective is used in this sense as independence from transient influences. As moral truths are based upon God's unchanging nature, they are by default objective.
No, I disagree. Mere immutability doesn't "render" anything objective. Assuming that moral statements assert propositions, the question of objectivity concerns whether or not moral propositions are distinct and independent of propositional attitudes. Surely, God's character comprises propositional attitudes; if it didn't, how would we identify it as 'character' by any reasonable definition of that word; moreover, if it didn't, how would we identify it as belonging to anyone, let alone God? So, if moral truths depend constitutively on God's character, then I maintain that they are not objective.
Originally posted by LemonJelloAnd I repeat: what does that mean exactly?
All truth is--- in some fashion or another--- reflective of any given aspect of God's character
And I repeat: what does that mean exactly?
Objective is used in this sense as independence from transient influences. As moral truths are based upon God's unchanging nature, they are by default objective.
No, I disagree. Mere immutability ...[text shortened]... epend constitutively on God's character, then I maintain that they are not objective.[/b]
Upon which part of the statement are you hung? The words are straight-forward, the intended meanings of the same are not hidden. Are you looking for examples?
Surely, God's character comprises propositional attitudes...
Wrong. The varied aspects of God's character are in and of themselves absolutes. By your standards, nothing objective is able to exist.
Originally posted by scottishinnzSnobbery does you little good in this discussion. Biologists don't have any special claim to expertise in human behavior as there are other scientific disciplines who study that field in greater detail (psychology, anthropology, sociology, economics to need but a few). Your position requires a non-standard definition of "selfish" and an acceptance that human beings are deluding themselves on their motivations to do altruistic acts. I see little reason to accept either of these propositions.
Well done. You've managed to post on a topic without any information contained in that post. A nice personal attack, but nothing of substance. You seem to deliberately misconstrue my position. Apparent altruism is common - I'll grant you that. However, if you consider the circumstances under which we evolved under, small groups, and consider positi ...[text shortened]... cialist in evolution to get it straight off, but Dawkins' book explains it far better than I.