what is real?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Is it the same set of rights in every case? My point was that different countries have different sets, not that they don't recognize them. For example, South Africa under apartheid obviously did not have the same set as it does today.

Yes, South Africa under apartheid had the same set as they do today. They did not however recognize them and they frequently violated them.

You challenging little details of interpretation is kind of like saying Baptists aren't Christian because they aren't exactly like Catholics.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Yes, South Africa under apartheid had the same set as they do today. They did not however recognize them and they frequently violated them.

You challenging little details of interpretation is kind of like saying Baptists aren't Christian because they aren't exactly like Catholics.

So you believe that there is a worldwide common system of Christianity that all Christians follow? Thats nonsense and you know it. Similarly there is no worldwide system of natural rights that all nations follow.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you believe that there is a worldwide common system of Christianity that all Christians follow? Thats nonsense and you know it. Similarly there is no worldwide system of natural rights that all nations follow.

Yeah, all Christians believe in one and only one God, that Jesus is the Messiah that the Jews prophecied, the Bible is the word of God, etc.

That's why they are called "Christ"-ians.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Yeah, all Christians believe in one and only one God, that Jesus is the Messiah that the Jews prophecied, the Bible is the word of God, etc.

That's why they are called "Christ"-ians.

You might be right about the 'one and only one God' bit, but I doubt even that. Not all Christians believe God exists. A significant number do not believe the Bible is the word of God - certainly not all of it. If anything, such belief is held by a minority.
It is true that anyone claiming to be Christian should as a minimum have Christ somewhere in mind, but thats about all you can say for sure.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
You believe in God, and think God is the source of moral absolutes. You take this to be axiomatic. So, why can't the secular ethicist operate from his own axioms - for example, he takes it as a given that human life should not be taken unless some demonstrable greater good is served [self-defense, for example]?

You believe in God, and think God is the source of moral absolutes. You take this to be axiomatic. So, why can't the secular ethicist operate from his own axioms

---------------------Swiss gambit------------------------------

It depends what you mean by "can't" . You can have axioms regarding what you think is absolutely right and absolutely wrong but if you do then there are intellectual implications to this and you need to accept them.

If you say a particular moral code is a "given" then you presumably mean that it is not open to scrutiny and is self evident. That must mean that the moral code is rooted in reality and not rooted in subjective opinion. You will have taken the moral code out of the subjective world and said , in effect, " this particular moral code is a brute fact , it is true , like gravity is true".

This then traps you because if you don't say the moral code is a brute fact or rooted in reality then by implication it must belong to the world of human opinion and subjective imagination.

So , simply put , how are you able to say that my killing someone for fun is ACTUALLY wrong? You can say that in your opinion it is a "given" that it is wrong or even that many people would think that it is a "given" that it is wrong. But all this would mean is that my opinion that it is not a given is unpopular with many.

This becomes a problem because if we say that certain things are a given because many people believe them then God's existence must be a given.

In short you can have axioms if you like but if you don't root them in an external reality of some sort then how can you say that your axiom is more valid then my axiom?

Originally posted by twhitehead
You might be right about the 'one and only one God' bit, but I doubt even that. Not all Christians believe God exists. A significant number do not believe the Bible is the word of God - certainly not all of it. If anything, such belief is held by a minority.
It is true that anyone claiming to be Christian should as a minimum have Christ somewhere in mind, but thats about all you can say for sure.

Please, show me some evidence that there are Christian atheists. I'd love to see this.

EDIT - Amazing!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

All right then, Christians are those who follow Jesus' professed values and label him "the Christ".

Any counterexamples to that?

If not, the professed values and teachings of Jesus as Christ are analogous to Natural Rights, unless of course there are Christians who think Jesus was immoral or morally limited in some way...in that case Natural Rights are analogous to whatever morality Jesus is limited in or has failed to be perfectly moral according to.

Perhaps "the morality of Jesus" is analogous to Natural Rights for Christians. At some point though you're going to get down to some abstraction of morality which will be analogous to Natural Rights.

Or, rather, in my example, "Jesus is Christ" is the religious/philosophical commonality between all Christians, just as "Natural Rights" are the moral commonality between all nations.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You believe in God, and think God is the source of moral absolutes. You take this to be axiomatic. So, why can't the secular ethicist operate from his own axioms

---------------------Swiss gambit------------------------------

It depends what you mean by "can't" . You can have axioms regarding what you think is absolutely right and absolutely wron ...[text shortened]... ty of some sort then how can you say that your axiom is more valid then my axiom?

You're right, except that God is not a source of "moral absolutes". He has his subjective opinion just like the rest of us if he exists.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I see you didn't even bother to address my earlier point of clarification concerning what exactly you mean when you say that morality is "real" or "not real".

Your claim is that the atheist is "logically" committed to the further view that "morality itself is not real". But that's obviously false, which is why I prompted you before to attempt to give ...[text shortened]... at?)

Are you seriously this ignorant of the field of secular ethics?

I see you didn't even bother to address my earlier point of clarification concerning what exactly you mean when you say that morality is "real" or "not real".
------------------lemonj------------------

To say morality is real is to say that a real moral law exists that men can either deviate from or follow. A real morality is rooted in external reality , just like electricity is rooted into atoms or gravity is woven into the Universe.

To say morality is real is to say that it exists just as the laws of nature exist and a man to breaking them is like a man going against the biological laws of his body and eating poison.

It is also to say that this morality is not open to change via debate. With a real morality (that is like gravity for example) even if every human being that ever lived disagreed with it , it would still make no difference. Just like if every human believed that gravity was false it would not change gravity.

This is different from a morality that is not rooted in external reality. UN-real morality exists only as a subjective thought in the human mind. It is a matter of opinion and nothing more. It can change according to argument and debate , and is therefore more like concepts of beauty and aesthetics. Fine and dandy but subjective nonetheless.


Clear now?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You're right, except that God is not a source of "moral absolutes". He has his subjective opinion just like the rest of us if he exists.

I don't think so really. God is righteous via his nature. Absolute Morality is based on his nature , not his opinion. He can't make evil into good or vice versa just because he might want to. It's who he is.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You believe in God, and think God is the source of moral absolutes. You take this to be axiomatic. So, why can't the secular ethicist operate from his own axioms

---------------------Swiss gambit------------------------------

It depends what you mean by "can't" . You can have axioms regarding what you think is absolutely right and absolutely wron ...[text shortened]... ty of some sort then how can you say that your axiom is more valid then my axiom?

So , simply put , how are you able to say that my killing someone for fun is ACTUALLY wrong? You can say that in your opinion it is a "given" that it is wrong...

Yes.

...or even that many people would think that it is a "given" that it is wrong.

No. If I assert that there are moral absolutes, then popular endorsement of them is irrelevant.

The way to test axioms is to accept them for the sake of argument and examine their logical implications. Show that one leads to dubious or absurd conclusions. Find the strengths and weaknesses of the system.

Who said nothing was real?,not me.

You believe in god ,and god is [he].as you say if there is a god only he can prove anything ,and he as...Proved what?.......there is no god,live with it!

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Or, rather, in my example, "Jesus is Christ" is the religious/philosophical commonality between all Christians, just as "Natural Rights" are the moral commonality between all nations.

So if we find that the only thing that all nations have in common is that they call themselves 'nations' then that is 'natural rights' to you? What nonsense. Nations are not based on rights. It makes sense to call Christians 'Christian' because they presumably have some sort of belief about Christ in common. It does not make sense to use the term 'Natural Rights' to refer to whatever is common amongst nations (or rather common in their constitutions regarding the rights of their citizens / residents).
I am still not convinced that there are any such rights in common to all nations.
Certainly historically some nations have not granted any rights to certain groups of people.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I see you didn't even bother to address my earlier point of clarification concerning what exactly you mean when you say that morality is "real" or "not real".
------------------lemonj------------------

To say morality is real is to say that a real moral law exists that men can either deviate from or follow. A real morality is rooted in external re ...[text shortened]... ncepts of beauty and aesthetics. Fine and dandy but subjective nonetheless.


Clear now?

It is also to say that this morality is not open to change via debate. With a real morality (that is like gravity for example) even if every human being that ever lived disagreed with it , it would still make no difference. Just like if every human believed that gravity was false it would not change gravity.

Thanks. For the most part, I think it is now clear to me what you mean when you say that morality is "real". I don't think I really agree with your terminology there, but I also don't think it is worth getting too much into that. To be short, I think the distinction you make has more to do with relativism vs anti-relativism (or absolutism) than it does with realism vs anti-realism. Here's a link if you are interested in more discussion about this kind of distinction (in particular, you can check out the Supplement 1.1 section):

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism/

But, moving on, how is anything you describe here in any way, shape, or form specific to only theistic views? The atheist can very well hold that "morality is not open to change via debate". She could also very well hold that the moral facts are simply the moral facts regardless of what anyone thinks and that we could all collectively be mistaken about any number of these facts (such that it would "make no difference" if we all held a view that was discordant with the actual moral facts). Your opening claim that atheists are logically committed to the view that "morality is not real" is just outlandish. If you still, for whatever reason, think your claim is correct, then humor me and attempt to demonstrate the logical contradiction in the view under which one holds to a morality that fully meets these stipulations of yours for being "real" and yet also holds that God doesn't exist. I'll be happy to then show you how your demonstration is flawed.

knightmeister, I am still waiting for a response from you on how you feel belief in God resolves your dilemma.
Let us suppose God exists and has a list of morals which he either invented or came about by some other means.
Why should you follow those morals?
Why should you consider yourself 'right' or 'wrong' for following or not following those morals?