Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While most of us would agree that the Holocaust was immoral, actions like that have been and continue to be carried out (i.e. the Spanish Inquisition, the Armenian genocide, and the Rwandan genocide to name only a few). As far as viewing other groups as inferior, many people even in our society still do this. There are still and probably always will be racists. They don't view their behavior as morally wrong. They feel justified.
Most people in most circumstances will be moral most of the time. However, our morals progress over time as our knowledge and acceptance progress. Slaves are granted their freedom, Jews and the Irish gain full rights, women are permitted to vote, labor laws are accepted. At one time it was not considered immoral to violate or protest against these things.
Thus, we see the obvious difference between that of merely responding to questions as opposed to answering the questions.
I'm not 100% sure I understand you, tigetmax. I think you're asking for definitive answers to your questions. In that case, you're missing the point to my response. Yes, I view these things as wrong; however, had I lived 200 years ago I probably would not. That's why I believe, as I stated earlier in this thread, that Shermer has a point - morals are or should be provisional. They apply to most people most of the time in most circumstances and they are falsifiable. That is, morals are subject to change, like any scientific theory, based upon new evidence and new information. They are not absolute.
I'm not 100% sure I understand you, tigetmax. I think you're asking for definitive answers to your questions. In that case, you're missing the point to my response. Yes, I view these things as wrong;
Yes, I am asking for definitive answers. No, I'm not missing your point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peppermint
...however, had I lived 200 years ago I probably would not. That's why I believe, as I stated earlier in this thread, that Shermer has a point - morals are or should be provisional. They apply to most people most of the time in most circumstances and they are falsifiable. That is, morals are subject to change, like any scientific theory, based upon new evidence and new information. They are not absolute.
...says you, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. However, until such time as you can reasonably demonstrate through logical rational argument that God does not exist, Christianity and the Bible are false and Jesus did not exist, or, if he did exist was just another so called "good teacher" or "prophet," your assertion remains only that - namely, nothing more than personal opinion. Personal opinion unsupported by reasonable and rational argumentation. With all due respect to Mr. Shermer, he's not the final authority concerning morality and ethical issues.
So what are we to conclude? Is there in fact a definitive answer to the question?
On the one hand we have the traditional 'fundamentalist' view that God exists, the Bible is true and we therefore have a basic framework for moral objectivity. At the other end of the spectrum, we have the the atheistic nihilistic relativism of Sartre, Nietzsche, Camus and Russell. Along come the modern day secular humanist asserting that it's actually possible for all of us to 'have our cake and eat it too.' We can have a world where certain actions are commonly treated as objective -such as murder or rape- while others are considered as relative i.e., homosexuality or theft.
Call me silly, but it seems to me, that logically, it clearly has to be one way or the other. Either God exists and everything makes sense or, God does not exist and everything is ultimately nonsense. I believe it was Camus who once remarked that perhaps the only deeply philosophical question we have left to ponder is that of suicide.
...says you, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. However, until such time as you can reasonably demonstrate through logical rational argument that God does not exist, Christianity and the Bible are false and Jesus did not exist, or, if he did exist was just another so called "good teacher" or "prophet," your assertion remains only that - namely, nothing more than personal opinion. Personal opinion unsupported by reasonable and rational argumentation. With all due respect to Mr. Shermer, he's not the final authority concerning morality and ethical issues.
Ah, I fully comprehend you.
Firstly, you may not realize that the logic of your argument is hypocritical. I have to prove that God doesn't exist (a scientific impossibility based on your definition of God), but you don't have to prove that God does exist (also a scientific impossibility)? I can't prove that God doesn't exist any more than I can prove than Allah or Vishnu doesn't exist. Nor can you prove that they do exist.
Secondly, I would never presume to take Michael Shermer as the final word on morality, which is why I read the philosophies of scores of other scientists and philosophers, including theists. I very much believe in weighing all opinions to the best of my ability. I have enjoyed reading the latest advances in neurological research which help explain theistic beliefs, morality, and the role of evolution in the development of both belief and morals. Not only do I recommend Shermer but Andrew Newburg's Why We Believe What We Believe is a fascinating look at neuroscience and the brain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigetmax24
So what are we to conclude? Is there in fact a definitive answer to the question?
On the one hand we have the traditional 'fundamentalist' view that God exists, the Bible is true and we therefore have a basic framework for moral objectivity. At the other end of the spectrum, we have the the atheistic nihilistic relativism of Sartre, Nietzsche, Camus and Russell. Along come the modern day secular humanist asserting that it's actually possible for all of us to 'have our cake and eat it too.' We can have a world where certain actions are commonly treated as objective -such as murder or rape- while others are considered as relative i.e., homosexuality or theft.
Call me silly, but it seems to me, that logically, it clearly has to be one way or the other. Either God exists and everything makes sense or, God does not exist and everything is ultimately nonsense. I believe it was Camus who once remarked that perhaps the only deeply philosophical question we have left to ponder is that of suicide.
I assume, based on the tone and composition of your post, that you are a Christian. That being so, I assume that you hold the Old Testament to be as divinely inspired, as fundamental, as vital to your faith as the New Testament. If those two points are true, I assume that you have read and comprehended the Old Testament writings and accept them as true. What I don't know is if you accept them as the literal, not figurative, word of God. Assuming, however, that you do, there is a disturbingly significant problem with your assertion that the Bible provides "a basic framework for moral objectivity". Had you said the New Testament provides "a basic framework for moral objectivity", I would have less room for argument. The OT is rife with God-sanctioned rape, murder, infanticide, slavery, spousal and child abuse, theft and hatred. Do you call it objective because God commanded these acts and not humans? Morals based on the Bible are very much subjective. If they were objective, there would be no change of morals throughout time and throughout the various denominations. Even if we assume that the Bible is true, it requires interpretation, which varies widely as evidenced by the numerous denominations. You can't logically and legitimately hang your hat on absolutism with the Bible as your chief support.
Please note: I am not attempting to dissuade you or anyone from believing in whatever religion you ascribe. I do find it ironic that one of the worlds most subjective religion (based on a personal relationship with Jesus Christ) is used as the basis for absolute morality.
If you are very interested in having a religious moral discussion, you should begin one in the religious forum. There are many people there who would thoroughly enjoy it and engage with you. It is a common, though frustrating, fallacy that without a deity humanity would fall apart. Philosophers throughout the ages have tackled this issue, and you know the arguments if you've read the philosophers you cite.
Was it objectively wrong for the Nazis to murder, torture, imprison and 'experiment' on certain persons? Is it objectively wrong to view other groups of people as inferior beings?
Are we all expected to go through life - 'whistling through the grave yard' - as it were, denying that outright obvious evil is objectively wrong?
Firstly, you may not realize that the logic of your argument is hypocritical. I have to prove that God doesn't exist (a scientific impossibility based on your definition of God), but you don't have to prove that God does exist (also a scientific impossibility)? I can't prove that God doesn't exist any more than I can prove than Allah or Vishnu doesn't exist. Nor can you prove that they do exist.
"...the logic of my argument is hypocritical..." Again, you're entitled to your opinion. So what? You haven't even begun to explain how or why my argument is hypocritical. We can throw baseless accusations at one another all day, in the end, what would be accomplished?
Please note that I haven't asked you to "prove" anything. Also, please note the difference between being asked to 'prove' a point as opposed to being asked to present a reasonable argument in order to buttress an assertion.
You've earned a set of jump wings for demonstrating your ability to jump to conclusions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peppermint
Secondly, I would never presume to take Michael Shermer as the final word on morality, which is why I read the philosophies of scores of other scientists and philosophers, including theists. I very much believe in weighing all opinions to the best of my ability. I have enjoyed reading the latest advances in neurological research which help explain theistic beliefs, morality, and the role of evolution in the development of both belief and morals. Not only do I recommend Shermer but Andrew Newburg's Why We Believe What We Believe is a fascinating look at neuroscience and the brain.
I'm sure that you find these two (I've actually read Shermer BTW) to be fascinating. In the final analysis however, we must all draw our own conclusions and make our own arguments - hopefully, based on sound reasoning and factual information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peppermint
I assume, based on the tone and composition of your post, that you are a Christian. That being so, I assume that you hold the Old Testament to be as divinely inspired, as fundamental, as vital to your faith as the New Testament. If those two points are true, I assume that you have read and comprehended the Old Testament writings and accept them as true. What I don't know is if you accept them as the literal, not figurative, word of God. Assuming, however, that you do, there is a disturbingly significant problem with your assertion that the Bible provides "a basic framework for moral objectivity". Had you said the New Testament provides "a basic framework for moral objectivity", I would have less room for argument. The OT is rife with God-sanctioned rape, murder, infanticide, slavery, spousal and child abuse, theft and hatred. Do you call it objective because God commanded these acts and not humans? Morals based on the Bible are very much subjective. If they were objective, there would be no change of morals throughout time and throughout the various denominations. Even if we assume that the Bible is true, it requires interpretation, which varies widely as evidenced by the numerous denominations. You can't logically and legitimately hang your hat on absolutism with the Bible as your chief support.
This is rich. You attempt to deflect here into a discussion concerning the study of Biblical hermeneutics while, at the same time, inferring that I'm somehow out of order for presenting the argument for the existence of objective moral values as an extension of the argument for God's existence. I'm perfectly willing to have the discussion in another thread and the appropriate forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peppermint
Please note: I am not attempting to dissuade you or anyone from believing in whatever religion you ascribe. I do find it ironic that one of the worlds most subjective religion (based on a personal relationship with Jesus Christ) is used as the basis for absolute morality.
...again, your opinion. So what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peppermint
If you are very interested in having a religious moral discussion, you should begin one in the religious forum. There are many people there who would thoroughly enjoy it and engage with you. It is a common, though frustrating, fallacy that without a deity humanity would fall apart. Philosophers throughout the ages have tackled this issue, and you know the arguments if you've read the philosophers you cite.
I'm perfectly on topic with the OP and perfectly willing to stay on topic and continue the discussion on topic - are you?
I am willing, but I fail to see the point. You either intentionally misconstrue my statements or fail to understand them. You are not open to opinions differing from your own and resort to personal comments and condescension. Any conversation involving religion degenerates into that. I have answered the OP's question and directed him/her to literature that I find interesting and edifying.
You've made the assertion that morals "are not absolute." You also rightly assert that God's existence cannot logically be disproved.
Which is it? Could it be that God exists, that the Bible and Christianity are actually true, and by extension, moral absolutes do actually exist or, is it not possible for God to exist, that the Bible and Christianity are false and by extension morality is nothing more than a human construct?
It's the question of the OP. I responded. You were the one who directly responded to me - remember?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peppermint
You either intentionally misconstrue my statements or fail to understand them.
An unsubstantiated baseless assertion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peppermint
You are not open to opinions differing from your own and resort to personal comments and condescension.
So, I'm apparently not open to differing opinions simply because I ask you to support them with reasoned argumentation? Isn't this the "Great Debates" forum???
My communicative style tends to be direct and straight-forward. Perhaps you've misinterpreted this as "condescension."
Quote:
Originally Posted by peppermint
Any conversation involving religion degenerates into that. I have answered the OP's question and directed him/her to literature that I find interesting and edifying.
Again, you were the one who responded directly to me. I've apparently made the incredible error of expecting you to actually present a reasoned argument in support of your various assertions.
I think this is a very interesting question. At one time I would have echoed the sentiments of Tigetmax24, that without an objective moral framework, everything is meaningless and morality ceases to even be an issue. This viewpoint brings up a whole separate set of issues. First, if there can exist an objective morality, it must exist outside of human experience. That is such an absolute system cannot depend on humans, shaped by their genetic, culture, and personal experience, to define it in any way. If we posit this absolute morality, we have a problem because this absolute morality cannot be known except through the lens of humanity, thus rendering it no longer absolute. The longer I thought, I realized that I have never seen an example of a consistent, coherent and absolute morality.
The longer I live, the more sense it makes to me that morality has evolved just like humanity, and continues to evolve. Many things that were once seen as compatible with goodness are now questioned or condemned. I agree with several of the previous posters that morality seems to be something mutable that functions in a kind of consensus based way to bring stability to human relationships. It also appears to me that it is related to empathy. The more able a person or group of people is to identify with others, the less they will behave in ways we would generally agree are bad.
-NoCapo
Last edited by NoCapo; 01-30-2011 at 04:26 PM..
Reason: fix spelling and punctuation...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
