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.
I don't know about $500 but it seemed perfectly ok to steal native american lands in the name of god.
Anyway, do you think we could take this to a slightly higher level than examples of lying and stealing?
Take for example the Roman Catholic Church's position that, based upon scripture, that they are the one and true Church and that all other Christian denominations are defect. Now according to Catholic teaching your god's transcendent and immutable laws can only be interpreted by the Holy See which in the eyes of the Catholic Church renders the moral judgement of other Christian faiths, relativist.
Disagreements over moral absolutes would not equate to an absence of moral absolutes.
Is it wrong to lie?
If there is a Transcendent Being and this Transcendent Being establishes an edict against lying, then, it naturally follows that lying is wrong no matter who disagrees.
If there is no Transcendent Being then it naturally follows that there can be no Transcendent Law and all morality logically becomes relative.
"If there is no God, all things are permissible."
Are certain things just plain wrong or, are certain things wrong just because the atheist says they're wrong?
As with proving the existence of God, how can the existence of moral absolutes be proven? And if they do exist, how is it possible for humans to know what they are? People who believe in moral absolutes make subjective judgments about whether they are adhering to those moral absolutes, just as do people who don't believe in moral absolutes. They way I see it, we're all moral relativists.
For example, I once knew a Christian who acknowledged proudly that she believed in black-and-white, Bible-based morality, and that she believed in capital punishment. I pointed out that "Thou shalt not kill" sounds black-and-white to me. (And what about "Judge not lest ye be judged?") She said that the true meaning of the commandment is "Thou shalt not murder," and that God is okay with putting murderers to death. So who decides what constitutes murder? In the US, generally only first-degree (premeditated) murder is a capital offense. Second-degree murder isn't, nor are crimes such as aggravated homicide. Many countries have banned capital puninshment entirely. My point is that subjective judgements factor in at every step of the way, from whether we as a society sanction capital punishment, and for what crimes, and based on how much evidence, and whether extenuating circumstances come into play. And let's not forgot the long list of Old Testament capital offenses that are no longer capital offenses in most of the Judeo-Christian world. People have always been selective about which aspects of Biblical morality they adhere to.
So let's move from murder to "Is it wrong to lie?" In general, I'd say yes, but my qualifier tells you that I don't believe in moral absolutes. For example, suppose a coworker asks me, "Do you like my new shoes?" Do I say, "Yes, they're very nice" (which is what I'd say), or do I tell the truth: "No, I think they're absolutely hideous."? Or, more poignantly, suppose you lose your job, and your seven-year-old son looks at you with worry and asks, "Are we going to be okay?" Do you say, "Yes, everything's going to be just fine," or do you tell the truth: "I don't know. We don't have much money in the bank. If I don't find a new job in, say, six months, there's a good chance we'll lose our house and become homeless."
Someone probably will ask whether I believe in any moral absolutes. Well, for example, I can't think of any situation where it would be okay to kidnap, torture, and murder someone. But that was an easy one. What about murder? If, by some circumstance, I found myself in a position to kill but not capture Osama bin Laden, I'd probably do so. I could try to define it as something other than murder (e.g., justice or preventing the deaths of more innocent people), but there I'd go again with subjectivity and moral relativism. If murder is truly wrong according to a just God, then I'd have to let Osama go, and let God deal with him when he eventually dies. As for the innocent people he's killed or may kill in the future, well, if they're truly innocent, they'll go to heaven, right, so what's the big deal?
As with proving the existence of God, how can the existence of moral absolutes be proven? And if they do exist, how is it possible for humans to know what they are?
Let's not stray off topic. If (speaking hypothetically) there is a Transcendent Being and this Transcendent Being issues moral edicts, such edicts would then constitute Transcendent morality.
Whether or not you believe in the existence of God or moral absolutes matters not with respect to the OP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HonuMan
People who believe in moral absolutes make subjective judgments about whether they are adhering to those moral absolutes, just as do people who don't believe in moral absolutes.
If you mean to assert that both theists and atheists fail to adhere to certain morals - I agree. However, as I asserted in my original post, disagreements over moral absolutes would not equate to an absence of moral absolutes. An example would be the O. J. Simpson trial. In truth, Simpson was either guilty or innocent. Disagreements over his guilt or innocence would not change the actual facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HonuMan
They way I see it, we're all moral relativists.
Yes, it's quite clear that you agree with the OP. If no Transcendent Being exists then, logically, all morality becomes relative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HonuMan
For example, I once knew a Christian who acknowledged proudly that she believed in black-and-white, Bible-based morality, and that she believed in capital punishment. I pointed out that "Thou shalt not kill" sounds black-and-white to me. (And what about "Judge not lest ye be judged?") She said that the true meaning of the commandment is "Thou shalt not murder," and that God is okay with putting murderers to death. So who decides what constitutes murder? In the US, generally only first-degree (premeditated) murder is a capital offense. Second-degree murder isn't, nor are crimes such as aggravated homicide. Many countries have banned capital puninshment entirely. My point is that subjective judgements factor in at every step of the way, from whether we as a society sanction capital punishment, and for what crimes, and based on how much evidence, and whether extenuating circumstances come into play. And let's not forgot the long list of Old Testament capital offenses that are no longer capital offenses in most of the Judeo-Christian world. People have always been selective about which aspects of Biblical morality they adhere to.
How does simple failure to adhere to a moral absolute constitute proof that there is no moral absolute?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HonuMan
So let's move from murder to "Is it wrong to lie?" In general, I'd say yes, but my qualifier tells you that I don't believe in moral absolutes. For example, suppose a coworker asks me, "Do you like my new shoes?" Do I say, "Yes, they're very nice" (which is what I'd say), or do I tell the truth: "No, I think they're absolutely hideous."? Or, more poignantly, suppose you lose your job, and your seven-year-old son looks at you with worry and asks, "Are we going to be okay?" Do you say, "Yes, everything's going to be just fine," or do you tell the truth: "I don't know. We don't have much money in the bank. If I don't find a new job in, say, six months, there's a good chance we'll lose our house and become homeless."
Your qualifier does nothing to prove that God or moral absolutes do not exist. As I stated, if no Transcendent Being exists, there can be no Transcendent law. If, in truth, a Transcendent Being does exist, and this Transcendent Being has established Transcendent Law, then, moral absolutes would in fact exist and your simple unwillingness to recognize them would only be a personal and subjective denial of truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HonuMan
Someone probably will ask whether I believe in any moral absolutes. Well, for example, I can't think of any situation where it would be okay to kidnap, torture, and murder someone. But that was an easy one. What about murder? If, by some circumstance, I found myself in a position to kill but not capture Osama bin Laden, I'd probably do so. I could try to define it as something other than murder (e.g., justice or preventing the deaths of more innocent people), but there I'd go again with subjectivity and moral relativism. If murder is truly wrong according to a just God, then I'd have to let Osama go, and let God deal with him when he eventually dies. As for the innocent people he's killed or may kill in the future, well, if they're truly innocent, they'll go to heaven, right, so what's the big deal?
Do you subscribe to the Law of Non-contradiction? Either God exists and there are moral absolutes or God does not exist and morality is relative.
Is murder wrong because it's wrong or is murder wrong because the atheist says it's wrong?
How does simple failure to adhere to a moral absolute constitute proof that there is no moral absolute?
The problem isn't with merely adherence to moral absolutes, but rather what are moral absolutes and who makes that determination.
If these moral absolutes are biblically based, as I assume you would argue, and since there is a range of sincere opinions by adherents to the bible regarding what constitutes these absolutes and more importantly how these absolutes are to be applied in real life, then we are left with the same problem that you have asserted in the past; who decides what is right and what is wrong?
Just amongst the Abrahamic faithful, there are some 30,000 distinct Protestant denominations, two forms of catholicism, at least six versions of Judaism and just as many versions of Islam, all vying for the title of true interpreter of the faith. That isn't an indicative of conflict over adherence, that is clear evidence a conflict over what actually constitutes a singular and absolute law.
In short, the absolute morality of Abrahamic religions depends on which Abrahamic religion one choses to adhere to. Given the vast and disparate interpretations, even believers must choose which of these so-called moral is right or wrong, relative to their own personal opinions, feelings and traditions. In short, they must rely on the same set of choices confronting non-adherents when it comes to making moral decisions, their own reasoning, which in the end, brings us back to the one simple fact, man chooses what is right or wrong, be it the clergy, the laity or those who dwell completely outside of any theist belief system.
If these moral absolutes are biblically based, as I assume you would argue, and since there is a range of sincere opinions by adherents to the bible regarding what constitutes these absolutes and more importantly how these absolutes are to be applied in real life, then we are left with the same problem that you have asserted in the past; who decides what is right and what is wrong?
To answer your question, we all have a responsibility to seek/decide what is true. This would not equate to relativity. The truth is what it is - irrespective of what our success or lack of success may be in attaining it.
If God exists, and if the Bible is true, how in any way would a "range of sincere opinions" over the laws, as presented in the Bible, change the actual reality that such laws exists?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
Just amongst the Abrahamic faithful, there are some 30,000 distinct Protestant denominations, two forms of catholicism, at least six versions of Judaism and just as many versions of Islam, all vying for the title of true interpreter of the faith. That isn't an indicative of conflict over adherence, that is clear evidence a conflict over what actually constitutes a singular and absolute law.
...and your point is?
Again, how would disagreements over the law prove that God and moral absolutes do not exist?
There is the old saying that 'nobody's perfect.' People are naturally fallible and will tend to disagree over pretty much anything and everything. So what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
In short, the absolute morality of Abrahamic religions depends on which Abrahamic religion one choses to adhere to. Given the vast and disparate interpretations, even believers must choose which of these so-called moral is right or wrong, relative to their own personal opinions, feelings and traditions. In short, they must rely on the same set of choices confronting non-adherents when it comes to making moral decisions, their own reasoning, which in the end, brings us back to the one simple fact, man chooses what is right or wrong, be it the clergy, the laity or those who dwell completely outside of any theist belief system.
What about truth? How does failure to recognize truth change or cancel out the truth?
To answer your question, we all have a responsibility to seek/decide what is true. This would not equate to relativity. The truth is what it is - irrespective of what our success or lack of success may be in attaining it.
If it is the responsibility to seek and to decide what is true, then the truth is necessarily (your view) solely dependent on the individuals interpretation of what they find in the course of their personal and individual search. The truth, then "is what it is" based upon what an individual believe that truth to be.
So, lets for the moment assume that this god exists, and that the Bible is true, thus establishing the existence of a set of laws, do these laws not require individual judgements as to their applicability based upon their own interpretation of what is true and what is not based upon their own personal search and interpretation? And, doesn't the application of these laws depend solely upon this personal interpretation?
For example, even if we take the broadest interpretation of the commandment, thou shalt not murder, does this law not require further amplification, what constitutes murder? Thou shalt not commit premeditated murder? What about self defense, vehicular homicide as a result of driving while intoxicated, executing a person for a crime? Each of those examples is an exhibit of the relative nature of Biblical edicts. We apply it in this case but not in another. However, if we take the commandment to be thou shalt not kill, then we remove the relative nature of the law, but only a very small minority of theist hold to such an absolute view. So, again, who gets to decide what the law is?
Quote:
Again, how would disagreements over the law prove that God and moral absolutes do not exist?
If you can't agree what they are, and how they are to be applied, then how can you argue their absoluteness.
Quote:
There is the old saying that 'nobody's perfect.' People are naturally fallible and will tend to disagree over pretty much anything and everything. So what?
As you have consistently argued, who gets to decide!
Quote:
How does failure to recognize truth change or cancel out the truth?
Well of course it doesn't, the only problem comes from determining who is recognizing what.
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.
