I don't have enough faith to be an atheist ch 2

[spongebob]

I have to keep proving the same thing until you get it.

Logically self-defeating statement. You haven't proved it yet, therefore you can't possibly "keep proving it".

The statement doesn't say, "from my personal subjective point of view, all my own points of view are subjective." It is saying that all points of view are subjective. You seem to agree with me that this would be self- refuting as you said, "If you state that "all things are subjective", and I say, yes, I agree, then the statement becomes invalid. "
So are we in agreement then that it is self-refuting? So it takes two minds to create a self refuting statement? Do you agree that all statements are self refuting? Yes or no?

Nice job of moving the goal post, Tony...and changing the entire meaning of the whole assertion.

[spongebob]

Just because I was getting sick of listening to Tony mentally masturbate his way through what he considers "logic", I decided to retrace the tread and figure out what the point of his assertions were in the first place. Surely there was something more useful buried in there. And I realized that some very good comments were made by Pesudo, Slaugh, SS and others. Most of which Tony just rejected whilst making progressively elusive and meaningless assertions.

So, some of the comments made, in a nutshell, were that morality and meaning are not absolute things, yet it's pretty easy to demonstrate that regardless of background or religious beliefs, people often agree on at least some moral issues. For some weird reason, Tony presents arguments that don't relate well to this. Out of all the people commenting on this topic, Tony's is the only one that just seems to make little sense. It doesn't mean I agree with all the others, just that I can at least make sense of them.

The discussion then turns to "meaning", which I guess is somehow related to "morals". Tony asserts, "

OK, it is either actual meaning or illusionary meaning, in both cases, we sense meaning. But there is no midway point between actual meaning and illusionary meaning. To act incredulous at the suggestion makes you sound balanced and wise, but it fails philosophically. I understand we all sense meaning, and since we sense it, we experience meaning, but simply experiencing meaning isn't enough for this discussion. Here, we are trying to "explain" it. "

Which I think he pretty much fails to do. I didn't even see him attempt to explain meaning.

If you are a complicated result of natural selection by chance changes over time and lack a designer, or a personal cause, and lack any future after death, then any concept of meaning is well, meaningless. The only meaning you have is the illusion of meaning you experience when you are alive, that is it. But even that is not what we are discussing, we are talking about real meaning and purpose.

Tony, how can you make a statement that with either "illusionary meaning or actual meaning", we sense meaning; then later make the statement that there is a difference between "real" meaning and "illusionary" meaning? You spent, what, 5 posts arguing with me about self-refuting concepts, but then you make a statement so clearly contradictory that a child could see through it? I don't get it, Tony. I think maybe you just get tangled up with trying to "win" all the time instead of trying to contribute to the discussion.

I liken this to a song I just heard recently. The best line went something like this:

there's always going to be another mountain,
I'm always going to want to make it move,
always going to be an uphill battle,
sometimes I'm gonna have to lose,
ain't about how fast I get there,
ain't about what's waiting on the other side,
it's the climb
It's all about the climb

The point is that we all make our own meaning in life. Christians like to talk about it all being about the "other side", but when you examine their daily life, it really isn't. Christians live virtually the same as everyone else, with the exception of a very few. But even those very few still exhibit qualities that anyone can relate to, regardless of religion. So I don't buy for one moment that there is something more qualitatively valid about "meaning" to a Christian than to an atheist or a Wiccan. Meaning is our lives simply differ. A christian may believe they are living for something beyond their own life, but hey, so can a non-christian. Would anyone really argue that Ghandi's life wasn't full of meaning extending far beyond his own life? I think it's fine to believe in something, even something you can't prove, but I don't think it's fair or valuable to constantly beat people over the head with platitudes about your own personal jesus. That's what atheists mean when they talk about christians claiming to have a monopoly on morality.

Please explain how you can find a midway point between, the actual ultimate value of a human life and no value of a human life?

Tony demanded this from someone. I don't think the original post was trying to make this argument at all. Once again, I think Tony just completely misunderstood the point.

**
Tony says to OzAnt,

"So I will assume you agree that there seems to be right or wrong to some extent? The discussion is now, how is that so? Is it because we evolved that way and there is no objective real standard? Or is it because as human beings we have the capability of "sensing", or better yet discovering these truths in the same way we discover logic, math, music, beauty and love.

Just because there are some issues that are not clear, doesn't change the discussion at all. All I need is one single moral code that is real and I win the discussion. You need to show that "none" are real and that all are an illusion to win your argument. "

I skipped a few lines but didn't change his meaning any. What I don't get is why Tony is so much more concerned with winning an argument than he is with contributing to a conversation. It isn't an argument he's really going to "win", and even if he did, he wouldn't win anything anyway, so what's the point? So, he just concentrates all his energy on trying to tie up logical avenues so that it appears (to him anyway) that he's won something (what, I don't know).

There are so many more avenues to discuss. For instance, finding agreement on just one moral code isn't such a startling thing, especially when that moral situation involves serious implications, such as death. The real challenge comes when the moral predicament becomes far more subtle. It would be more interesting to me to see the results of a thought experiment based on a more subtle moral predicament. Simple matter is, people do agree on some, but not all, moral issues. Asking why is useful. Declaring yourself the winner of an argument doesn't mean it is so.

I've always been fascinated by the fact that animals follow some of the same moral codes that humans do. Experimental observation bears this out. Why? Does this support evolutionary roots of morality or something entirely different? If, as many Christians charge, god created only humans with the capacity to now right from wrong, then right there is a serious contradiction that Christians must deal with.

There does appear to be some degree of consistent moral judgment among people, regardless of religious beliefs. But, of course, the thought experiment discussed isn't all inclusive. It presents a very compelling argument for moral objectivity, yet I'm far from convinced that this objectivity reaches the depths that the conversation eventually went on to assume. Tony seemed to just run with that as if the issue were done. To me it's far from done and I maintain that morals vary widely depending on what the subject matter is. Taking a microscopic slice isn't the best way to measure this supposed moral objectivity.

This statement was made by someone:

Take abstract expressionist art, for example. Is all "meaning" in such works of art illusionary? Not really, because it's the intention of the artist that the viewer come to their own interpretation. That's the point.

To which Tony replied:

Just because some things are on a continuum doesn't mean everything is. Just because some things are subjective, doesn't mean everything is. In fact, the very statement, "all things are subjective" is self defeating and therefore proves it's opposite. The canvas for the subjective painting is either real or unreal, the universe is in existence or it is not. And all things that are on a continuum are attached or refer to things that are not on a continuum.

I can't see how Tony's comments relate to the previous post at all. He seems to be going in a tangent, at best. But I can certainly see where the original post was going. It's just examining how "art" and "meaning" are in the eye of the beholder. It's why some people find it meaningful to engage in epic struggles online while others consider it pointless (which I'm doing right now). You can't really judge that and I doubt you can quantify it either. There's no need to make rash statements that "everything isn't on a continuum". I don't see that being asserted, so why attempt to refute it? I think maybe Tony is trying to wrestle with the idea that meaning is a subjective thing for people, and he doesn't like how that sounds because it must threaten his spiritual beliefs, so he goes on a quest to try and prove that such a thing isn't even possible...and fails miserably. Well, the quest wasn't necessary. "Meaning" is a subjective experience, Tony.

For me, I don't see anything here that would deter me from finding meaning or value in spiritual pursuits, if I were so inclined. I've found many things in religion that are so easily debunked and refuted as hurtful or dangerous to society, enough to make me forever wary of church organizations. But personal spirituality is somewhat different. Its boundaries are less defined and thus, less likely to break when challenged. But for me, spiritual pursuits don't provide much value, if any, so I don't spend much time on it. But I do engage in occasional reading of spiritual subjects, constantly seeking some angle I might have missed or misunderstood. I think this attitude is threatening and scary to a lot of Christians. I don't really care.

[marc]

Wow SB, great post, thanks for taking the time you must have spent on it.

I think maybe Tony is trying to wrestle with the idea that meaning is a subjective thing for people, and he doesn't like how that sounds because it must threaten his spiritual beliefs, so he goes on a quest to try and prove that such a thing isn't even possible...and fails miserably. Well, the quest wasn't necessary. "Meaning" is a subjective experience, Tony.

During the whole post I kept thinking this was the entire point and then you said it (in different words), it's something I've long held to be the crux of the religious/non-religious world views. It's hard for me to put into words, it's something I feel strongly but sounds way harsher in words than I think I really mean it to be. To me, this nutshell is (ok here I go, bad words to express the thought but all I can come up with) an "inner strength". I think it's a bold and difficult thing to do to willingly forego the "nice" things about being part of a religion, the social aspects are great, the "Meaning", the certainty of your beliefs, the comfort and relief of a belief in an afterlife of some sort, etc. I think it takes this "inner strength" to be non-religious in our very religious world. It takes a "big person" to say "I don't know" and honestly not be bothered by it when it's so easy to just go to your local church/mosque/temple and "know" everything.

(Now before anyone's panties start bunching, this could be complete delusion. I could be completely wrong and what I see as "strength" could be something else. The "blind faith" approach could really be the "stronger" worldview but I don't think so. I'm willing to honestly admit that I might be wrong about anything I believe ... prove me wrong.)

So, from this what I gather is that the more vocal, strident and inflexible someone is, is more inversely proportional to the strength of their faith. To me, someone like Scott who on the surface may seem (sorry Scott) wishy-washy about their faith and beliefs are actually the ones whose faith is stronger. Scott has the "inner strength" to seriously question and honestly examine his faith while someone like Tony (who as you put it, has his spiritual beliefs threatened) ... well ... I'll just leave it at that.

Thanks again SB, very thought provoking!!

[Jason M]

I've always been fascinated by the fact that animals follow some of the same moral codes that humans do. Experimental observation bears this out. Why? Does this support evolutionary roots of morality or something entirely different? If, as many Christians charge, god created only humans with the capacity to now right from wrong, then right there is a serious contradiction that Christians must deal with.

Actually the bible never says he only endowed men with wisdom, it talks about how each animal has however much wisdom god decided to give it.

[OzAnt]

Just because some things are subjective, doesn't mean everything is. In fact, the very statement, "all things are subjective" is self defeating and therefore proves it's opposite.

I'm always amazed at the fallacious logic Tony can cook up. Tony, just where do you get this stuff? What logical argument can you possibly make to support this claim? I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the base claim here, that all things are subjective or not subjective, but I just don't see any logic in your claim that such a statement is "self defeating".

It seems to me, that this whole conversation started going south right about here.

I think Tony covers his reasoning pretty well, when he responds later on to Bob:

OK, let's try this again... the statement "All things are subjective" is either an objective statement, or a subjective one. If it is objective, it violoates it's own premise, namely that all things are subjective. But if it is subjective, then it is not actually saying anything.

However, the conclusion he tries to draw from his reasoning, is - well I don't think I even have a word for it. Tony in fact, had also gone on to say:

The canvas for the subjective painting is either real or unreal, the universe is in existence or it is not. And all things that are on a continuum are attached or refer to things that are not on a continuum.

So, the question is this; Is the standard as to which something is judged to be moral, real or not? I say yes, you say ???

I say, give me some repeatable, testable, verifiable evidence. In fact, in a nutshell, that's the actual difference between being objective and being subjective. It's not objective if there's no evidence.

Quite simply, I don't follow the logic of the argument. Tony, your premises don't logically lead to your conclusion. You may as well have said, "My car is either on the road or it isn't. The universe is in existence or it is not. Therefore, a cat will never be born fluorescent purple." ...for all the sense it made to me.

Bob, as I see it, was equally confused by what Tony had just said. So confused that he went on to make, what was on the face of it, quite a nice clunker:

But what makes it "objective" if only one person asserts it?

As I said earlier, I wouldn't be asking a magistrate that's hearing my case that question.

What makes an idea objective is multiple points of view, Tony.

It's not about the number of people that state something, or their point of view, it's about the facts based on evidence. The magistrate is one person, and they strive to be (and succeed, most of the time) to be objective. In other words, they find somebody guilty or innocent on the evidence of the facts, not on, say, how shifty they do or don't look.

However, I can see what Bob's saying. He's arguing that the more people that weigh in on something, the closer the probability that the truth will become evident. However, the sample of the population weighing in, matters. For instance:

Let's say my kid has a cough and I say, he has a cold. Let's say my wife agrees with me. Furthermore, my neighbours come to visit and they too agree that it's just a cold. Has my kid got a cold?

Now, let's say a doctor comes along, performs a diagnosis and says my kid's got bronchitis. According to what Bob wrote, the kid's most probably got a cold; and we know this is not right. Why? Because the sample [we picked] of the population telling us it's a cold. In this particular case, the doctor's opinion (the doctor, being a sample population of 1) is the one most likely to be objective. The family/friends opinion (sample size of 4 or more), is much more likely to be subjective. And objectivity has shown itself to be a much better mechanism for arriving at the truth.

The thing that makes people like Darwin stand out, apart from his intelligence, is that he was a person whose objectivity overrode his subjectivity. Subjectively, he knew that God had rolled up his sleeves, picked up some dirt, created Adam & Eve and breathed life into mankind. Objectively though, the facts were telling him differently. And, in my opinion, what makes him truly great is that he allowed the facts to win. He allowed his objectivity to win out over his subjectivity.

As I said though, I can see why Bob mightn't have made a lot of sense to me here. He was presented with an illogical argument from Tony, from which no sense could be made; and he tried to make some sense out of it.

I believe when Bob said that you got objectivity from multiple points of view, he was thinking along the lines of, say, getting a second doctor's opinion on a diagnosis IF what the first doctor diagnosed doesn't sound right. Rian actually described this with her foot operation recently. The first doctor's diagnosis didn't make sense with what she was feeling. So, she sought the advice of a 2nd professional. The keyword here is professional. Both of these samples of the population are trained medical experts. They are people trained to take in the facts (via observation and questioning) and based on that evidence, form a diagnosis. And, obviously one got it wrong in Rian's case, and one got it right. That's not to say they aren't both equally competent either. It may have been that Rian was better able to answer questions and state how her foot felt by the time she'd gotten 'round to seeing the second doctor, so he had better facts to work with. I don't know and it doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion.

What matters, is that Bob is also right in his thinking. He is thinking like a scientist. Scientists are very critical of each other - which is a good thing, because this gives the facts that eventuate from findings, weight. So, when you have a sample of the population that's a bunch of people that are trained to be objective, then there's a good chance that if a bunch of them agree on something, it's probably going to be as correct as it can be at this point in time. So, I can certainly see why Bob would have said that "what makes an idea objective, is multiple points of view." Note too, that this is why in the US Supreme Court, there's not 1 judge, but 9. It's not one, because as trained as these people are, there is still the chance that one single individual may well not be as objective as they ought to be.

I think Jim was on the money when he said,

I think Tony is misunderstanding and misapplying...

He'd have to be, to be making so little sense.

Ant

[JustJim]

The thing that makes people like Darwin stand out, apart from his intelligence, is that he was a person whose objectivity overrode his subjectivity. Subjectively, he knew that God had rolled up his sleeves, picked up some dirt, created Adam & Eve and breathed life into mankind. Objectively though, the facts were telling him differently. And, in my opinion, what makes him truly great is that he allowed the facts to win. He allowed his objectivity to win out over his subjectivity.

IMO, this is the foundational hallmark of intelligent reasoning, and potentially makes us all as "great" as Darwin: the ability to change one's ideas, opinions, and beliefs, based on evidence as it becomes available. For example, there's nothing "wrong" with believing in a literal, six twenty-four-hour-day creation as described in Genesis - provided you live before the advent of scientific learning. But if you live in an age of science and reason, as we all do, then it is "wrong" to continue to believe in the Genesis story (as literal truth) in the face of all the evidence that points to a much different explanation for the origin of the universe and life on earth. It's also, I think, "wrong" to continue to rigidly hold on to the Genesis explanation for the "origin of species" in the face of literally tons of evidence pointing to evolution as a better explanation. And when I say "wrong" in these contexts, I don't mean morally wrong. I mean intellectually, rationally "wrong". I'm not saying it's "stupid" or "irrational" to ignore a plethora of solid scientific evidence in favor of the primitive, ancient, superstitious explanations of people who knew and understood absolutely nothing about how the universe works- although I suppose I could. But I won't....

Jim

[spongebob]

OK, Ant, I'll accept your criticisms of my argument. I can't claim to be a serious philosopher. But the point I'm getting across after all that was over is that Tony lit off on a tangent about subjectivity. I probably shouldn't have even questioned his flimsy logic because he was challenging an assertion that had not even been made. No one that I could find made an assertion equivolent to his "all things are subjective" issue. In retrospect, I should have addressed this fact first of all.

And one thing I want to point out to you about logic and evidence. If you're talking about pure logic, then evidence is not necessarily a component of a logical proof. Concepts themselves can be evaluated without evidence as part of the analysis. I don't get into many debates about pure logic; it isn't my favorite thing to discuss and it tends to spiral out of control. In fact, I have a hard time with conversations about "meaning' or "morals" because people often drive the conversation into philosophy. These things can be considered on personal terms and at that level I think more people are able to contribute useful ideas.

[tonyenglish7]

I have to keep proving the same thing until you get it.

Logically self-defeating statement. You haven't proved it yet, therefore you can't possibly "keep proving it".

The statement doesn't say, "from my personal subjective point of view, all my own points of view are subjective." It is saying that all points of view are subjective. You seem to agree with me that this would be self- refuting as you said, "If you state that "all things are subjective", and I say, yes, I agree, then the statement becomes invalid. "
So are we in agreement then that it is self-refuting? So it takes two minds to create a self refuting statement? Do you agree that all statements are self refuting? Yes or no?

Nice job of moving the goal post, Tony...and changing the entire meaning of the whole assertion.

I quoted you word for word so how could I change your meaning? See the underlined part, that is you! Do you agree with the statement in question? Yes or no?

[spongebob]

You changed it by changing it from "all things" to "all points of view". Two different things. But I'm tired of going in circles with you on this, Tony. When I realized that your argument did not relate to the issue at hand and was something you came up with yourself, it became irrelevant to me. The thread topic was interesting, so it would make more sense to guide the conversation back to that.

[spongebob]

So I went back to the beginning of the thread and read some of the posts again. The podcast has already gotten lost in my mind. Maybe I should listen to it again.

There are assertions that Tony makes that are common among Christians, though not absolute by a long shot. And one of the most challenging seems to be this question of what morals mean and just where they come from. It's just not an easy question to answer in totality. I can't tolerate the absoluteness with which Tony addresses the question, tossing out the statement, "There is no middle ground possible," so casually. Put simply, at our level, the universe is just not that discrete (discrete as in one's or zero's, blacks or whites). I do not accept the assertion that human beings experience the universe in discrete quantums. Our perception is more continuous than that. Look, it's easy to blurt out such things, Tony. It's a whole nother thing to really back them up with sound arguments, and I've yet to hear a really satisfying argument that does just that.

Sure, morals are real emotions that people experience; animals, too. But acknowledging this doesn't automatically make them supernatural in origin.

Abortion is a very, very good example. Again, Tony chooses to approach it as a discrete issue, is the fetus a person or not? At what phase of development, I ask. At 6 months, certainly. At 3 months, probably. At one week, probably not. One second after conception, certainly not. So when did it move from proto-person to person? I really don't know, but I'm not comfortable with shoehorning 300 million people into the box that says, one second after conception, it's a person. Certainly, convenience is a reason for abortion at some level. But I think it's appropriate and has enough popular support to move that dial a little, to allow for some degree of personal choice. This way no one is forced to accept another's beliefs.

Tony made these comments regarding the role of the populace in morals:

So everything is based upon majority rule? How do you justify social progress? Was Apartied ok? Was slavery OK? Were the Nazi's justified in thinking the Jews were less then human? See, under your rule that majority rule is what determines what is right, no progress is possible.

Even your own rule, that majority rule determines what is morally right, is not supported by the majority of people and so it fails it’s own standard.

First of all, I think this kind of response inaccurately characterizes majority opinion. Majority opinion wasn't necessarily the driving force for some of those evils Tony dredged up. In many cases it's a group of people with power who are capable of forcing their will on a majority of the population. Apartied is a good example of this. Of course majority does influence many moral codes, such as the attitudes toward homosexuals. Until recently, Americans had a poor view of homosexuals and the general view was that they were defective in some way. Attitudes have changed drastically and this pejorative attitude no long holds majority support. I don't believe this means that the actual moral value of homosexuality changed during this time, of course. I believe this represents a shift in the value of individual rights. So it's clear that declaring the shortcomings of a system where a majority determines exactly what is and is not "moral" is not how the world works. It's far more subtle and complicated than that.

Obviously if there are no sentient beings, there is no morality. So at the very least, morals (as we know them) are properties of humanity. The question is: Do morals exist independent of any particular human or group of humans, any particular motive or any action?

Oh, there's no doubt that animals behave according to moral codes, and they tend to be very similar to that of humans. Experimental observation has determined this.

Yes, morals have to do with persons, which are more then simply physical beings. Morals govern the right and wrong and oughtness between persons including God who grounds them. I think the problem Emery has is he has already determined that only the material world exists (without justification btw), and so by definition, anything that is not made of atoms, is an illusion or a subjective relative system evolved for survival.

Tony, the human mind doesn't appear to consist of anything, so far as we know, but I know I have one. I'm the only one who can sense it, so to everyone else, it may as well be an illusion, but such is the same of every Christian's mind and his proclaimed love of god. Every thought and every feeling. This illusion crosses all boundaries, Tony. I agree that morals do largely govern how we behave. Yet I don't see how it follows that god must be responsible for them. There is no clear connection there unless you glue it together with faith.

Morals exist, are actual and need an explanation for grounding. A moral God is the only way to explain them.

This statement is fine if it weren't for the fact that it simply cannot be verified. There's no way to prove this position. You can believe it if you wish, but there are actually very good models of morals that don't include gods, so the god model clearly isn't the "only" model, and the god model isn't without faults either, so it's difficult to say that it's the "best" model. It's just one model.

[Mr. Sluagh]

How about this, Tony:

"It is impossible to prove that there are no absolute truths. However, given that the flawed nature of human perception makes it at least extremely difficult to determine whether a given truth is absolute, it is safest to assume, until further notice, that any given supposed truth is subjective and open to question, because that is the most conservative assumption."

Is what you said true? If you say yes, then it is an objective statement. It has more parts but fails under the same cliff. See, this statement is a "supposed" truth claim itself. It therefore is "open to question". What is open to question? The fact that every statement, (which this is), is open to question. It therefore jumps off the same cliff as the more simple, "all statements are subjective".

This being the case, there are at least some statements that are not subjective. For instance, "some truth is knowable". ... ..

What I said isn't a truth statement. It's a working assumption. There's a huge difference. It's impossible to prove that any truth statement is true without bypassing the limits of human thought and perception, so one can't prove that any truth is objective or subjective. If anything was objective, neither I nor anyone I know could tell, because we're all subjects. This doesn't mean that nothing is objectively true (meaning, I suppose, that it's what God would perceive); one might argue that it's just as fine to assume that something is subjective as that it's objective, but then anyone could claim that any intuition or fantasy they had was objectively true no matter what anyone else thought and no one could argue with them. Thus, it's best to assume that we do live a common reality made of information that's true no matter who you are, while acknowledging that our perceptions are flawed and remain open to question.

Truth may be, for all intents and purposes, democratic, if only because the best of all the terrible ways to verify what something is is to show it to a bunch of knowledgeable people and see if they can come to a consensus on it. If it weren't democratic, we wouldn't know. But in our democracy, a great majority of voters have agreed that they live in an objective reality with truths that hold true no matter what everyone else says. Thus, until everyone in the world becomes a hardcore postmodernist, there is still a use in accumulating knowledge through observable evidence.

I don't know if what I just said is true, I just think it's useful. I like useful things. Can't say why.

[tonyenglish7]

How about this, Tony:

"It is impossible to prove that there are no absolute truths. However, given that the flawed nature of human perception makes it at least extremely difficult to determine whether a given truth is absolute, it is safest to assume, until further notice, that any given supposed truth is subjective and open to question, because that is the most conservative assumption."

Is what you said true? If you say yes, then it is an objective statement. It has more parts but fails under the same cliff. See, this statement is a "supposed" truth claim itself. It therefore is "open to question". What is open to question? The fact that every statement, (which this is), is open to question. It therefore jumps off the same cliff as the more simple, "all statements are subjective".

This being the case, there are at least some statements that are not subjective. For instance, "some truth is knowable". ... ..

What I said isn't a truth statement. It's a working assumption. There's a huge difference. It's impossible to prove that any truth statement is true without bypassing the limits of human thought and perception, so one can't prove that any truth is objective or subjective. If anything was objective, neither I nor anyone I know could tell, because we're all subjects. This doesn't mean that nothing is objectively true (meaning, I suppose, that it's what God would perceive); one might argue that it's just as fine to assume that something is subjective as that it's objective, but then anyone could claim that any intuition or fantasy they had was objectively true no matter what anyone else thought and no one could argue with them. Thus, it's best to assume that we do live a common reality made of information that's true no matter who you are, while acknowledging that our perceptions are flawed and remain open to question.

Truth may be, for all intents and purposes, democratic, if only because the best of all the terrible ways to verify what something is is to show it to a bunch of knowledgeable people and see if they can come to a consensus on it. If it weren't democratic, we wouldn't know. But in our democracy, a great majority of voters have agreed that they live in an objective reality with truths that hold true no matter what everyone else says. Thus, until everyone in the world becomes a hardcore postmodernist, there is still a use in accumulating knowledge through observable evidence.

I don't know if what I just said is true, I just think it's useful. I like useful things. Can't say why.

Yes, I agree with the practical side of this discussion. Of course, we as a society have no choice but to discuss and determine what is right and wrong and as individuals, we are obligated to push for what is right.

The question is, how do we know what is right? I propose that morals are discovered, not invented by groups. Some groups are better at determining what is right and wrong and with a good effort, can move in the right direction towards morality. There are more moral societies then others.

Most of the basics of morals are known clearly by direct reflection, ie. do not murder, steal, rape, torture, lie etc... Sometimes we get into cultural cloudiness like when slavery was legal. Many Christians even were in support of slavery, yet they were wrong. (Most were against salvery and the grounding of human rights of individuals is based upon a Christian world view of persons). So even a culture needs to attempt to "progress".

But how do we determine "progress"? What are we moving away from and what are we moving towards? What are the guideposts that we are passing? If, truth, morals and personhood are subjective and morals are an emergent property of culture and beyond that there is no objective standard, or grounding of actual morality, then it is all just a trick, an illusion, a flaw in the DNA that only exists to promote the DNA to success but nothing more.

And the fact that logically, some truth is knowable, and the fact that we all experience the incumbency of Morals albeit not perfectly, and therefore Morals must be something rather then nothing, the best explanation of this raw reality is God. Because God's existence explains the mind to mind, person to person obligation, and the authority it takes to create the "oughtness".

His character is the only logical grounding because if a higher authority simply stated what was right and wrong, that would be arbitrary, evil could become right and good evil, and if a higher authority was also obligated to live under some higher authority, that would not ground morals.

But the fact that God himself is the good, moral, mind, person, center of purpose, he is therefore the grounding of morals based upon Who HE is, not just some arbitrary or random features of the universe. This is another point of evidence for God. So, either a being we typically call God exists that grounds morals and thus, it all makes sense. Or, morals are a trick of evolution, with no prescriptive incumbency. A simply illusion that developed to aid in the survival of the species just like the horns of a gazelle aids in survival. Yet with these subjective morals, the one that accepts this worldview would be able to beat the system when they felt like it for there own well being and their own happiness without any real guilt or fear of justice.

We find ourselves in the situation where we need to deductively choose the most rational worldview, the one that makes the most sense and works the best when adopted. Theism is the best choice. Unless one rejects the possible existence of God at the onset, of course which would not be a rational way to discuss the existence of God.

[tonyenglish7]

So I went back to the beginning of the thread and read some of the posts again. The podcast has already gotten lost in my mind. Maybe I should listen to it again.

There are assertions that Tony makes that are common among Christians, though not absolute by a long shot. And one of the most challenging seems to be this question of what morals mean and just where they come from. It's just not an easy question to answer in totality. I can't tolerate the absoluteness with which Tony addresses the question, tossing out the statement, "There is no middle ground possible," so casually. Put simply, at our level, the universe is just not that discrete (discrete as in one's or zero's, blacks or whites). I do not accept the assertion that human beings experience the universe in discrete quantums. Our perception is more continuous than that. Look, it's easy to blurt out such things, Tony. It's a whole nother thing to really back them up with sound arguments, and I've yet to hear a really satisfying argument that does just that.

Sure, morals are real emotions that people experience; animals, too. But acknowledging this doesn't automatically make them supernatural in origin.

Abortion is a very, very good example. Again, Tony chooses to approach it as a discrete issue, is the fetus a person or not? At what phase of development, I ask. At 6 months, certainly. At 3 months, probably. At one week, probably not. One second after conception, certainly not. So when did it move from proto-person to person? I really don't know, but I'm not comfortable with shoehorning 300 million people into the box that says, one second after conception, it's a person. Certainly, convenience is a reason for abortion at some level. But I think it's appropriate and has enough popular support to move that dial a little, to allow for some degree of personal choice. This way no one is forced to accept another's beliefs.

Tony made these comments regarding the role of the populace in morals:

So everything is based upon majority rule? How do you justify social progress? Was Apartied ok? Was slavery OK? Were the Nazi's justified in thinking the Jews were less then human? See, under your rule that majority rule is what determines what is right, no progress is possible.

Even your own rule, that majority rule determines what is morally right, is not supported by the majority of people and so it fails it’s own standard.

First of all, I think this kind of response inaccurately characterizes majority opinion. Majority opinion wasn't necessarily the driving force for some of those evils Tony dredged up. In many cases it's a group of people with power who are capable of forcing their will on a majority of the population. Apartied is a good example of this. Of course majority does influence many moral codes, such as the attitudes toward homosexuals. Until recently, Americans had a poor view of homosexuals and the general view was that they were defective in some way. Attitudes have changed drastically and this pejorative attitude no long holds majority support. I don't believe this means that the actual moral value of homosexuality changed during this time, of course. I believe this represents a shift in the value of individual rights. So it's clear that declaring the shortcomings of a system where a majority determines exactly what is and is not "moral" is not how the world works. It's far more subtle and complicated than that.

Obviously if there are no sentient beings, there is no morality. So at the very least, morals (as we know them) are properties of humanity. The question is: Do morals exist independent of any particular human or group of humans, any particular motive or any action?

Oh, there's no doubt that animals behave according to moral codes, and they tend to be very similar to that of humans. Experimental observation has determined this.

Yes, morals have to do with persons, which are more then simply physical beings. Morals govern the right and wrong and oughtness between persons including God who grounds them. I think the problem Emery has is he has already determined that only the material world exists (without justification btw), and so by definition, anything that is not made of atoms, is an illusion or a subjective relative system evolved for survival.

Tony, the human mind doesn't appear to consist of anything, so far as we know, but I know I have one. I'm the only one who can sense it, so to everyone else, it may as well be an illusion, but such is the same of every Christian's mind and his proclaimed love of god. Every thought and every feeling. This illusion crosses all boundaries, Tony. I agree that morals do largely govern how we behave. Yet I don't see how it follows that god must be responsible for them. There is no clear connection there unless you glue it together with faith.

Morals exist, are actual and need an explanation for grounding. A moral God is the only way to explain them.

This statement is fine if it weren't for the fact that it simply cannot be verified. There's no way to prove this position. You can believe it if you wish, but there are actually very good models of morals that don't include gods, so the god model clearly isn't the "only" model, and the god model isn't without faults either, so it's difficult to say that it's the "best" model. It's just one model.

OK, you said I claimed " there is no middle ground possible". But you parsed my statement. On some things there is no middle ground possible. Some things are on a continuum and some are not. Things on a continuum are always features of things that are not.

Acknowledging morals does not make them proof of God but trying to explain their grounding does lead to God.

Yes, I think that majority rule is a great idea based upon the precepts of Theism because it gives the individual power because of the self evident human rights bestowed from God on all human beings. Majority rule is better then the more typical, "power rule". In history and currently, the powerful typically rule, not the majority. This is why the American experiment is theoretically the better system right now.

In atheistic communism, it is the minority ruling party that controls the masses, in fascism the same thing, in a Kingdom and in anarchy; the powerful tend to rule the majority. But the majority is the most practical system, but it doesn't set the standard for the grounding of morals or what is right, the majority is still obligated to finding the most moral answer to any given question.

So the objective moral standard is not set by the majority or the most powerful, it is found elsewhere in the existence of an authoritative, all powerful all Good being. God.

See the post I just finished above (or below) this one. It addresses the rest of your points I think.

[Mr. Sluagh]

Yet with these subjective morals, the one that accepts this worldview would be able to beat the system when they felt like it for there own well being and their own happiness without any real guilt or fear of justice.

Except that when one does that, one has contributed one more drop in the ocean towards the world where everyone does that all the time. That's still a pretty powerful motivation for those who don't think their pathetic lives are more important than their families, their countries, and their species, and we just aren't wired that way. Sometimes, you want a Ferrari, but our impoverished universe can only afford a used Toyota. You can still get around in the Toyota, though.

We find ourselves in the situation where we need to deductively choose the most rational worldview, the one that makes the most sense and works the best when adopted. Theism is the best choice. Unless one rejects the possible existence of God at the onset, of course which would not be a rational way to discuss the existence of God.

It's even less rational for you to think that you can "deduce" the existence of God from the fact that such a being could hypothetically provide something that you really want (a transcendental basis for morality). It's these perverse definitions of deduction and evidence that make your worldview so surreal to me.

[StillSearching]

The question is, how do we know what is right?

OK, now that we know the question, let's set about answering it, again.

I propose that morals are discovered, not invented by groups.

Exactly how would you make a distinction between "discovered" and "invented by groups?" Discovery assumes something that existed already, but was previously unseen or unknown. That's fine, but it is parallel to the concept of invention, creating or utilizing that which previously did not exist or was not used. When would the "wrongness" of slavery have been discovered? When someone was enslaved, and they discovered that it sucked. Forced labor for the benefit of someone else. Frequent mistreatment. No possibility of finding the best possible life for oneself. Bad news. In addition to the suckiness for the slave, the concept of slavery is inefficient - necessary in ancient times because brute manpower was how everything got done, but employing manpower is expensive and comes with the possibility of revolt. One wouldn't need God to "discover" this. All you need is reason.

Some groups are better at determining what is right and wrong and with a good effort, can move in the right direction towards morality. There are more moral societies then others.

You have just made a subjective statement! This is a value statement that you simply cannot make with any authority Tony. Which groups are better? By what standard? Which societies are more moral than others Tony?

Most of the basics of morals are known clearly by direct reflection, ie. do not murder, steal, rape, torture, lie etc... Sometimes we get into cultural cloudiness like when slavery was legal. Many Christians even were in support of slavery, yet they were wrong. (Most were against salvery and the grounding of human rights of individuals is based upon a Christian world view of persons). So even a culture needs to attempt to "progress".

Most of the basics of morals have been vaguely agreed upon. Cultural cloudiness is rampant, and you don't even have to go outside of the United States to find it. We have laws that say, "If you commit X, and we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did commit X, then you will be punished with Y." but this is as close as we will come to consensus, absolute morality. Slavery-era Christians and others who supported slavery were "wrong" by today's standards. In their time, they were perfectly within their rights. The Christians even had the Bible, the word of your God "who is good" to back them up. No wonder they got mixed up.

But how do we determine "progress"? What are we moving away from and what are we moving towards? What are the guideposts that we are passing? If, truth, morals and personhood are subjective and morals are an emergent property of culture and beyond that there is no objective standard, or grounding of actual morality, then it is all just a trick, an illusion, a flaw in the DNA that only exists to promote the DNA to success but nothing more.

Again, "progress" is a value judgement. The invention of the internal combustion engine was progress from some perspectives (faster, more efficient transportation) but regress from others (possible environmental ramifications). And your last statement is an unnecessary and unfounded either/or statement. There is a middle ground. It ain't neat and tidy, but it stands on its own between "absolute superhuman morality" and "an illusion."

And the fact that logically, some truth is knowable, and the fact that we all experience the incumbency of Morals albeit not perfectly, and therefore Morals must be something rather then nothing, the best explanation of this raw reality is God. Because God's existence explains the mind to mind, person to person obligation, and the authority it takes to create the "oughtness".

You have a highly gymnastic yet rigid mind. God could explain morals, but lacking any substantive proof and a worldwide consensus, my money's on morals being grounded in human sociobiology, culture, and survival drive. God is only useful when you disagree but have no valid argument for it.

His character is the only logical grounding because if a higher authority simply stated what was right and wrong, that would be arbitrary, evil could become right and good evil, and if a higher authority was also obligated to live under some higher authority, that would not ground morals.

Gee, I wasted all my time typing rebuttals to all your points when all I really needed to post was this. Did you read this before you posted it? I'm guessing not since it argues against the authority of your absolute morals.

But the fact that God himself is the good, moral, mind, person, center of purpose, he is therefore the grounding of morals based upon Who HE is, not just some arbitrary or random features of the universe. This is another point of evidence for God.

This is not evidence, it is another statement for which you have no evidence. Nice try.

So, either a being we typically call God exists that grounds morals and thus, it all makes sense. Or, morals are a trick of evolution, with no prescriptive incumbency. A simply illusion that developed to aid in the survival of the species just like the horns of a gazelle aids in survival.

See above. You miss the middle ground again. And are you telling us that the horns of a gazelle are an illusion?

Yet with these subjective morals, the one that accepts this worldview would be able to beat the system when they felt like it for there own well being and their own happiness without any real guilt or fear of justice.

No, they could attempt to beat the system. Some would get away with it. Most would be brought to justice by other humans, for whom the perpetrator's crime has consequence. Some would feel guilt. Some would not.

We find ourselves in the situation where we need to deductively choose the most rational worldview, the one that makes the most sense and works the best when adopted.

Finally, a statement I can agree with.

Theism is the best choice.

Damn. Knew it was too good to last.

Unless one rejects the possible existence of God at the onset, of course which would not be a rational way to discuss the existence of God.

What if I don't reject the existence of God, but choose to define the term differently than you do, choose to reject the idea of a personal, moral "good" God, choose to admit that believing in God hasn't provided me with many useful answers and has, instead, provided further and more perplexing questions? See Tony, there is a middle ground. You just choose to try to force existence to fit into a nice, neat, comfortable little package. I sympathize with your need to do this. Sometimes I think I'd prefer it to work that way too. Regardless of how I feel though, it doesn't.