This post is long overdue.
One doesn’t have to look far to find examples of moral outrage aimed towards theists in general and Christians in particular here at The Skeptical Zone.
Judgmentalism, oddly enough, is prevalent. A pungent odor of opprobrium frequently wafts its way forth from the atheist trenches, and it stinks.
Are we all moral realists after all? Do we all now agree on the existence of objective moral values? If so, what are they and what makes them objective?
As for you moral relativists, are there any of you left? Why ought anyone (including especially Erik, Gregory, myself, fifth, William) be subject to the vagaries of what you moral relativists think others ought to be doing or ought not be doing?
Such opprobrium. Based on what, exactly?
If you are going to claim that we have some moral obligation towards you, you really ought to support that claim or retract it.
After all, that’s the intellectually honest thing to do.
Yes. In fact, it’s one of the things I find most morally objectionable about God. Just who does He think He is? What makes Him think He is better than any of us? The nerve of that guy.
I believe that good and bad are external to what any individual human being thinks is good or bad. To me it’s utterly mysterious why some atheists can agree that some things are objective but deny that moral values can be objective.
And then, after denying objective moral values, they then proceed to act as if there are such things as objective moral values.
This is confused. God is not defined as being objectively morally good.
It is God’s goodness that allows good to be objective rather than subjective, as good then has a separate existence from what humans think.
And God cannot be defined as being good, because that would mean that what it means to be good can be defined independently of what it means to be God.
Good cannot exist without God. Good is what God is.
Also kinda makes me wonder why god bothers to make deaf/mute people to begin with. Seems like something stcordova’s Malicious God would do, just to watch them suffer with a life handicap, rather than the supposed god fifthmonarchyman believes in, who allegedly loves us and gives us the gift of language.
I love that question! But we’re still waiting, keiths. What is your explanation and when can we expect to see it?
Even when god is a genocidal rape-approving tyrant. Got it. Good.
I can say that I don’t know why. But what I can say is that God takes credit for doing so.
I think that’s a rhetorical question. So I can deny that blind people and deaf people are “accidents of nature.” There is a lot that I cannot explain. I prefer not to pretend that I can.
for more:
https://carm.org/does-god-create-evil
Can you or the other atheists here explain why you think these things are objectively morally evil?
Why exactly is that a problem?
peace
Why do you think it’s an apologetics story rather than a exploration of the intricacies of language?
peace
Because it strongly suggests that people are themselves able to make up words to convey their meanings.
It’s an obviously fictional claim that credits god for what happens naturally. That’s a common charactistic of apologetics assertions.
Why would I explain how I think they’re “objectively morally evil” when that’s not what I do think?
a) God’s genocide is a problem for you, not for me (not for non-theists in general, nor for the kind of theist who doesn’t believe in a good god). YOU say “good is what god is”. But the god worshipped by the chosen people of your bible is a genocidal rape-ordering slavery-approving maniac. YOU don’t think those are good things, I’m sure. But you still say “good is god” in spite of the fact that your god is all those things you actually think are not good. Your worship is a contradiction with your own thoughts about what is morally good.
It’s not that I think I have “objective” grounds for condemning your god for its immoral behavior. It’s that you yourself have grounds for condemning your god. **Thou shalt not murder** is an “objective” rule you believe in, except god gets a free pass. Why is that? Yeah, children usually still love an abusive parent, but why would anyone hold up that abusive parent as a paragon of virtue?
b) Since I am always right 🙂 my personal (“subjective”)sense of morals is every bit as sound a basis for judgement as any theist’s fallible interpretation of their so-called objective morals.
Even the Pope is known to be fallible when he’s not speaking from his throne-of-infallibility. And he’s not been known to spend many words defending the morality of god’s genocidal history. (They’re smart enough mostly to leave defense of genocide to bottom-sucking scum like William Lane Craig.) Since I’m at least as good as the Pope, I’ll trust my own judgement at least as much as I would trust his – or yours – or any theist’s, and if it turns out that I’m fallible in some case, well, join the club with all y’all.
Better to be subjective and proud, than to pretend to myself that I’m objective, but be wrong.
hotshoe,
It’s ironic, isn’t it? God, who is supposedly perfect, gets held to a much lower standard than humans, who are decidedly imperfect. Up is down in the topsy-turvy world of the omnitheist.
Why do you call them “their” meanings?
When it comes to language we have no right to our own meanings.
I would say that a particular “word” comes to be associated with a particular objective meaning more or less accurately. It’s only because of this that interpretation is possible.
What?
God created nature so he get’s the credit ——-By definition.
peace
Vern Poythress, the author of the book fifthmonarchyman linked, is a perfect example of “religion poisons everything”. He had a more-than-decent intelligence, earned a math PhD from Harvard, taught for a year before he lost his mind in presuppositionalism. Since then, he’s done nothing that can be published by anything except a christian press. Too bad, what a waste.
The book looks convincingly scholarly, if one’s idea of “scholarly”is that it has footnotes 🙂 Here’s the very first one:
Ooh, yeah, I’m convinced!
Not surprising that it sucks in people who are already primed to believe, though.
Of course you are not convinced. If you possibly could be convinced regeneration would not be necessary.
You are not the judge
peace
I’m as much the judge as any other entity inside or outside the universe.
You’re the judge, too, with your own self. It’s just that you are consistently wrong in your judging. But, that’s religion in action. Making people wrong since 50000 BC.
fifth,
I’m still awaiting an answer to this:
And more generally, are you aware of any prominent Christian thinker who shares your belief that the Incarnation preceded the creation of the world?
Mung,
No. I asked a question:
Mung:
fifth:
keiths:
What is your answer, Mung?
Yes. What is your explanation?
Talk to FMM, not me. I’m simply responding to what he says. But it seems you guys have a disagreement here.
And it clearly can, since goodness is a quality humans define, we’re done.
LOL.
again
1) I would never characterize my views the way you did
2) as far as I know I don’t hold any views regarding the incarnation that not shared by all orthodox Christians.
what part of that do you find difficult to understand?
peace
No you are not. God is the judge
You (and me ) are not qualified to judge because you (we) don’t have all the relevant information. In order to judge correctly one must be omniscient.
Despite what you may of heard you are not God.
peace
There no disagreement. We both agree and have said that there is no independent standard of Good outside of God
Here is what Mung said
quote:
And God cannot be defined as being good, because that would mean that what it means to be good can be defined independently of what it means to be God.
Good cannot exist without God. Good is what God is.
end quote:
All I can say is …………true dat……….. and amen
peace
Hey Mung:
Why would I explain that? It is exactly my point that none of these expectations are “objectively moral” in the sense that their “rightness” or “wrongness” derives from objective, absolute morality outside of human devising.
Rather, they originate both in the broad language community in which we participate and with the author of this site. A few were explicitly stated by Lizzie as the site was inaugurated, while others are expectations/assumptions about one another’s behavior that make conversation possible generally.
Specifically, per Paul Grice, the comprehension of ordinary utterances assumes that speakers are being appropriately brief, perspicuous, relevant, and truthful. Listeners utilize those assumptions to recover otherwise underdetermined meanings and intentions. Even highly contentious exchanges can be successful (ie. not break down, solve problems, result in negotiated agreements etc.) if these expectations are respected, and cooperative conversations break down when they are not. None of these are “objective moral values”; they are pragmatic prerequisites for functional conversation. If what is wanted is functional conversation, then they need to be honored. When they are badly violated, particularly deliberately, opprobrium is appropriate in a context (like this site) where the stated aspiration is to have functional conversations about difficult issues.
Perhaps that is why things have broken down so badly here – those expectations aren’t all that different than the site rules, and they are so often neglected.
Same answer.
Ordinary courtesy would suggest that if, for example, one poses a question directly to a participant, and that participant offers a good faith response comporting with the site rules, one should respond. While there is no explicit obligation to do so, others may observe the discourtesy and will often speculate vis motives. With each failure to respond, the inference that one is unable to respond becomes more tenable.
Well you’re sort of winning me over to your side on that one. It’s becoming more clear to me that we shouldn’t trust your ability to reason very much.
This is great FMM, you’ve basically just hit the reset button on our discussion and we can go back to the beginning, and I have to take your hand and walk you through all the same gibbering nonsense again just to arrive here. Amazing.
If all else fails, just start over with the same mindless assertions.
So god is good that is what it means to be god. Yes, because that’s how you define god: An objectively morally good being. You’ve stated as much several times. You’ve still not shown how this is anything but your subjective definition.
“fifthmonarchyman: God is objectively good by definition.
fifthmonarchyman: That is part of what it means to be God
fifthmonarchyman: God’s moral opinion on any subject is the objective right one by definition.
fifthmonarchyman: Objective morality is what conforms to God’s moral nature.
God is Good.
That is objectively what objective morality is.”
I recommend you go back to the beginning of our interaction so you can re-read what happened in our discussion. Basically you’ve now conceded twice. First when you were forced to respond, in rather childish fashion, that you were not morally obliged to prove anything to me. A response that was clearly borne out of your inability to prove the definition is objective, rather than subjective. And now again this is your second concession, by coming full circle instead of actually answering my questions you’ve now just started mindlessly repeating what you started with.
Thank you for your time, I hope you’ve got the courage to think a little bit about what has happened here and why you failed.
Utterly irrelevant to the point. In so far as we define something, we define it. Whether we define it to be my reasoning or my conscience is immaterial then.
I think you should go back through your posts then, it seems you have been saying wrong stuff you don’t believe right from the beginning. LOL.
“fifthmonarchyman: God is objectively good by definition.
fifthmonarchyman: That is part of what it means to be God
fifthmonarchyman: God’s moral opinion on any subject is the objective right one by definition.
fifthmonarchyman: Objective morality is what conforms to God’s moral nature.
God is Good.
That is objectively what objective morality is.”
Yeah, take it up with FMM.
So god has goodness? Says who? A definition, made by humans.
Christ, you people… *ROFL*
Can I laugh now? I will laugh. You people are so astoundingly confused and, frankly, incompetently all over the place with what you believe. It’s just some nebulous word-salad you make up as you go along. An endless stream of ad-hoc excuses, running redefinitions and pseudo-philosophical blather that manages nothing more than to confuse yourselves.
… by definition.
*galactic facepalm*
Well, not proving a negative has no impact on either the denial of said negative nor does such support the opposing positive claim.
You can keep asking “how do you know this”, but such a response does demonstrate your claim is questionable at best. Since you can’t seem to address the issue raised, I’m just going to dismiss your claims as absurdities. Glad that you are fine with this…
Experience and observation. Got a counter-example? Didn’t think so…
See above. Dismissing extraordinary claims has never in all the history of the world had a negative impact on anyone. Prove me wrong. Oh right…you can’t.
Of course they are. You have no way to substantiate otherwise. You merely have your own opinion.
That’s just an assertion. The statements presented indicate otherwise. Got any actual reason I should accept your opinion? Didn’t think so…
Another assertion without substantiation. You haven’t presented any reason to accept this claim either.
I don’t have to make a case for any of them because you can’t present anything to support your claim that your “god” is better. Until you can, those other gods are just as good or better than yours. Go ahead…demonstrate otherwise.
Nope…sorry. The whole point is that your “god” is merely one questionable belief entity among thousands. Unless and until you can provide some evidence demonstrating it’s different from all the other claims about all the other gods, deities, angelic and demonic figures, and so forth, your claims about your “god” are no better than claims about Odin or Vishnu.
peace
keiths:
fifth:
If your views were “shared by all orthodox Christians”, then by now you would have found and quoted a prominent Christian thinker who agrees with you. You can’t find one, can you?
The orthodox belief is that the Incarnation occurred when Jesus was conceived in Mary’s womb. None of this “God had to incarnate in order to create” stuff.
You’re lucky to be living when you do, fifth. At another time and place, your views regarding the Incarnation might have gotten you burned at the stake.
fifthmonarchyman,
As soon as you provide objective, empirical evidence for that claim you can give your god the credit. Then it has some stuff to answer for.
Mung,
You clearly think that debating tactics are one of the ones on which the term ‘moral’ may be applied, else why ask me the question? I’m betting it was rhetorical, rather than seeking my view as to whether it is or is not properly part of the ‘moral landscape’. If I hadn’t seen this a lot from you and others, I might react differently.
Erik took sniffy umbrage with me because I excluded the etiquette of pastimes from the umbrella of ‘morality’. I felt it focussed the discussion to do so; he felt it excluded me from even having a legitimate position on the entire subject. Personally, I am easy either way. How about you – debating tactics: in or out? I realise that’s maybe too general – how about: demanding a justification from someone you will not provide for yourself – moral, immoral or not applicable?
Mung,
It boils down to eqivocation on the word ‘objective’. I believe rocks exist outside of human heads. I do not believe morals do. But their existence in human heads, and that of certain community and species-level norms, are objective facts.
Perhaps this
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
and revelation equals orthodox Christianity.
newton,
No, because those verses don’t say that the Incarnation happened prior to creation.
Mung,
That is the repeated assertion of the theist. Can you succeed where fmm, WJM and others have failed, and provide an example where this is done? Where, that is, someone expresses a moral opinion which can be interpreted that they act as if morality exists outside human heads?
I can tell you for free, if I say ‘stealing is wrong’, I do not mean it is objectively wrong in the way in which you define objectivity. In the first instance, I think it wrong – I disapprove. I also know that I can find rational agents who are in agreement with me on it, so that forms an intersubjective criterion. Others may exist who think it not-wrong. I think they are wrong!
Because of the equivocation, your sentence should parse as “And then, after denying A , they then proceed to act as if there is B”. This is not inconsistent. Though theists who recognise that are like hens’ teeth.
Here’s the orthodox view of the Incarnation, from Theopedia:
I’d like to hear fifth explain why he thinks the orthodox belief is wrong and why his “incarnation before creation” belief is correct. (I think they’re both wrong, of course.)
Dave Barry, Big Trouble
This is exactly my view.
Rumraket,
Are some of those morals, which exist in every ones head “right” and “wrong”?
Yes. Not objectively right and wrong, no. They are subjectively right and wrong, yes.
I don’t believe the moral judgements we humans make are objective facts. How could they be if they only exist in human minds?
Do you believe you’ve asked me a deep and profound question I myself have not contemplated before?
Rumraket,
So what have we learned, according to this worldview
-All people believe some things are right and some things are wrong.
-The things that are wrong are completely subjective, and different for everyone.
-Thus, there is no such thing as universally morally right and wrong.
-Baby rape, murder, theft, abduction are all not morally wrong.
Yes.
Yes.
No. They aren’t.
It does nevertheless happen to be the case, that almost everyone believes, and agree, that baby rape, murder, theft and abduction are morally wrong and it has been pretty much the case for all of recorded human history.
It is correct that there is no moral opinion that is not, at some place or at some time, contested by some individual or group. But there are nevertheless something akin to universalities, as in the vast vast majority of people agree that these things are wrong. But yeah, you’ll always be able to find outliers. Sociopaths, psychopaths, people who read old books and invent imaginary moral evils such as “blasphemy” and so on.
You mean universally or objectively wrong. Correct.
That does not mean one cannot say they aren’t morally wrong. It just means you can’t say they are objectively morally wrong. But what the hell does that matter anyway, in practice? Rape, theft, murder and abduction has existed in just as much, if not greater frequencies in the most deeply religious societies, than in today’s largely secularized democracies. So whatever imaginary problem you think there is with a subjective moral system, is not functionally solved by just declaring morality is god-givenly objective.
It does nevertheless happen to be the case, that almost everyone believes, and agree, that baby rape, murder, theft and abduction are morally wrong and it has been pretty much the case for all of recorded human history.
As such, whatever problem you imagine there should be with non-objective moral systems, are functionally irrelevant in practice. Despite our inability to show that these things are objectively morally wrong, the fact, that it is a fact, that the vast vast majority of people all agree subjectively that they are morally wrong, and that they have been so for pretty much all of recorded human history, eliminates any basis for concern here.
Just a thought, It does say without Him nothing was made that was made. I always thought the problem with that concept was not whether it was orthodox or not, but rather which came first, Incarnation or Creation? Without Creation, no Incarnation. Without Incarnation, No Creation. Divine chicken or the egg.
It’s just a model.
newton,
I think you’re confusing the pre-existence of the Son with the Incarnation of the Son. The orthodox view is that the Son has existed for all of eternity, but that he only incarnated when Jesus was conceived in Mary’s womb.
Here’s the relevant portion of the Nicene Creed:
The orthodox view is that creation preceded the Incarnation.
It’s surprising to me that fifth, who presents himself as a serious Christian, doesn’t know this.
That was Fifth’s view at one time, physical incarnation had to occur before God could create.
Words have meanings and you don’t have the right to your own private definitions.
no you are apparently misunderstanding what is being said. I would guess this is because you start from the wrong place in your thinking
It all starts with God not you
We don’t define God as good
God is good by definition
These are not contradictory statements. Definitions are ultimately from God who is sovereign over language.
When I say that God is good by definition I mean that Good is part of what it means to be God. I don’t mean that I have defined him as good.
peace
How did you determine that empirical evidence was the correct way to determine if God exists?
What criteria did you use?
Peace