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.
newton,
Yes, and he hasn’t repudiated it, so he’s at odds with orthodox Christian belief, which holds that the Incarnation happened long after creation.
I hold to the orthodox belief. From our perspective the incarnation took place at a particular point in time with multiple foreshadowings through out redemptive history.
What you are apparently missing for some reason is that from the perspective of an atemporal God temporal qualifiers are meaningless.
quote:
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
(Rev 13:8 KJV)
end quote:
peace
You got it. From our perspective it is a chicken and egg problem.
From an eternal perspective outside the temporal universe there is no problem
peace
Temporal words like “proceeded” make no sense without a temporal creation.
peace
fifth,
No, your belief is heretical. The orthodox belief is that creation came before the Incarnation, and your belief is that it came afterward.
Yes, and to the orthodox, that “particular point in time” was when Jesus was conceived in the womb of Mary. To you, it took place before creation had even happened.
We aren’t talking about the perspective of an atemporal God. We’re talking about the perspective of Christian believers within time. ‘Before’ and ‘after’ have distinct meanings. Your belief contradicts the orthodox belief.
You’ve blown it, fifth. You want to be orthodox, yet your entire presuppositional edifice is built on a heresy.
who is “we”?
I don’t know about you but when I say the incarnation was necessary for creation I am definitely talking about from God’s perspective.
After all there was no other perspective until God decided to create
peace
I never start with man. Especially when we are talking about cosmic origins. It’s all about God.
The reason you are not a Christian today is because you choose to start with your own finite person when you try and reason
peace
keiths:
fifth:
The word “who” doesn’t appear in my comment.
Your flustration* is showing, fifth.
*Yes, onlookers, it’s in the dictionary.
I meant “we”
Fixed it right after I posted. Your obsession is showing.
peace
Is “voiceterous?” I vote for voiceterous. Used in a sentence: “Some here are very voiceterous about their beliefs.”
Or “quackpot.” If only one of these guys would become an MD.
Shouldn’t quackpot be a treasure trove of woo? UD is a quackpot / hit the quackpot ?
It’s in the pseudodictionary.
If the quackpot is a philosopher MD, he could be a determatologist.
His goal in treating injured persons is to unjure them.
fifthmonarchyman,
Provide some and I’ll show you.
If he uses hot acupuncture needles, he’s a pyroquackter.
why?
fifthmonarchyman,
Your inability to provide objective, empirical evidence for your god is noted.
I can provide a ton of evidence but it would all be rejected by you with the same flippant mockery you have demonstrated repeatedly here. That says more about you than the weight of the evidence IMO.
NO offense but I simply have no interest in performing for you in some sort of kangaroo court where you arrogantly presume to be the judge who would sit in judgement of the creator who gives you life and your very breath.
On the other hand if you would just tell me by what authority you can make these sort of demands I would be happy to oblige.
In other words tell me
How do you know stuff?
If you are unwilling to do that why not move on to other subjects that you have less trouble with and that there is a possibility that we might come to an agreement.
peace
fifth, to Patrick:
fifth is having a bad heretic day.
fifth,
Patrick isn’t judging God. He’s judging your God hypothesis and finding it wanting.
You do exactly the same thing with every non-Christian deity you reject.
Good I am glad I got it correct, it is an interesting view. Can the human body of Jesus be outside the temporal universe?
Probably so, but I doubt your objection will phase him.
newton:
Being a heretic is a serious thing for someone who thinks like fifth. He’s rattled by it.
Now he faces a harsh dilemma. He justified his presuppositionalism by (unwittingly) invoking a heresy. If he wants to salvage his presuppositionalism, he needs to reaffirm the heresy and face off against his fellow Christians who hold the orthodox view — that the Incarnation happened when Mary became pregnant with Jesus via the Holy Ghost.
Yet if he renounces the heresy, he undercuts the justification he gave for his presuppositionalism.
He’s in a bind.
But will it faze him?
Glen Davidson
Because there isn’t an objective way of finding out what those objective moral values are,Mung. We can objectively discover whether the earth is objectively spherical. We cannot objectively discover whether it is objectively immoral to harm other people.
However, we CAN objectively figure out that it is subjectively painful to apply thumbscrews to someone, and that therefore to do so is to harm them, and we can also objectively figure out that if we treat others as we would like to be treated, things tend to go better for all of us.
So in any sense of objective that makes any practical difference to anything, atheists are as capable of figuring out what is moral objectively as theists are.
More so, I’d argue, because we aren’t distracted by claims of revealed objective moral precepts, revelations that are, inevitably, subjective.
fifthmonarchyman,
Excellent! Please do!
There’s no way to know that until you present it. Show us what you’ve got.
What evidence?
Once you’ve demonstrated that this critter you’re always on about actually exists, you might be justified in taking umbrage on its behalf. Until you demonstrate that, it’s just another unevidenced belief that no one has any reason to take seriously.
sure he is
No that is not at all what I do. I compare a non-Christian deity with the God I know exists to see if it measures up.
Do you see the difference?
The standard is God himself not my preferences or reason or desires
peace
I don’t think so and have never suggested as much.
The question I find interesting is what exactly qualifies as a human body.
Does it extend to the ‘microbiome’?
What about the local environment that interacts with those cells?
Does a ham sandwich become part of my human body the instant it is ingested or
when it is in my hand with the intent of becoming dinner?
Is a fetus part of it’s mothers human body or a body of it’s own?
Is a sperm cell part a new human body before it encounters an egg or is it still part of the old one?
What about the particles that are quantumly entangled with particles existing in my body? some of these entangled particles might be on the other side of the universe
I think the boundaries of where a human body starts and stops are pretty fuzzy.
I find that to be interesting
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
keiths is correct. Please provide the evidence you claim exists for the god you claim exists.
once again
The proof that God exists is that with out him knowledge is impossible.
For knowledge to exist truth must exist…… God is Truth
If you disagree with this. Please simply demonstrate how knowledge is possible with out God/Truth.
IOW tell me how you know stuff in your world view
peace
Neither
As far as I know as those things are within the temporal realm as well and the Incarnation also had to occur before they were created ,correct?
Is that revelation or your fallible mind talking?
fifthmonarchyman,
Not in God’s mind. He knows exactly where the boundaries are (if he can dichotomise chronospecies, a human should be a doddle). And he likes nothing better than to categorise, so I’m told. Chortle!
Rumraket,
Apparently not. God is in charge of definitions. You need a bigger facepalm.
It’s like arguing with a version of humpty-dumpty who’s afraid of thought, who says his words are from god himself.
Words mean exactly what my god wants them to mean. So god defines god to be good, by definition. Says who? Oh god, of course!
I feel like smashing my face but not in a mere palm, nor a desk. No, for this one only the faceplanet will do.
fifthmonarchyman,
Once again, I asked you to provide the detailed argument supporting this claim, perhaps in an OP. You declined. Until you do so, Hitchen’s Razor applies. Unsubstantiated claims do not support your other unsubstantiated claim that a god exists.
Private definitions, no, because that would be useless. Public definitions, yes. You can define words to mean whatever you want them to mean, as long as you make your definition clear and public. That’s how communication works, and how language evolves.
I think EL may be employing her idiosyncratic definition of “objective”.
Mung said:
EL replies:
Unless you are positing that as subjective humans we have some sort of internal access to objective perceptions, there isn’t an objective way of finding out anything, EL. Everything (at least under the non-theist, non-spiritual) perspective is acquired and done through the lens of the subjective.
EL continues:
No, we cannot (again, unless you are positing that humans have internal access to an objective perspective). We can subjectively conduct experiments, make observations and then come to an intersubjetive agreement about the nature of the thing being studied, but that is not the same thing as “objectively finding out”.
Again, of course not. We cannot objectively discover anything at all (under premises outlined). What we can do is subjectively come to an intersubjective agreement that a commodity should be considered objective in nature – meaning it is what it is regardless of subjective interpretations, and a person can be in error regarding some aspect of its objective qualities.
You continue making this mistake of conflating interpersonal agreements with objectively finding out.
Yes, they are. Unfortunately, that’s not the issue. The issue is that their denial of an objective (in the absolute sense) basis for morality (even while they act and argue as if their morals are objective and universally binding), is in direct conflict with their premise that morality is subjective in nature. They have no basis for moral outrage. What they have is a basis for a universal tolerance for and acceptance of all other moral positions as being of equal fundamental merit.
Simply put: if morality is intellectually accepted as subjective in nature, one shouldn’t feel any moral outrage whatsoever.
OK, William, if you don’t like the definition of “objective” that I’m using, tell me the definition that you think Mung was using, or indeed, the definition that you are using.
And when you’ve done that, tell me why Mung’s post makes sense.
Even using your definition, EL, your statements make no sense. If something is agreed to be objective as a set of transpersonal agreements, then morality is an objective commodity – whether or not every transpersonal group that agrees it is objective in nature agrees on the specifics. We identify objective moral values much like we identify anything as an objective quality – via subjecitve observations and transpersonal agreements about what we are obvserving (or experiencing).
Again, the problem lies not in the atheist’s/naturalist’s ability to experience/observe objectively existent features of the moral landscape, nor does it lie in their ability to reach transpersonal agreements about easily-identified aspects of that landscape.
The problem is the cognitive dissonance between their worldview commitment to morality as a subjective commodity and their actual behavior in the world – wrt this thread, their moral outrage. It simply cannot be justified via moral subjectivism. They should be beyond “moral outrage” if they truly believe morality is subjective in nature.
Patrick,
Patrick are you so busy you can’t see the post right below yours? Address the post not the poster remember Richard, er I mean Patrick?
Please move Rumrakets post, you seem to have a blind spot for one viewpoint?
William J. Murray,
Indeed, except when convenient Lizzie keeps agreeing that “Do unto others as you would want them to do to you is indeed objective and universal.”
Except when not convenient.
Its almost as if that is a unique sentiment of mankind. Strange.
William J. Murray,
How does one ‘justify’ an emotional response anyway, in worldview terms? I don’t see any more justification for outrage in your worldview. Why get angry on Objective Morality’s behalf? If you think (perhaps) that Objective Morality is itself making you feel anger, how is that a ‘better’ justification (rather than a preferred causal account) than a response conditioned by a combination of genetic and cultural norms?
Indeed, you gaily charge through on this ‘justify your outrage’ horse, then demur on the matter of outrage yourself. You gave it up, rather than found justification in theism. Yet your perennial battle cry is that ‘subjectivists have no justification’, uttered as if (human-external) objectivists do.
WJM’s view of morality is significantly different from fmm’s and Mung’s. Yet, somehow, they all agree. Agree on the proper use of equivocation on ‘objective’, at the very least. That and insist ad nauseam, by use of that very equivocation, that all atheo-materialists do what the same know full-well they do not. Then patronise them with something about denial or being ‘without excuse’.
Objective and objective ( in the absolute sense) are two different things.
I think tolerance and acceptance depends on what subjective basis the other entity uses and how that dovetails with one’s subjective morality. Philosophy is the attempt to examine those criteria objectively.
Perhaps you mean subjectivist has no basis for absolute moral outrage , this seems true. Of course the objectivist unless she has an objective way to access this absolute morality has no basis for absolute moral outrage either. Both have subjective moral standards, one is just honest about admitting it.
Funny, but I’ve been puzzled about the theist’s moral outrage in a similar vein.
Simply put: if morality is faithfully accepted as an objective ruleset defined and upheld by some deity, no theist should ever feel any moral outrage whatsoever. Unless, of course, said theist has no actual faith in his or her god(s)…
I think there’s a perfectly good reason for the moral subjectivist to feel and reflect moral outrage – the knowledge that moral issues have no other arbitrators than we humans engaging in the moral debate. As such, if I don’t like something that Joe Otherguy is doing who else is going to outraged about the behavior (and whatever impact it has on me and others) than me and others?
On the flip side though, I think theists have some ‘splainin’ to do when it comes to their moral outrage since ultimately it’s up to whatever supposed deity handed down and manages said “objective moral code” to judge transgressors. At the very least, the only target that any theist should be venting his or her moral outrage at should be his or her said deity. Any other action is just irrational and demonstrates a lack of faith.
Robin,
I believe the phenomena is called “virtue signaling”.
Especially since everything that has happened and everything that is going to happen is willed by the deity.