toldailytopic: Stephen Hawking says Heaven is a 'fairy story'

[zippy2006]

Well, I'm not speaking from that perspective. I'm saying, even given the supernatural, how do you justify objectively valuing a supernatural standard of morality over any of the natural ones.

I would recommend discarding a preconceived notion of "supernatural" for this discussion, in fact I wouldn't even use the word. Saying that a moral system aligns with God means that it aligns with the most fundamental reality itself. Oftentimes we religious get caught taking analogous language literally. What is trying to be conveyed is that that fundamental reality we call God is willful and personable in some sense, and God's will aligns with God's nature and therefore wills moral goodness. Does that make sense? Acting immorally could loosely be said to be swimming against the current of Being itself; contradicting the ground of being.

-zip :e4e:

 

[nicholsmom]

Then if he loves us so much, why not take a peek into everyone's heart every hour or so and when the time is right to spend eternity with god just stop the heart and kill the person?

The nature of God is transcendent over all of time and space; He needn't "peek" when he sees the state of each heart continually and intimately.

If God just took us to heaven at the moment of redemption, where would he get all the preachers? How would anyone fulfill the Great Commission? What would be the point of all the Scripture concerning Christian living?

Or maybe you were just trolling ...

 

[nicholsmom]

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2677756&postcount=392

That must have been Davis, not me. In any case you have just de facto argued that all solipsists are technically empiricists.

Sure, just very, very bad empiricists.

This is just white noise. It doesn't actually mean anything. The higher authority no matter how transcendent, supernatural and unaffected by dissent would still just be representing an opinion on morality.

Unless it's God, the Creator, and therefore owner, of the whole thing

In any case, the fact that God is transcendent, supernatural and unaffected by us does not make it objective. Does not follow.

You are right that it isn't just His transcendent nature that makes morality based on Him. As I have mentioned :sigh: Christian morality is objective because it is a reflection of who God is not just what he thinks or says. It isn't an opinion, it is a state of being. Objective means "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased" If our morality is an expression of the personality and character of God, then it is not influenced by anyone's feelings, interpretations or prejudice; but rather it is based on the facts concerning the attributes of God.

God's 'character' would define that supernatural plain of existence. Things like love, joy, peace, inspiration, justice, mercy would all be defined by that supernatural plain of existence no matter what form they took. That is to say that if God was to define say love as hate you would have to accept it.

He won't because that immutability is also among His attributes.

Yet if God was to decree change you would have to accept it. This is the problem you necessarily run into it. When you grant that all moral meaning only derives from God's word and that the only valid moral argument for anything ever is what God says then you reduce morality to nothing more then perpetual obedience to orders.

I'm getting tired of correcting you on this one :mmph: Whether or not you like it - supra.

I might get to the rest of this mess later, but I'm telling you it is getting frustrating having you forget all my former arguments, and seemingly willingly trying to fail to get my points. You have been argumentative and little else.

 

[kmoney]

NM, just a few thoughts...

First, I'm not sure if I'm surprised, but I'm a bit put off by how you, in your conversation with Skavau, seem to be demeaning life unless it is paired with a supernatural realm or with an afterlife. In some ways I think valuing life without a thought of the afterlife is more pure, or more genuine.

Second, another point you are making to Skavau is that without a god, moral systems are not measurable or able to be judged against a standard. And I essentially agree on that point - there would be nothing outside ourselves to point to, nor an outside arbiter to decide. However, in practical terms I'm not sure what the significance is. Because regardless of an absolute standard existing or not, I don't believe that we, in our present state, can certainly know what the standard is. So, in effect, you are still putting your subjective values up against Skavau's subjective values. The difference is you say your values match up with a divine standard.

You also says this: You are partly right in this. It isn't because God says so, but rather because He is so. I do not think that murder, rape, nor homosexuality are wrong for any intrinsic reason. They are wrong because they are contrary to the purpose for which God made us.

This seems to be a common theme lately. Would you say that morality stems from God's will or nature?

 

[kmoney]

Now, I don't want you to go from here to therefore murdering all children at birth bc, God will judge, blah, blah, blah. The second part comes into play now.

Theocratic Israel is the nest in the analogy I painted for you before. Now that was only an analogy and it breaks down badly in that God will not abandon the nest, though His interaction with that nest changes. It's only an analogy.

So in the beginning, God singled out Abraham, then Isaak, then Jacob who became Israel. Israel had to grow into a great nation before God could give them a land of their own. So He tucked them away safely in Egypt until they had grown to a very large people. Then He made sure that they were oppressed enough to want to leave Egypt to go to a land of their own, that God had planned for them all along. But two important things were happening while Israel grew in Egypt - people were settling in the land that God had given to Abraham; and the Israelites were learning the wicked ways of the Egyptians and their gods.

God's answer to these things was two-fold: He gave Israel a theocratic government in which God's Law was very strict to eliminate any wicked influence brought from Egypt and to engender righteous living; and kept them separate from the wicked nations which had overrun Abraham's land. He was building the nest - the exact sort of society needed - for the Messiah's coming. He had certain requirements for that nest and it took hundreds of years to build it through many adversities and trials, but build it He did. By the time of the arrival of Christ, Israel was a nation under a greater, more stable nation. They were humble, but weighed down by the added restrictions of the religious leaders of the time. He came to free them from the bondage of both that increased law and their own sin. The mass deaths of Israelites during that time was just like a momma bird removing a rotten stick from her nest. The mass deaths of the people inhabiting Abraham's land were like a really strong, mighty momma bird getting rid of the foxes and raccoons and opossums that would try to eat her chicks and destroy her nest.

God protected His own. He still does.

What exactly do you mean by the part in bold?

 

[zippy2006]

Second, another point you are making to Skavau is that without a god, moral systems are not measurable or able to be judged against a standard. And I essentially agree on that point - there would be nothing outside ourselves to point to, nor an outside arbiter to decide. However, in practical terms I'm not sure what the significance is. Because regardless of an absolute standard existing or not, I don't believe that we, in our present state, can certainly know what the standard is. So, in effect, you are still putting your subjective values up against Skavau's subjective values. The difference is you say your values match up with a divine standard.

I agree with a lot of what you said in this post kmo, but I will comment on this part where I don't fully agree

Even using a purely secular consideration, it cannot be denied that belief is important. An individual who believes in an objective standard will live differently in an important if subtle way. This applies even more strongly to a society. So I'd say this is an important practical consideration, but it certainly says nothing about the truth of the thing.

:e4e:

 

[kmoney]

I agree with a lot of what you said in this post kmo, but I will comment on this part where I don't fully agree

Always need to get a word of argument in don't ya zipster. lain:

Even using a purely secular consideration, it cannot be denied that belief is important. An individual who believes in an objective standard will live differently in an important if subtle way. This applies even more strongly to a society. So I'd say this is an important practical consideration, but it certainly says nothing about the truth of the thing.

No argument there; I agree. Beliefs can strentghen conviction and resolve and that can be important.

:e4e:

:cheers:

 

[nicholsmom]

What exactly do you mean by the part in bold?

He gave Israel a theocratic government in which God's Law was very strict to eliminate any wicked influence brought from Egypt and to engender righteous living; and kept them separate from the wicked nations which had overrun Abraham's land. He was building the nest - the exact sort of society needed - for the Messiah's coming. He had certain requirements for that nest and it took hundreds of years to build it through many adversities and trials, but build it He did. By the time of the arrival of Christ, Israel was a nation under a greater, more stable nation. They were humble, but weighed down by the added restrictions of the religious leaders of the time. He came to free them from the bondage of both that increased law and their own sin. The mass deaths of Israelites during that time was just like a momma bird removing a rotten stick from her nest. The mass deaths of the people inhabiting Abraham's land were like a really strong, mighty momma bird getting rid of the foxes and raccoons and opossums that would try to eat her chicks and destroy her nest.

I believe that God chose Abraham, Isaak, and Israel for a purpose - it wasn't just picking favorites or something as frivolous. As I read through the story of Israel I see a grand plan unfolding. God is building a nation for a purpose - to produce the Messiah, but it isn't a genetics experiment or selective breeding, but rather the building of a specific society for Jesus to grow up in, to proceed forth from. All the history of Israel had the ultimate purpose of creating an environment ready for a Messiah in every way. That society was well trained in the Law; knew well their inability to live up to that Law; was steeped in their history with a miracle-working, merciful but just God. Every part of their history played a part in producing just that environment that God chose for bringing forth the Christ. God both intervened and allowed (concerning man's free will) in ways that "prepared the nest" for the Christ to arrive.

Does this answer your question?

 

[Skavau]

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2678370&postcount=401

Unless it's God, the Creator, and therefore owner, of the whole thing

The only reason that opinion would be regarded as true then would be authority. Which is simply might equals right.

You are right that it isn't just His transcendent nature that makes morality based on Him. As I have mentioned Christian morality is objective because it is a reflection of who God is not just what he thinks or says.

If God is his morality then can't he change his morality? If he can then all that would mean is that he is the principles he aligns with, if he cannot then you put the principles he is and stands for on a higher elevation.

It isn't an opinion, it is a state of being. Objective means "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased" If our morality is an expression of the personality and character of God, then it is not influenced by anyone's feelings, interpretations or prejudice; but rather it is based on the facts concerning the attributes of God.

This appears to be arguing that our propensity towards being moral is derive solely from us being made as an 'expression' to the personal and character of God. That is you are arguing that we have a natural inclination towards the principles that God supports and is.

He won't because that immutability is also among His attributes.

Yet if God was to dispense with said immutability then you would have to concede.

I'm getting tired of correcting you on this one Whether or not you like it - supra.

Your argument of correcting me on this rests upon you refusing to grant the possibility of the hypotheticals necessarily proposed. Your actual logic behind your morality rests on nothing more than God's authority (indeed you have suggested that you can only say things are wrong solely because God deems them wrong).

I might get to the rest of this mess later, but I'm telling you it is getting frustrating having you forget all my former arguments, and seemingly willingly trying to fail to get my points. You have been argumentative and little else.

I don't forget your prior arguments, but I find myself (originally why I responded you) indignated by your borderline insulting and aggressive attacks on humanism and ultimately life itself (as well as originally trying to represent me as a necessary supporter of some pseudo-darwinian social collectivism). You seemed insulted in a prior post when I suggested your morality was based on self-interest but then you had said far worse to me on several occasions. I also find the suggestion that we can't know what is good without the direction or instruction of a divine arbiter as highly insulting to everything ever accomplished by humanity and an insult to our intelligence.

It should be added by the way that I am an anti-theist. I have said so on several other occasions on this forum but I'll say it here. By that I literally mean that I would rather a theistic God not exist. I do not like the idea of an unalterable superpower that made us, owns us, supervises us, knows our thoughts and can convict us of thought-crime. It would be like living in a perpetual totalitarian state. I feel fortunate that I do not believe it to be true and when I am told then by people who do believe it to be true, and hold reverance to the one that they believe makes it true that I should by all rights fall into existential nihilism, or concede that theism holds moral superiority I wrench slightly.

 

[kmoney]

I believe that God chose Abraham, Isaak, and Israel for a purpose - it wasn't just picking favorites or something as frivolous. As I read through the story of Israel I see a grand plan unfolding. God is building a nation for a purpose - to produce the Messiah, but it isn't a genetics experiment or selective breeding, but rather the building of a specific society for Jesus to grow up in, to proceed forth from. All the history of Israel had the ultimate purpose of creating an environment ready for a Messiah in every way. That society was well trained in the Law; knew well their inability to live up to that Law; was steeped in their history with a miracle-working, merciful but just God. Every part of their history played a part in producing just that environment that God chose for bringing forth the Christ. God both intervened and allowed (concerning man's free will) in ways that "prepared the nest" for the Christ to arrive.

Does this answer your question?

The part in bold seems to answer what I was getting at.

Why do you think those things were necessary for the Messiah?

 

[rexlunae]

For one reason above others: because it is objective and every morality that can be affected by natural beings is necessarily subjective.

Something being natural does not make it subjective. Quite the opposite, really.

Whenever people try to approach the supernatural, whether you want to maintain any faith that there is such a thing, you can't really argue that we don't have vastly divergent experiences. And these different experiences lead to fundamentally different moralities. At least moral systems that appeal only to the natural world leave us with a common framework of truth. We can't necessarily agree on values fundamentally, but we can progress toward consensus about the reality of the natural world and the values that truly unite us all as humans. This makes naturalistic moralities actually inherently more objective than ones that appeal to the supernatural.

The only way that we can have an objective standard is if we can have one that is unaffected by the subjects to which it applies. Personal preference can't win the day that way.

But that's a false promise. There is no option for a totally objective morality, and no religion can actually offer one unless it can objectively demonstrate that all other religions are false. No one has even suggested how that might be done. In fact, most religious people of serious contemplation admit that subjective experience is necessary to their beliefs.

This assertion of mine is derived from the work of neuro-scientists that shows that all emotions, and consciousness itself are merely programmed responses to stimuli. If this is the case (which it must be if evolution, unguided by any supernatural force, is the method by which we have thoughts at all), then any purpose derived from the human mind is only a construct - a programmed response to stimuli. It is a meaningless purpose but it could, I suppose, be called a purpose of sorts. For real purpose (one that isn't just programmed response to stimuli), we must look for a supernatural creator who had purpose in creating us.

I think you're begging the question. You're assuming that if we can understand a thing, and take the magic out of it, that it automatically removes all meaning from it. What you have to understand if you want to truly grasp the humanist perspective is that we impose meaning upon the natural world rather than looking for it to flow as if from an external source. It comes ultimately from us, not to us.

So you don't see any purpose for finding meaning in life beyond a programmed response to stimuli?

No, I just think that religious people are barking up the wrong trees.

Why do you think we would even want such a thing? Do you think it's an error in our evolutionary background?

It's a trait from our evolutionary background, but to call it an error would require that we judge it against a standard that your argument precludes. Many life forms seem to survive without an overall sense of purpose that we can identify, but we might presume that we have one because it serves some useful survival purpose. For the same reason, we have a need to breath air, and yet I don't feel the desire to cut off the air supply simply because I understand something about why I need it.

I mean, it's an age-old question that is the entire basis of philosophy. It is the reason that the works of Plato and Aristotle were preserved - it is important to people to contemplate such things. Are we all broken from the start to want to find meaning in life?

Not broken, but perhaps misdirected by centuries-old philosophies that don't really serve us well in the context of contemporary knowledge. The process of learning requires that we chase down many blind alleys before we find the right path, but continuing on a path that is wrong is not the most useful approach. And we know that religion cannot deliver to us anything like an objective morality.