MYTH-FACT: JUDICIAL FILIBUSTERS

[ACPlayer]

I dont find anything much that i disagree with in the quote you provided. Although the context would be very helpful.

Reason certainly does not require us to be moral, except that we want society to survive and have a vested interest in its survival. You and I can agree that if the world was full of amoralists then our society would likely not survive. The question then becomes has our system of morality evolved from our desire to build a stable survivable society or has it evolved from the word of god. I submit that the world requires a standard of morality and that morality was not handed down from god.

The end result of course is the same, whether we designed it or it was handed down to us.

----------------------


Regarding the world outrage if some group adopted a certain "immoral" behaviour".

The reason the world would be outraged is because we would start to see an unravelling of our society as we see it. In the modern world we are all closer and see threats in far away places that may impact us. However, recognize that certain practices that you consider "immoral", may well be "normal" elsewhere.

I am a bit more tolerant than some of certain "immoral" practices in foreign countries -- this is because of my view that these practices have been put in place for that society to function. Some of these of course should now be defunct due to the evolution of society but continue to persist. An example would be the practice of the the widow jumping into the funeral pyre of her husband. The practice started for a reason which of course is now lost in history.

I posit that one reason for the moral outrage at gay marriage is that we see a fundamental part of the fabric of society changing in ways that offend us. Of course, even the most vicious homophobe is not likely to feel personally threatened by what a couple is doing in the next house. "Marriage should be between one man and one woman" -- why? The answer is that our society has, essentially, forever seen that is the way that society works best. The argument is very reasonable and is based on our society's needs not on the visceral immorality of two men who want to live in holy matrimony. I further believe, that just like the practice of widow suicide, society is reaching the point where this is an outdated viewpoint.

[MMMMMM]

Fair questions, and we may return to them, but for the moment let me please focus on what I had intended to be my central point--OK?

Why is the existence of God necessary for a moral standard of treating others decently, kindly, fairly--rather than meanly? I don't see why it should be.

Also, don't nearly all morals ultimately flow from the Golden Rule (or variations on the theme) at base? Not stealing derives treating others decently. Not committing adultery derives from a concern for the feelings of your spouse. Etc. (also, both help maintain societal order).

Without God, I don't see why the principle of treating others decently should be diminished in the slightest. It takes a degree of sensitivity and empathy for others, which can exist regardless of the question of the existence of God. So why is God necessary for this moral standard?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is the existence of God necessary for a moral standard of treating others decently, kindly, fairly--rather than meanly?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didnt say that it was necessary for a moral standard of treating others decently. I said that it is necessary if you believe that this is an objective truth, i.e., treating other people decently is the correct way of approaching life and moral decisions and that any other moral code is lesser or wrong.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why is the existence of God necessary for a moral standard of treating others decently, kindly, fairly--rather than meanly?

[/ QUOTE ]



I didnt say that it was necessary for a moral standard of treating others decently. I said that it is necessary if you believe that this is an objective truth, i.e., treating other people decently is the correct way of approaching life and moral decisions and that any other moral code is lesser or wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you are saying and thanks for the clarification.

I was trying to respond to this your statement in a post earlier in the thread:

[ QUOTE ]
Objective moral standards simply dont exist without God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have four problems with this assertion:

1) It might be so, but is unproven.

2) Someone could turn your statement about and assert the following: "Objective moral standards don't exist even with the existence of a Creator or God". You could have a hard time disproving that.

3) Objective mathematics exists with or without God, so one cannot claim that God is a prerequisite for all types of objective standards.

4) For your statement to be taken as fact, you must first prove the following:

A) God exists, AND B) God sets moral standards. I don't think either A OR B has ever been proven.

Logically speaking, you are in essence postulating the existence of a God, who also sets moral standards; and then you are using that to claim an objective or independent basis for moral standards which cannot exist without such a God. This really seems to be a sort of circular reasoning. I think it has no more validity, and perhaps less validity, than my claim that: morality is treating others decently rather than meanly. Your claim is based on several postulated assertions which are unproven. My claim is unproven also (which does not imply it can't be proven), but that is no support of your claim which appears to be based upon a sort of circular reasoning.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
1) It might be so, but is unproven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats what we're trying to figure out here, right? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Someone could turn your statement about and assert the following: "Objective moral standards don't exist even with the existence of a Creator or God". You could have a hard time disproving that.

[/ QUOTE ]

They could but Id ask them to offer argument for the non-existence of objective morals. Proving a negative is a daunting proposition. At any rate, thats a non-sequitir when turned about.

[ QUOTE ]
3) Objective mathematics exists with or without God, so one cannot claim that God is a prerequisite for all types of objective standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apples and oranges my friend. Mathematics can be empricially derived and proven. Its hard to do so with something like morals. So you have to look to an authority to set a measurable standard. What greater authority than a omni-everything entity?

[ QUOTE ]
4) For your statement to be taken as fact, you must first prove the following:

A) God exists, AND B) God sets moral standards. I don't think either A OR B has ever been proven.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually my premises and conclusion go something like this.

A. Objective morals exist and they obligate us to act accordingly.
B. Either you believe the atheistic view or the religious view
C. The atheistic view is incompatible with there being moral obligation.
D. Therefore the religious view is the correct one.

Now I am presupposing objective moral values. Id be willing to defend that position but if you dont accept that premise than this particular path is ending. I have others I can take us down though. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

(PS For purposes of full disclosure, I should add that A-D above are a very direct paraphrase from the Handbook of Christian Apologetics, by Kreeft and Tracelli)

There are some reasonable objections to this argument, which I think you may discover as you think about this some more.


B.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

Actually my premises and conclusion go something like this.

A. Objective morals exist and they obligate us to act accordingly.
B. Either you believe the atheistic view or the religious view
C. The atheistic view is incompatible with there being moral obligation.
D. Therefore the religious view is the correct one.

[/ QUOTE ]

A: Quite possibly

B: False dichotomy; there are other possible views, or acceptance of uncertainties

C: I see no reason why the atheistic view is incompatible with moral obligations. As before, if one considers moral obligations to be primarily the principle of treating others decently rather than meanly, God is not essential to that view.

D: "Therefore" ???

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
A: Quite possibly

[/ QUOTE ]

For purposes of this line of reasoning, we have to accept this as true. If not, it can go no further.

[ QUOTE ]
B: False dichotomy; there are other possible views, or acceptance of uncertainties

[/ QUOTE ]

How is that a false dichotomy? Either God exists or he doesnt.

[ QUOTE ]
I see no reason why the atheistic view is incompatible with moral obligations. As before, if one considers moral obligations to be primarily the principle of treating others decently rather than meanly, God is not essential to that view.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have already covered this part ad naseum. Morals are completely subjective if you have no ultimate source. You might think treating others decently is moral, I may think acting completely in my own self-interest is moral. And we both be right, or at least unable to ascertain who was actually right.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:
A: Quite possibly
-------------------------------------------------------------


For purposes of this line of reasoning, we have to accept this as true. If not, it can go no further.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think objective morals probably exist (at least to an extent). So let's give this a tentative "yes" so that we can proceed.

[ QUOTE ]

B: False dichotomy; there are other possible views, or acceptance of uncertainties

---------------------------------------------------------------

How is that a false dichotomy? Either God exists or he doesnt.

[/ QUOTE ]

False dichotomy was the claim that either someone is atheist or accepts the religious point of view.
There are also the views of partial acceptances of certain religious views, and the views of acceptance of various uncertainties as well (including various agnostic stances).


[ QUOTE ]

I see no reason why the atheistic view is incompatible with moral obligations. As before, if one considers moral obligations to be primarily the principle of treating others decently rather than meanly, God is not essential to that view.
-------------------------------------------------------
We have already covered this part ad naseum. Morals are completely subjective if you have no ultimate source. You might think treating others decently is moral, I may think acting completely in my own self-interest is moral. And we both be right, or at least unable to ascertain who was actually right.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, but why would the existence of God be a prerequisite to there being an ultimate framework? As I pointed out, mathematics is an objective framework and it would exist as such either with or without God. So why couldn't a moral framework exist irrespective of God? Granted it may not, and the subject is indeed less clear, but if one framework may exist objectively regardless of God, how can it be definitively asserted that another framework cannot exist objectively irrespective of God?

[lastchance]

[ QUOTE ]

A. Objective morals exist and they obligate us to act accordingly.

Now I am presupposing objective moral values. Id be willing to defend that position but if you dont accept that premise than this particular path is ending. I have others I can take us down though. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

B.

[/ QUOTE ]
Prove it. Prove Premise A. I just don't see how you could do it.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
False dichotomy was the claim that either someone is atheist or accepts the religious point of view.
There are also the views of partial acceptances of certain religious views, and the views of acceptance of various uncertainties as well (including various agnostic stances).


[/ QUOTE ]

Mea culpa, bad choice of words on my part. That should have read initially what my response did, that either the religious point of view is correct, or the atheistic point of view is correct. I think that makes more sense, no? I agree my original usage of words was poor.

[ QUOTE ]
OK, but why would the existence of God be a prerequisite to there being an ultimate framework? As I pointed out, mathematics is an objective framework and it would exist as such either with or without God. So why couldn't a moral framework exist irrespective of God? Granted it may not, and the subject is indeed less clear, but if one framework may exist objectively regardless of God, how can it be definitively asserted that another framework cannot exist objectively irrespective of God?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I think you are comparing apples and oranges. In the atheistic world view, we are a just random results of the interactions of the physical universe, a universe that churns along oblivious to human purpose. How can you can derive any moral obligation from that source?