I Can't Shake It! Wtf Is Wrong With Me?

[shantonu]

It's called axiomatic thinking, my friend. Furthermore, we sometimes need to make definitions. How can I see that and you cannot?

 

Even axiomatic thinking must stand up to scrutiny my friend. The materialist must show how something immaterial can exist, not just assume it when it doesn't fit within his worldview. Thoughts, concepts, etc. are immaterial in nature and don't fit within a purely materialistic framework. So, please let me know how you fit them into yours.

 

The ethic of reciprocity is my foundational basis for morality. Since it has shown up in several different religions and even outside of religious contexts, the internal success of many societies (dare I say every successful society) is due to some kind of cooperative effort, then I can say without a doubt in my mind that my axiom stands up to scrutiny. Even the societies of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia espoused this axiom on a day-to-day basis among the citizens who were living under the iron fist of totalitarianism.

 

I can't account for thoughts personally beyond the fact that they are the reaction of electrical signals and chemicals in my brain that are somehow directed toward a conclusion about the material world. Furthermore, concepts (I prefer the term ideas) are just "properties and relations between particulars". Since I am a freak for numbers, if I see a group of things in the material realm and I want to know how many then by the physical and mental process of counting, I come up with a concept called "number". Number is a subclass of concept that relates the thought of "how many" to the physical group that appears before me. Why this occurs, I am unsure but I know it works and since I know it works, then I will use it whenever I can.

 

You do bring up a good point, but it still doesn't dissuade me from the materialist point of view. I think you are trying to undermine a rather rational view of the universe by taking it to some kind of extreme. Just because something is intangible and the materialist makes use of it doesn't mean we are being hypocrites. Since I have the ability to write this post means I have mastered several basic traits that make me a functioning human. Because I cannot find the answers to your charges doesn't automatically mean I need to jump to a "God of the Gaps" argument like you do so often.

 

None of this shit makes a damn bit of difference if God thought slavery was cool.

[MathGeek]

None of this shit makes a damn bit of difference if God thought slavery was cool.

 

What have you brought in your posts in one of the reasons why I find the God of the Bible to NOT be the source of all morality.

[LNC]

To the original thread starter: Do some research, read history, read Bible scholars without an agenda. Start with Bart Ehrman. The mentions of Jesus in Josephus are known forgeries. Pliny talks about christians not christ, but just because christians exist doesn't mean christ did. The existence of the cult of Dionysis didn't make Dionysis any "realer". Read the gospels independently from one another. Ask yourself how the accounts can be so contradictory. Separate what is actually there from the tradition that grew around it over time. The historicity of christ is not a given. The character of Jesus Christ is likely a composite of several historical figures. The more you research the easier it will be to cut the cord.

 

I am not the thread starter; however, you are partially mistaken. It is believed that some references to Jesus in Josephus's writings were embellished by Christians, thou not all of them. That is agreed upon by all Biblical scholars, ever Bart Ehrman. If you actually read the reference from Pliny it says that the Christians sang hymns to "Christ as to god," so you are mistaken in your claim there. If you believe that the gospels contradict one another, please point those out and we can discuss them to determine whether that is the case. The rest of your statements are just unfounded conjecture and don't square with history. It is only fringe writers who claim that Jesus was not a historical figure and, this without valid grounding for such claims. As for your last claim, I think you have been getting your information from The Da Vinci Code and The Zeitgeist Movie without checking their accuracy. Your claims are without scholarly merit.

[LNC]

Yeah. That's right. Taking a stand against infanticide is not a moral choice, it's merely a matter of personal preference... you either like live babies or dead babies... like Pepsi or Coke.

 

LNC hasn't yet stated what he prefers, but our being heathens like we are on this site, I'll bet there's a bunch of us whose personal preference is for killing babies.

 

Can we see a show of hands?

 

(Don't be shy -- this isn't about your morality; it's just a "paper or plastic" kind of choice.)

 

OK, so where is the grounding for your morality? You seem pretty confident; surely, you can just give me an explanation. I ground my morality in a transcendent, immutable, and perfect God who is the grounding of objective morality. How about you? Unless you have this objective basis you are merely giving your opinion, yes, just like your preference of Coke or Pepsi.

[shantonu]

OK, so where is the grounding for your morality? You seem pretty confident; surely, you can just give me an explanation. I ground my morality in a transcendent, immutable, and perfect God who is the grounding of objective morality. How about you? Unless you have this objective basis you are merely giving your opinion, yes, just like your preference of Coke or Pepsi.

 

You're a fake a fraud and no one on this site should take you seriously because you lack the courage of your convictions. Unlike End3 and some other apologists, you've cravenly dodged simple questions in favor of answering complex questions. Why do you feel more comforable tackling "hard" questions? The answer is simple: those "hard" questions require a level of abstraction within which you can hide.

 

But I won't let you hide.

 

You said, "I ground my morality in a transcendent, immutable, and perfect God who is the grounding of objective morality." Okay, then do you or do you not support your "transcendent, immutable, and perfect God's" order to kill babies?

 

I'm frankly sick of your shit. Don't answer the question with a question, don't be a coward, don't deflect, don't dodge. Just answer the question. It's simple enough. Yes or no. You're free to explain why yes or why no, but either you answer this question now or I believe that no one on this site should do you the courtesy of engaging your ideas.

[agnosticator]

Yeah. That's right. Taking a stand against infanticide is not a moral choice, it's merely a matter of personal preference... you either like live babies or dead babies... like Pepsi or Coke.

 

LNC hasn't yet stated what he prefers, but our being heathens like we are on this site, I'll bet there's a bunch of us whose personal preference is for killing babies.

 

Can we see a show of hands?

 

(Don't be shy -- this isn't about your morality; it's just a "paper or plastic" kind of choice.)

 

OK, so where is the grounding for your morality? You seem pretty confident; surely, you can just give me an explanation. I ground my morality in a transcendent, immutable, and perfect God who is the grounding of objective morality. How about you? Unless you have this objective basis you are merely giving your opinion, yes, just like your preference of Coke or Pepsi.

 

There is nothing objective about a transcendent god or a morality originating from transcendence. The transcendent is supernatural nonsense from subjective imaginings. You need to base your morality within reality. All you can really say about a transcendent god is that god is a mystery, and we can only guess about what he is like.

[LNC]

I am going to nitpick first: didn't Kierkegaard use the phrase "leap of faith" because I don't remember ever hearing or seeing that phrase associated with Kant. Just a minor nitpick is all.

 

Why am I not allowed to make "leaps of faith"? Isn't knowledge just another form of faith to some degree? Even if we question a certain "fact" or "conjecture", we are making a leap of faith in accepting a truth value be it based on hard evidence or simple supposition. You and I both know this for a fact. I accept the "ethic of reciprocity" as an axiom because is has been proven effective in many cultures across the world and since cultures live in this reality, then I don't see how that moral axiom is inconsistent with my worldview.

 

Since when are having emotionally-based beliefs are not allowed in a materialistic worldview? Last I checked, humans are biologically in tune to be social animals much like primates and other animal communities. Without emotionally-based beliefs, human society would cease to function. Trust (as a general emotion) is key belief here. Since I am a materialist to some degree, I should disregard trust and somehow become this monster of a person that cares less about everybody else. From my experience, if I hurt a person's feelings then I am liable to make reparations of some kind because I dislike injuring a person in any way. The emotional reaction given by anger and tears and a raised voice tell me that I am liable for the injury and that I need to make amends. Because I can't account for this, I am being a hypocrite and a parasite off the theistic worldview.

 

Sorry, that does not compute. Granted this only works if I have comprehended you correctly.

 

Because I try live in an ethical manner that is accepted by my culture, that makes me a parasite by default according to Squidward here.

 

You're right, my mistake, it was Kierkegaard who introduced leap of faith. See, I can admit when I am mistaken. You are allowed leaps of faith, thanks for acknowledging that this is what you are doing. Although we will not have certain knowledge in this world, I don't think it would fall into the category of what Kierkegaard referred to as a leap of faith. He had a very specific meaning for that term and applying it to knowledge for which we cannot be 100% certain was not it. He differentiated between the phenomenal world and the numenal world and said that the only way for man to get from the phenomenal world to the numenal world was by the leap of faith (now he may not have used that language, but in essence, that is to what he was referring.)

 

It is not a matter of not being allowed to have emotionally-based experiences, it is a matter of properly understanding them within your worldview. If the material world is all that really exists, then "emotional" experiences must be understood in that context as simply bio-chemical reactions, and nothing more. It would be wrong to pour more meaning into them than that, and possibly, from an evolutionary perspective, to say that they may have some survival value (although this is not always necessarily the case, or at least, has not been proved to be the case in every event.)

 

This question has been answered for me thanks to biological studies done on primates and other animal species. Did you know that primates and humans have a tendency to dislike theft and adultery? Did you know that there are over 100 animal species that have homosexual characteristics? Did you know that certain animal species don't cannabalize the other members of species? By keen and repeated observation, humans have discovered these truths for themselves.

 

Let me guess, these don't count because we are the stuards of the animals because God gave us dominion over the planet, and since we are higher then them, we can't use other animal species as a topic of discussion.

 

I don't know what else I can tell you on this. I guess since I have a staunch dislike for Pol Pot but since the atrocities of The Killing Fields make me take pause when I am reminded about them, I am in essence being inconsistent because empathizing with those that died because materialists can't have emotions.

 

You are absolutely in the wrong here. You are dead on wrong, LNC.

 

You cannot argue from the particulars to a universal when it comes to establishing a basis for objective morality. All you end up with is a group of particulars. Biology cannot establish objective morality as we all have, in essence, differing biology, which begs the question, whose biology establishes the norm? Again, you are arguing epistemology, when we still have to establish the ontological basis for objective morality. That is, unless you want to argue some type of subjective system based upon cultures, etc. In that case, we have a different discussion. So, you let me know which direction you want to take the discussion. It sounds like you are in favor of some type of subjective system, am I wrong?

[agnosticator]

LNC,

 

Shantonu should not be ignored, unless you admit to ignorance. Saying "I don't know" is acceptable and honorable. Otherwise, you admit defeat.

[shantonu]

That's right agnosticator. This isn't about trancendent or subjective or any other such French-derived bullshit. (I'm not accusing you of bullshitting, I'm talking about what LNC is doing.)

 

This is about simple, Anglo-Saxon words. Killing babies. It's wrong. If it's wrong, then why was it right for God to order killing babies? If it's not wrong, why isn't it wrong. Fuck the bullshit. Fuck all the transcendent mysteries. I'm a simple man. 1 Samuel 5:3 was fucking wrong. It was wrong then, it was wrong at My Lai, it would be wrong now. I hope that I would not obey an order--even from the highest authority--to kill a baby.

 

1 Samuel 15 (New American Standard Bible)

 

1 Samuel 15

1Then Samuel said to Saul, "The LORD sent me to anoint you as king over His people, over Israel; now therefore, listen to the words of the LORD.

2"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek (B)for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt.

3'Now go and strike Amalek and ©utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but (D)put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"

4Then Saul summoned the people and numbered them in Telaim, 200,000 foot soldiers and 10,000 men of Judah.

5Saul came to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the valley.

6Saul said to (F)the Kenites, "Go, depart, go down from among the Amalekites, so that I do not destroy you with them; for you showed kindness to all the sons of Israel when they came up from Egypt." So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites.

7So (H)Saul defeated the Amalekites, from Havilah as you go to (J)Shur, which is east of Egypt.

8He captured (K)Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.

[agnosticator]

I see what you want specifically, but it looks like he is purposely ignoring you, Shantonu. I wanted to add that to see if he responds.

[LNC]

1. You are supposing that there can't be a social animal without a god. Social animals are social as a survival strategy. Cooperation between individuals is to some degree among various species is a necessary property of a social animal. That cooperation among social mammals is insured by emotion. All the moral emotions compel the individual towards reciprocity with others and the group as a whole. Emotions that center around anger are about preventing or disciplining cheaters. Emotions that center around shame are internal checks against cheating. Emotions that center around compassion are inducements for the individual to share and help. Emotions that center around loyalty enhance group cohesion, especially when in completion with other groups of the same species. Emotions that center around purity keep the group from being contaminated by other groups. Moral behavior is hard wired in you by the genes that came down to you via the evolutionary changes among your ancestors.

 

It is difficult for humans to extend their moral behavior beyond their group. For example theft is immoral among the group, but theft for the good of the group isn't. For example Europeans came to the Americas and took just about everything including life from the people that were already here. That wasn't considered immoral by the Europeans, it was "manifest destiny" that Christian Europeans take the promised land from the heathens just like Israel took the promised land from the Amalekites and others. It was a glorious mission from God not a crime. A more recent example is the invasion of Iraq to secure "American Interests" against "Iraqi Interests". The invasion was accompanied with quite a bit of God's will rhetoric from the Christian right and very little about murder, theft, and genocide came out of any Christian leaders mouth.

 

You should recognize the moral behavior takes place in the meat and it is mostly about what the meat needs to live.(Matthew 25: 31-46); (Lakoff and Johnson)

 

I suppose no such thing. My discussion here is to establish a grounding for moral values. They are either objective in nature or subjective. I want to establish that basis before delving into ethical discussions as it would be fruitless to do so if we are approaching ethics and morals from two different vantage points. Also, I believe that some here are operating on a basis of objective morality without having to do the work of establishing the grounding for such. I simply want to know on what basis they make such claims.

 

2. Moral values are not objective in nature if you mean that it is something outside of the emotions and behavior of social animals. Moral values are relative, because they facilitate relational behavior in a fluid system. Since relational behavior is fluid within certain biologically fixed parameters moral values must necessarily be fluid to a certain extent as well. That we find morals are similar across groups is an artifact of being the same species as people in other groups.

 

Looking at scripture we find many behaviors that were supported by God's fixed for ever law that would never change have now become reprehensible. You often find the Christian explains this away by saying that those laws were for those people then, because that is what they could understand or some such. In other words even God's moral values are relative to the group in which they are found. Not even God's law is "objective" existing apart from the group in which they are found.

 

Well, at least you are honest enough to come out and take a position, which I appreciate. When I say objective, I mean not only outside of emotions and behaviors, but transcendent of man completely. If we simply settle for outside of emotions or behaviors, we still are speaking of a subjective systems as it originates within man.

 

Do you have examples of immutable laws that God established that we now consider reprehensible?

[shantonu]

I see what you want specifically, but it looks like he is purposely ignoring you, Shantonu. I wanted to add that to see if he responds.

 

Thanks. He won't respond because he's scared. He's a scared little boy who can't confront reality. He's basically tried to intimidate everyone with his citations to Joesephus and Tacitus and all sorts of sources that most people (including himself) have not read.

 

He's comfortable doing that because no one can check him. He's not comfortable looking at the plain language of his own Bible. He likes abstractions and complex arguments because there's space to hide in the shadows--shadows that he often creates.

 

We should not let him or those like him get away with that.

[shantonu]

Do you have examples of immutable laws that God established that we now consider reprehensible?

 

You are such a joke: Exodus 21:7, et seq. And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed.

[shantonu]

I suppose no such thing. My discussion here is to establish a grounding for moral values. They are either objective in nature or subjective. I want to establish that basis before delving into ethical discussions as it would be fruitless to do so if we are approaching ethics and morals from two different vantage points. Also, I believe that some here are operating on a basis of objective morality without having to do the work of establishing the grounding for such. I simply want to know on what basis they make such claims.

 

You still won't answer will you? It's the simplest question of all. Do you think 1 Samuel 5:3 was right or wrong?

 

Come on, dude, you are really humiliating yourself. Why is it important what I think or what my basis for morality is? Are you trying to copy me? Looking to be my friend? I asked you about you. What do you think? Was it right or wrong?

[shantonu]

Still thinking huh? Maybe you're scrolling through other responses to find an argument that isn't so challenging. Maybe you can obscure a bit more with a few more references to Kant and Tacitus. Drop a few names here, a couple of theories there. You know the routine.

[shantonu]

If this were an apologetics class, you'd fail!

 

[shantonu]

Your claims are without scholarly merit.

 

Dude, why don't you just google it It's what your good at. Just go to www.google.com and put in the following word: God, genocide, killing babies, justification. And see what you come up with. There's lot's of good stuff.

 

Only problem is, those apolgetics websites all say that killing babies was a good thing!

 

You don't seem comfortable saying that. In a way, I sort of admire you for that. It's like you know that makes absolutely no sense.

[agnosticator]

Chefranden: Moral values are not objective in nature if you mean that it is something outside of the emotions and behavior of social animals.

 

LNC: Well, at least you are honest enough to come out and take a position, which I appreciate. When I say objective, I mean not only outside of emotions and behaviors, but transcendent of man completely. If we simply settle for outside of emotions or behaviors, we still are speaking of a subjective systems as it originates within man.

 

Objective:of or having to do with a known or perceived object as distinguished from something only in the mind of the subject or someone.

 

The object is a living human or animal, not a transcendent god. Outside of the mind doesn't mean transcendent. It means a real object as opposed to an imaginary (of the mind) supernatural being.

[LNC]

Not so. Atheism is an element that appears in a wide variety of worldviews.

 

I am a Humanist. I do not look to either Humanism or Atheism if I want to ponder the origins of the universe. For that, I investigate the physical sciences.

 

Even so, atheism informs your worldview, which leaves you with the physical world only. Those who wish to slip in some sort of non-material realm are often doing it in a irrational way.

 

I don't think it does, quite frankly. We're here. That's all I'm really concerned about. It probably existed prior to 1957, and will probably continue to exist after My physical body dies, but beyond that, I don't need to know how old it is, where it came from, or where it's going.

I thought that you said that you investigate physical sciences to ponder the origins of the universe. Now, you are punting on an explanation? I am amazed at how many atheists will give this response and then criticize Christians, saying that belief in God somehow limits our curiosity about scientific discovery. I usually find the opposite, Christians are curious and atheists punt when they don't like the implications of the answers that they may find. Hoyle certainly would not accept the Big Bang for just such a reason, the implications were contrary to his atheistic beliefs.

 

Unsupported assertion. Produce the data that indicates that your god exists and is "not physical".

Nice attempt to dodge the question. I believe you made the assertion that God was complex and therefore required an explanation. So, you made the assertion and must either back it up or back off from it.

 

I disagree. I think it's a record of the character and standards of the Bible's human authors.

Another assertion that you need to back up.

 

LNC, what part of Ex-Christian do you fail to comprehend? Virtually everyone here has read the NT.

I don't assume that. Just because someone calls him/herself an ex-Christian, doesn't mean that they have read the NT. I don't even assume that all who call themselves Christian have read the whole of the NT, so why would I assume that someone who calls him/herself and ex-Christian has?

 

That is a deeply troubling stance that has the potential to cause lasting psychological damage.

I suffer no psychological damage from this belief. In fact, the majority of Bible believing Christians throughout history (that would be millions of people) have held or do hold this belief without psychological damage. It is actually quite literally honest and freeing.

[LNC]

No, I don't know anything of the sort. In fact, I have shown that these are quite valid and relevant sources. Thanks for your response and concern though.

 

The sources you mentioned are valid sources except for Josephus*. But all they prove is that there were some Christians. The sources prove nothing about Jesus. The references to Jesus are hearsay at best. This is not evidence. It is crap as far as proving the existence of Jesus. You will have to just depend on faith.

 

*By the way I knew this about Josephus when I was a fundamentalist preacher. Learned it in bible collage I did.

 

Not so. They give evidence that a historical person by the name of Jesus lived, was crucified, and believed himself, and was believed by others to be God. Josephus is a valid source, only parts are believed to be embellished. However, as I mentioned, even if you discount that portion, there is still evidence of Jesus having lived in Josephus. I also learned that in Bible college and by reading scholarly works.

[Astreja]

Even so, atheism informs your worldview, which leaves you with the physical world only. Those who wish to slip in some sort of non-material realm are often doing it in a irrational way.

That leaves Me with the physical universe. Again, I'm fine with that. I do not believe in a "supernatural" or "spiritual" realm.

 

I don't need to know how old {the universe} is, where it came from, or where it's going.

I thought that you said that you investigate physical sciences to ponder the origins of the universe. Now, you are punting on an explanation?

Not a punt. I occasionally will read articles on physical cosmology, purely for interest's sake. That information, or the lack thereof, does not currently have any bearing whatsoever on My day-to-day life. Science could discover tomorrow morning that the entire universe was sneezed out of the nose of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure, and I'd say something like "Ah! So Douglas Adams is the True Prophet!" and get on with My day.

 

Produce the data that indicates that your god exists and is "not physical".

Nice attempt to dodge the question. I believe you made the assertion that God was complex and therefore required an explanation.

Your belief is probably in error. I do not recall making that assertion in this thread.

 

However, until otherwise demonstrated, I see only two credible possibilities:

• An entity in the physical universe;
  
• Wholly imaginary, with no physical manifestation in the known universe.
  

If your hypothetical god (whatever it is) can't be seen, touched, heard, smelled, measured or otherwise linked to the physical universe, the burden of proof is on you to show what it is.

 

I disagree. I think it's a record of the character and standards of the Bible's human authors.

Another assertion that you need to back up.

No, that's your burden of proof, LNC. Humans exist. Gods are unproven. Therefore, until you prove the existence of your god, it's eminently reasonable to assume that the writers of the Bible based their writing on their cultural traditions.

 

Just because someone calls him/herself an ex-Christian, doesn't mean that they have read the NT. I don't even assume that all who call themselves Christian have read the whole of the NT, so why would I assume that someone who calls him/herself and ex-Christian has?

And yet you had no problem assuming that we were ignorant of the NT, rather than inquiring as to what we did and did not know.

 

I suffer no psychological damage from this belief. In fact, the majority of Bible believing Christians throughout history (that would be millions of people) have held or do hold this belief without psychological damage. It is actually quite literally honest and freeing.

I have a challenge for you, LNC.

 

For the next one hundred days, I would like you to do a twenty-minute meditation as you lie in your bed at night. Imagine that you are standing in the doorway of a child's bedroom. That child is crying because he or she has been told that he is a sinner, and will burn for eternity in Hell.

 

You may not say anything to this child. You may not make any attempt to comfort the child. You may only observe them.

 

Do you accept this challenge?

[pitchu]

Yeah. That's right. Taking a stand against infanticide is not a moral choice, it's merely a matter of personal preference... you either like live babies or dead babies... like Pepsi or Coke.

 

LNC hasn't yet stated what he prefers, but our being heathens like we are on this site, I'll bet there's a bunch of us whose personal preference is for killing babies.

 

Can we see a show of hands?

 

(Don't be shy -- this isn't about your morality; it's just a "paper or plastic" kind of choice.)

 

OK, so where is the grounding for your morality? You seem pretty confident; surely, you can just give me an explanation. I ground my morality in a transcendent, immutable, and perfect God who is the grounding of objective morality. How about you? Unless you have this objective basis you are merely giving your opinion, yes, just like your preference of Coke or Pepsi.

 

I say let this baby, below, speak for himself, re: "grounding for morality." He doesn't seem to be expressing a mere preference, here. He seems to be speaking from what he knows of your transcendent, immutable, and perfect God. This is a Christian baby, and these statements of his would seem to sum up the basis (grounding) for a moral worldview.

 

Do you quarrel with him? If so, how would you explain to this Christian baby why God ordered babies to be slaughtered?

 

 

Segment quoted from here: http://www.kidstalkaboutgod.org/Home/KTAGB...ArticleView/art

Why Did God Create Babies?

 

 

"God made babies to be his treasures. He loves every one," says Ben.

 

The Bible says children are a "heritage from the Lord." In the agricultural economy of ancient Israel, children were compared to "olive plants all around your table." Also, they were compared to "arrows in the hand of a warrior," which is symbolic of strength. For a fuller picture of children being a blessing, read Psalms 127 and 128.

 

"The fruit of the womb is a reward," declares the psalmist, in contrast to some people in our society who view their own babies as a hindrance to their lifestyle or career. Others refuse to be inconvenienced. They discard the reward by visiting the nearest abortion clinic.

 

"God created babies to keep the human race alive," says Ben.

 

God's first command to Adam and Eve was "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it" (Genesis 1:28). Babies are a vital part of God's plan for mankind

[MathGeek]

You cannot argue from the particulars to a universal when it comes to establishing a basis for objective morality. All you end up with is a group of particulars. Biology cannot establish objective morality as we all have, in essence, differing biology, which begs the question, whose biology establishes the norm? Again, you are arguing epistemology, when we still have to establish the ontological basis for objective morality. That is, unless you want to argue some type of subjective system based upon cultures, etc. In that case, we have a different discussion. So, you let me know which direction you want to take the discussion. It sounds like you are in favor of some type of subjective system, am I wrong?

 

I disagree with your first statement. The basis for modern-day algebra is based off a set of particulars called natural numbers and four basic mathematical operations discovered independently through different culture throughout time. I assign concepts called numbers to physical parts of have some kind of uniformity. From there I can derive other sets like whole numbers, rational numbers, integers and even imaginary numbers. Let me ask you this: do you accept the concept of the square root of -1 or i? Since it is intangible and I believe in their immaterial existence, does that mean I am pigeonholing an advanced concept into my worldview when there may be no objective basis for it?

 

Unlike you, I tend to derive both my understanding of mathematics and morality in an epistomological manner. When I first believed in God, I believed in the Divine Lawgiver argument. In addition to morality being handed down by a Creator, I also believed mathematics came down in the same way. Now, as I think about it and since I don't believe that God exists, I believe mathematics and morality derived from an epistomological basis. Humans took observations throughout and noticed that different ideas worked. Theft is a taboo that is cross-cultural because undermines the social stability of the society. Same goes with murder. If taboos exist that are cross-cultural a majority of the time, then it is reasonable to suggest that such a taboo is good axiom to follow. Motherhood is another example, societies tend to function well when there is a stable relationship between mother and child. I could go on citing example after example that the epistomological basis for morality is better than the ontological basis.

 

I am also a teacher and it's a well-known fact that children learn by doing and morality as a general concept is learned, not just automatically given.

[MathGeek]

I say let this baby, below, speak for himself, re: "grounding for morality." He doesn't seem to be expressing a mere preference, here. He seems to be speaking from what he knows of your transcendent, immutable, and perfect God. This is a Christian baby, and these statements of his would seem to sum up the basis (grounding) for a moral worldview.

 

Do you quarrel with him? If so, how would you explain to this Christian baby why God ordered babies to be slaughtered?

 

Let's add in the fact that God says there is "a time and a place for life and death" (paraphrase of Ecclesiastes Chapter 3) and "that God knew you in the womb" (paraphrase of Psalm 39), therefore if a fetus spontaneously dies for no apparent reason, is it not God saying that it is time for the fetus to leave this life? How many of those fetuses would have grown up to become Christian babies? Since God is omnipotent, isn't he responsible for allowing the death of his own followers?

 

Since miscarriage is also known as "spontaneous abortion" and these happen more times than medically-sanctioned abortions, isn't God the one who is being immoral?

 

This is one of the key reasons I do not derive much of my morality from the pages of the Bible.

[chefranden]

You cannot argue from the particulars to a universal when it comes to establishing a basis for objective morality. All you end up with is a group of particulars. Biology cannot establish objective morality as we all have, in essence, differing biology, which begs the question, whose biology establishes the norm? Again, you are arguing epistemology, when we still have to establish the ontological basis for objective morality. That is, unless you want to argue some type of subjective system based upon cultures, etc. In that case, we have a different discussion. So, you let me know which direction you want to take the discussion. It sounds like you are in favor of some type of subjective system, am I wrong?

 

There is no universal objective morality, as I've shown in an ignored by you post above somewhere in this mess.*

 

Morality is always relative because it is about relationships among social animals in fluid circumstances. That one finds similar morals being expressed across cultures is an artifact of being of the same species with similar needs and psychology.

 

What you can't to is write out the so called objective morality. You can't give me one law that is absolute always. You can give me laws that are absolute in your opinion, but you can't give me one law that even Christians will consider absolute. You can't even point out an absolute law from scripture. If you want to argue an absolute law, lay the law before us. Don't leave it out in the either.

 

No killing of babies seems to be as close to an absolute law as one can get, but it is not absolute. That it is not absolute is demonstrated by the "fact" that God doesn't obey it.

 

*Edit: Perhaps some one has pointed out to you already that even if there were an objective morality, a subjective actor will not be able to know it. You've already pointed this out in this paragraph. Which law written by a biological individual or set of individuals is the universal objective one? All you have to do to show this false is write out the absolute law, without using the intervention of a biological being who will surely taint it with subjectivity.