Sunday School

[Strega]

@mcc1789

‘Murder’ is a word that already embodies negative judgement. A non-judgmental version would be ’Killing is wrong…”

It’s like saying “cruelty is wrong, without exception”. Obviously that’s true, because the word ‘cruelty’ carries the wrongness as part of its definition.

[Simon Paynton]

That’s very true, Strega.

[Mcc1789]

Simon Paynton: Well, it does depend upon what “objective” is, yes, if that’s what you mean by “dancing on the head of a pin”. In some forms of theism, there does not appear to be an objective reality at all. Yes, that may be their definition of objective-I don’t think it aligns with standard usage though. I said Judge Judy could apply an objective morality. That still isn’t the same as her mind being its source.

It’s a fact that murder causes harm, which is something we inherently don’t want. That would be the simplest way I’m able to put it. However, others such as Richard Carrier have gone into much greater detail (it’s in Sense and Goodness Without God).

Strega: Yes, sorry, that was redundant. To put it more precisely, “killing in some circumstances is wrong”.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 9 months ago by Mcc1789.

[_Robert_]

“Cruel to be kind, in the right measure”, LOL. Never did care for that song.

[Simon Paynton]

@mcc1789 – “Judge Judy could apply an objective morality. That still isn’t the same as her mind being its source. ”

– OK, JJ and God differ in that Judge Judy is not “goodness”, while God is.  For a religious person, God and moral reality are one and the same thing.  And if something is a moral reality, it must be objective, like any other kind of reality.

“killing in some circumstances is wrong”

– just about anything, in some circumstances, is wrong.

In what sense is it a fact, that causing unnecessary harm is wrong?

[Strega]

Can we please define “wrong” for the purpose it will be used here?

[Mcc1789]

Simon Paynton: I understand for them it’s the same thing, but as I’ve explained, I’m not in agreement on that.

I was attempting to refine my definition, so it’s not simply redundant.

I don’t think I’m able to argue this any better than before. Perhaps, if you read Carrier or anyone else defending it, their case will be more persuasive.

[Simon Paynton]

@Strega – “right” and “wrong” are apparently objective attributes of reality.  But no explanation of what this means is available – they just “are”.

@mcc1789 – “I understand for them it’s the same thing, but as I’ve explained, I’m not in agreement on that. ”

– but the point is precisely to understand what religious people believe.  Neither of us, as atheists, subscribes to the religious view.

How does “the substance of God” (i.e. the objective reality of right and wrong, among other things) differ in any meaningful way from “the mind of God”?

“I don’t think I’m able to argue this any better than before. Perhaps, if you read Carrier or anyone else defending it, their case will be more persuasive.”

– what is Carrier’s argument, that is more persuasive?  Defend what?  Do you understand it?

[Mcc1789]

I do try to understand what they believe. Not everyone will provide us with an explanation of how they think God actually grounds morality. Those who do seem to be saying this stems from God’s character-an attribute of his mind. I don’t agree that this would make morality objective however. It just ultimately boils down to being God’s opinions, which makes it subjective A few have admitted this, saying he could even make something forbidden or permitted at will.

He makes the case in his book Sense and Goodness Without God, as I said earlier. It would probably be best to read that-I am clearly a poor advocate.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 9 months ago by Mcc1789.
• This reply was modified 8 years, 9 months ago by Mcc1789.
• This reply was modified 8 years, 9 months ago by Mcc1789.
• This reply was modified 8 years, 9 months ago by Mcc1789.

[tom sarbeck]

I appreciate that two Catholic school nuns told their classes that faith is a gift and not everyone is given that gift. I was in their classes and quitting Catholicism didn’t require the analyses I see here.

[Simon Paynton]

@mcc1789 – “It just ultimately boils down to being God’s opinions, which makes it subjective A few have admitted this, saying he could even make something forbidden or permitted at will.”

– he could, but he clearly doesn’t, so I think this argument is a non-starter.  What’s more, whatever God does is “good” anyway, so it doesn’t matter if it’s unusual, forbidden etc.  God is universal and impartial, and he IS the rules: therefore, his opinion is objective.  [If I was religious.]

@tom – analysis brings clarity, and clarity is good, because then we have more idea what is going on.  Ignorance is unfortunate, but we always have eyes to see, so there is a possibility of finding out.  Complacency is dangerous because then, we are blind: we think we know something, when we don’t.  More genuine analysis, or at least, asking questions, never hurt anybody.

[Simon Paynton]

@strega – “right” and “wrong” are apparently objective attributes of reality. But no explanation of what this means is available – they just “are”.

– I was being sarcastic.  It comes down to having to make a definition, and then relying on that definition.  Jesus said “love God, and love your neighbour as yourself” which is one definition of “right”, and the best one in my opinion, as it forms a framework which fits perfectly with the rest of morality, and can be used over and over again in different contexts.  So it’s like “pi” – a universal constant that pops up all over the place.  If we derive a framework using completely different, atheist terms, this is what we arrive at.  So it appears to be correct, in that it “works” beautifully, and can be arrived at both through science, and Jesus.

[Strega]

Simon, I’m not asking for a general definition of right and wrong, simply what it is going to mean here, in this context, in this thread

[Simon Paynton]

@Strega – if you don’t need a definition here, then I think it is sufficient to use the place-markers, “right” and “wrong” without definition.  But in a religious context, it means “whatever God says”.

Any other attempts at definition run into problems of objectivity.  I could say “the morality of your group”, because that’s objective in a sense, but as a general definition, I think it’s lame.

[Mcc1789]

Simon Paynton: It isn’t clear that he doesn’t, given the amount of change we see in religious morality from the past to now. If God’s actions are also by definition good, that’s completely arbitrary, and not objective. That isn’t the same as “impartial”, though I’d question whether God is that either. Nor is it just “universal”.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 9 months ago by Mcc1789.

[Author]

Posts