Eppur si muove wrote:
original PV wrote:
To be clear: morality and objective arguments seldom go hand in hand; for good reason. Morality is subjective on its face and throughout, immorality in this case is no different. Its not only his religions point of view. The majority of organized religions don't support same sex marriage.
You assume that there is no way of basing morality on anything objective, and you also appear to assume that morality must come from religion. I believe that both assumptions are incorrect.
If, instead, we begin with the assumption that we should use words to refer to objective aspects of reality, then in the case of morality, we ask ourself just what objectively observable aspect of reality might moral terms ("good," "bad," "ought," etc.) reasonably be construed as referencing? That approach leads to a very different and very enlightening
answer.
Eppur,
Not that enlightening, actually. Again, your PhilMusings and this post fall short in many ways when compared to the greatest teacher who ever lived, who happened also to be 100% God and 100% man, Jesus. You view man as an organism with a brain but instead, man is a spiritual being, with a mind, who uses a brain and a body. Here are several flaws in your thinking as presented in the Bible:
1) INDIVIDUAL WORTH - You lack a way of assigning indiviudal worth. How do you go about assigning it to the individual? Jesus treated everyone with inherent worth, including “rejects” of society, who at that time would be lower than dirt, ie Lazarus who died on the same night as the rich man, the Samaritan woman at the well, and the prostitute who anointed his feet with expensive perfume. If you can’t assign individual worth, how can we be equal?
2) LOVING OTHERS - Jesus asked people to look through the 10 Commandments at their real, spiritual, “heart” attitudes. Looking at a woman with lust in your heart or imagining killing your friend constitutes breaking that commandment according to him. Jesus got at the real problem, people not loving each other as themselves. This also means forgiving people constantly, which is good for the individual and society. Judgment by the courts is warranted and paying damages for crimes is necessary but those never go far enough, do they? That’s right, ultimately forgiveness covers a multitude of sins. I’ve mentioned the incredible example of the Amish’ blanket forgivenss of the school shooter, extending that forgiveness to the entire family of the offendor. The MidEast could use a dose of this so we could all move on. Look how lack of love and bitterness has kept the entire world on edge there.
3) COMPULSION to DO GOOD - Jesus’ sermon about the Samaritan found on the road beaten compelled people to go the extra mile for others. In your atheistic, humanistic, evolutionist view, there is no compulsion to be good. Being good is a choice but there’s no real compulsion to do so. I believe atheists can do good things and be honorable but there’s no real unction for them to do so. What compels one to be good?
4) DETERMINING GOODNESS - Jesus’ grounds for goodness were based on a relationship with God, the only truly, eternal, objectively all-good Being. With the atheists, we know they can do good but what grounds their ethics? Does good actually exist for them in the first place. Eppur, you agree there is objective morality but on what is it based? How do you avoid relative morality? Is goodness merely calling what YOU like good? We have discussed abortion, which you disagree with, but with your musings and minimal ethical philosophy on your website to take a moral stand against it!
You describe moral standards but have no way to prescribe for others, there being no real “bite” in your moral philosophy.
5) NATURALISTIC FALLACY - Darwinistic philosophy for the non-believer would point to letting the weak and starving die out and would encourage infanticide, eugenics, and euthenasia. But very few non-believers hold to this. Why do they go against a naturalistic tenet? Again, the problem is going from what they think life is, to what life should be (“is/ought”). It’s called the naturalistic fallacy. In short, atheists hang on to Christianity fo fill the gap and affirm worth of those who might be considered weak and undeserving of protection in a purely Darwinistic mode of thinking. Atheist Kai Nelson wrote, “pure, practical reason, even with good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.” You might also say we evolved our morality, learning to cooperate with each other. But what makes us be good to each other in a naturalistic framework? Just because we evolved that way doesn’t necessarily mean we
should do so.
6) ACTIVE, LIVABLE MORALITY - Christians live their morality, going to the ends of the earth to feed people, bring them medical attention, and technology to improve their way of life. The Havens and homeless shelters in my town are hosted by churches. We take in the "outcasts". Are atheists obliged to do the same? Yes, atheists do these things, too, but is it part of their belief system? The atheists know this is right but are they commanded to do it? There’s a difference. Christianity is a real force for change in the real world.
7) MORAL CONSTRUCT - Jesus pointed to his Father’s moral constructs but atheists point to morality constructed by and for man. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and others have also done so with disastrous effect! Luckily, American founding fathers acknowledged a gov’t for the people and by the people, not a people enslaved to gov’t to serve the gov’t. How did they accomplish this? They cited “inalienable rights”(morals) from a “Creator”. They are eternal and individual rights and they can’t be removed by man. But if morality comes from man, it can be changed by man’s whim, majority opinion, brute force/bullying. Our human rights in this country are “self evident” only from a Christian viewpoint. Without God, whose morality do we follow? Who gets priority or has more credibility? Human taste and opinion is the LAST place we should turn for morality!
8) GROUNDS for MORALITY - Eppur, is religion morally wrong? If so, shouldn’t you eradicate it? But on what grounds do you call religion wrong and who made you the arbiter of morality? If we deny God as Moral Anchor, what grounds our morals? We merely decide on our own what is right or wrong and then prescribe that for all? The moral law, which you agree is objective, must then apply to all and be eternal. That only points to a good, eternal God, then.
9) JUDGING a PHILOSOPHY - If we judge a religion or system of thought by its consequences, then we can do the same with atheism/naturalism. The track record is pitiful! Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot all created deadly hells on earth that kept the entire world on edge. Throwing out God automatically tosses out moral restraint of leadership and human value. Theocracies have done the same, pursuing an agenda of church power, tossing out restraint and value of individuals. This is why Jesus talks of following God daily in prayer, not following your pastor, priest, Pope, mom, lawyer, teacher, gov't official, etc.
10) The PROBLEM of EVIL - The question of evil and the presence of evil only affirms objective moral law and value of humans. The worse the crime, the greater the amplification of the problem of evil. Evil intensifies the need for good and justice and we tend to ask, “Where was God?” The worse the evil, the more we look for justice and correction of the wrong done. The Sandy Hook shootings strike at everyone due to the insanity of the crime juxtaposed against the innocence of the young children. The need for justice and goodness intensifies, even if one does not believe in God. The naturalist has no answer as to the question of evil but the Bible easily explains it, ie fallen man, who needs a Savior, in a fallen world with a fallen army of deceiving creatures out to destroy man and God.
I applaud you for recognizing objective morality but the problem is your morality is humanistic, giving in to whim, majority opinion, breakable social contract, or bullying/brute force. How do you keep it from being so? Who decides moral limits ultimately? You must still define those moral absolutes and you have only scratched the surface with your PhilMusings and website.
Non-believers want a seat at the table of morality but don’t have the credentials to actually be there, their morality being whimsical or driven by relativistic man. Only Jesus meets the demands of human morality head-on. Evil, justice, mercy, forgiveness, and love all meet on the Cross. God chose that symbol intentionally to show us where we stand and to lead us to the answer. Christianity answers well the hard questions.
Eppur, your view of morality is “good enough” and “gets you by” but it falls short of Jesus’ mastery of the subject. Jesus’ view of humanity is also superior, assigning worth to the “worthless” and upholding a standard of “Egalitarian with people, elitist with ideas; not the other way around.” Why would I want to re-write or adopt your inferior moral view into Jesus’ superior view? Now, with all this in mind, back to the original post. Ultimately, with regard to this “marriage equality” topic, what makes you right and my God wrong?
PS: I repeated this on your PhilMusings.
