Islam, is it a religion of peace or war?

[Burger]

The inquisition was a horrible thing, but it’s a wart on a beautiful institution. Islam is one big wart. Huge difference. The fact that the inquisition stands out on Christian history ought to tell you that.

Totally agree. I said Christianity did go through The Reformation. Islam did not.

 

[Roustabout]

But now we are back to the beginning again. What is that external reference and why should I believe it? If it boils down to a self-referential God then it is question begging and the theist is in a no better position than the atheist who says morality is simply defined by evolution, reason, science, debate, or whatever.

the theist has a much better position. We have a reason to have a moral ontology. We both treat morals as if there is an external referent. You reject one, I accept one. Who is consistent?

Plus, you are really missing the ontological and epistemological disntinctions. How we come to our moral capacity is not the same as whether there is a moral reality. If the later is formed by those things you just mentioned then that creates a huge problem for you. As a child develops they become ABLE to make moral distinctions (epistemology). But, we wouldnt say that morality came about (ontology) when the child arrived at that point. But, that is exactly what you are saying.

Take how you are using logic? You depend on it to make your claim yet you must rely on circularity to hold to it. Your moral intuition even tells you there is an external referent and not (as you’ve tried to say) just opinion. You obviously think your moral opinion is higher than others, but when challenged to support why you try to shift the argument. “Circular!!”

Moral ontology is asking if morals objectively exist independently to be discovered by people, or if morals are merely a mental construct of people and therefore inseparable from people.

The error I think many divine command theorists make is that morals are a set of rules. Morality is not a set of rules.

 

[rjd970]

the theist has a much better position. We have a reason to have a moral ontology. We both treat morals as if there is an external referent. You reject one, I accept one. Who is consistent?


Plus, you are really missing the ontological and epistemological disntinctions. How we come to our moral capacity is not the same as whether there is a moral reality. If the later is formed by those things you just mentioned then that creates a huge problem for you. As a child develops they become ABLE to make moral distinctions (epistemology). But, we wouldnt say that morality came about (ontology) when the child arrived at that point. But, that is exactly what you are saying.

Take how you are using logic? You depend on it to make your claim yet you must rely on circularity to hold to it. Your moral intuition even tells you there is an external referent and not (as you’ve tried to say) just opinion. You obviously think your moral opinion is higher than others, but when challenged to support why you try to shift the argument. “Circular!!”

The error I think many divine command theorists make is that morals are a set of rules. Morality is not a set of rules.

I think you are muddying the waters and moving back and forth between what you are calling ontology and epistemology when pressed on the self-referential problem. But I'll run down that road and you can tell me where I'm wrong.

For the sake of argument, let's say my referent is 200,000 years of programmed evolution. Is that not external to me? The time and place I was born, is that not external to me? Can I control any of that? That forms the basis and starting point of mine, or anybody else's, morality (ontology). Is my evolved biological ABILITY to reason and rationalize and be self-evident to overcome that starting point no different than your notion of God given free will (epistemology)? The sum total and evolving moral capacity of humanity can't be that external referent? 200,000 years of evolution and trillions of human trial and error is not my opinion, I would argue it is not even subjective or relative, it is what it is. Here we are.

It's worth noting if you or I were born in 3rd century India, or 12th century Middle America, or any other time and place your moral ontology of an external supernatural referent would be just as valid as it is now, yet your epistemology or rules or "objectivity" would look completely different. What does that say about the ontology of a supernatural being as the external source? The Mayan priest can point to the God as the external source of morality, just the same as you, yet the epistemology would dictate ripping out the heart of human sacrifices. Also...as it has been stated...burning witches, Jewish pogroms, Christian inquisitions...that evolutionary explanation fits nicely in that paradigm as well.

Instead of coming up with good reasons or justification to execute somebody for blasphemy, I can just say that is a product of the sum total of moral evolutionary and cultural advancements for somebody born in to the stone age middle east. I can furthermore compare it against a 21st century American society and make a moral judgement it wouldn't be a good idea to practice it. We all can, and I would even venture to say you believe this too.

Do I think all that is the answer? I don't know. But it is in fact an answer, and yours is no better.

It comes back to WHY I should believe that ontology and Christian external referent. How would satan fit in all this? That is a serious and honest question. What is to say his morality isn't better than God's? If that "what" isn't anybody other than the opinion of the person you see in the mirror in the morning I think you are being naive.

If it boils down to self-referential being based on writings from first century Judea, then ok...but there is no reason to believe that over Zues or Thor or Kirshna or Allah or any other God. Or for that matter...evolution, reason, debate, etc..

So, I say again, lets hear the WHY a God is necessary for morality. Specifically the version of the Christian God you believe. The ontology and epistemology recourse's seem like redirects from this question.

 

[Orange_Crush]

the theist has a much better position. We have a reason to have a moral ontology. We both treat morals as if there is an external referent. You reject one, I accept one. Who is consistent?

Plus, you are really missing the ontological and epistemological disntinctions. How we come to our moral capacity is not the same as whether there is a moral reality. If the later is formed by those things you just mentioned then that creates a huge problem for you. As a child develops they become ABLE to make moral distinctions (epistemology). But, we wouldnt say that morality came about (ontology) when the child arrived at that point. But, that is exactly what you are saying.

Take how you are using logic? You depend on it to make your claim yet you must rely on circularity to hold to it. Your moral intuition even tells you there is an external referent and not (as you’ve tried to say) just opinion. You obviously think your moral opinion is higher than others, but when challenged to support why you try to shift the argument. “Circular!!”



The error I think many divine command theorists make is that morals are a set of rules. Morality is not a set of rules.

That's something that's been missed here, along with attributing God as having "opinions". Moral is defined for the Christian as that which is in accord to God's character and it's baked into the universe in the same way as gravity, order, logic and mathematics are. That's been dealt with multiple times in this thread.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Three Israeli Children Among Injured in Hamas Rocket Attack

TEL AVIV – Three children aged a year-and-a-half, and three and 12 years old, were among the seven injured in Monday morning’s rocket attack on a residential building in central Israel that saw the building leveled.

A 59-year-old woman suffered moderate blast injuries including burns and shrapnel wounds. A 30-year-old woman was also moderately wounded by shrapnel. A 30-year-old man, 60-year-old man, 12-year-old girl, three-year-old boy and 18-month-old baby all sustained light injuries. The 12-year-old is undergoing surgery for shrapnel in her foot. Four dogs were also killed in the blast.

Three Israeli Children Among Injured in Hamas Rocket Attack

 

[NurseGoodVol]

View attachment 198476

Oh that's a big kitty. Nope!

 

[CagleMtnVol]

I wonder if he was home?

 

[Orangeslice13]

I wonder if he was home?

Well likely never know

 

[Roustabout]

I think you are muddying the waters and moving back and forth between what you are calling ontology and epistemology when pressed on the self-referential problem. But I'll run down that road and you can tell me where I'm wrong.

For the sake of argument, let's say my referent is 200,000 years of programmed evolution. Is that not external to me?

Before we go any further we need to stop here. You said you thought i was muddying epistemology and ontology, but that is exactly what you are doing here. One, that is NOT an external referent. You are a product of evolution (granting evolution for the sake of discussion). You'd have a lot of work to defend the teleology of this approach. If evolution is responsible for moral ontology then it is unguided. You said, "programmed." Programmed by whom or what? Evolution, by definition is unguided and not directed. So, any moral faculty we have today would be accident, and if accident then it could have been different given a different set of factors in the process. Further, it would mean we are STILL evolving, which means that we have no way to know that our moral beliefs won't change. If they have changed and will change, then we have no moral certainty at all. And we would have no way to count change, in and of itself, as progress. It would only be different. If nature is just fizzing, then morals are just more fizz. Some animals breathe through their skin, some lungs and some fins. These are just how they do it and given evolution, that's just how it is and how it happened. You can't say one is better. But, this is exactly what you are saying regarding morals.

The time and place I was born, is that not external to me? Can I control any of that? That forms the basis and starting point of mine, or anybody else's, morality (ontology). Is my evolved biological ABILITY to reason and rationalize and be self-evident to overcome that starting point no different than your notion of God given free will (epistemology)? The sum total and evolving moral capacity of humanity can't be that external referent? 200,000 years of evolution and trillions of human trial and error is not my opinion, I would argue it is not even subjective or relative, it is what it is. Here we are.

In short, yes, it's quite different.
Control is not the issue here. While i appreciate what you are trying to say, you are really taking a ton for granted. "Here we are, and that works for me." The problem, as OC pointed out is you really don't act like that. Earlier in the discussion you made a comment degrading Christian ethics and bragged on your own, but based on what? An uncertain, changing, arbitrary moral fabric? P

It's worth noting if you or I were born in 3rd century India, or 12th century Middle America, or any other time and place your moral ontology of an external supernatural referent would be just as valid as it is now, yet your epistemology or rules or "objectivity" would look completely different. What does that say about the ontology of a supernatural being as the external source? The Mayan priest can point to the God as the external source of morality, just the same as you, yet the epistemology would dictate ripping out the heart of human sacrifices. Also...as it has been stated...burning witches, Jewish pogroms, Christian inquisitions...that evolutionary explanation fits nicely in that paradigm as well.

I think you flip flopped the two, but this supports my position. My position says people misinterpret morality and get things wrong. To say this, means that there HAS TO BE an objective moral referent. Otherwise, by what measure are we saying those people in the past were wrong? Hell, by what measure are you saying your contemporaries are right or wrong?
Pointing to God to say my morals are right is not moral ontology, and it's not what I'm doing. I'm simply saying it's consistent. Hell, I've said that no one has to believe in God to be moral. I agree, for a good part, with Kant on this, and aquinas would also agree. If morality is truly objective, then it would transcend religious practice. Ayyone, and I repeat anyone, from anytime and any place should be able to do it. Take chattel slavery as an example. It was accepted, but does the acceptance of it mean it was morally good? No. It was always wrong and the people of that time SHOULD have known better. It wasn't right because it was accepted. In fact, the people who recognized the injustice, we celebrate as heroes. Why? because despite their cultural norms, they were able to recognize objective truth and seek to take corrective action.

Instead of coming up with good reasons or justification to execute somebody for blasphemy, I can just say that is a product of the sum total of moral evolutionary and cultural advancements for somebody born in to the stone age middle east. I can furthermore compare it against a 21st century American society and make a moral judgement it wouldn't be a good idea to practice it. We all can, and I would even venture to say you believe this too.

Do I think all that is the answer? I don't know. But it is in fact an answer, and yours is no better.

There is a bit of chronological snobbery here, but ok.
Again, your moral assumptions betray you here. Comparing what? Your opinion? Why is it wrong to execute someone for blasphemy? Your opinion? Who made you the moral arbiter of everyone, everywhere? Our cultural advancements have normalized all kinds of deviant behavior. In some ways we may seem better, but isn't that just what you've been taught? There are still plenty of moral practices in the world that are troubling.

It comes back to WHY I should believe that ontology and Christian external referent. How would satan fit in all this? That is a serious and honest question. What is to say his morality isn't better than God's? If that "what" isn't anybody other than the opinion of the person you see in the mirror in the morning I think you are being naive.

Most moral arguments don't demand you accept the Christian external referent. At most they demand theism, but where one goes from that point is a different argument. You might reference back to several conversations with TRUT.
Evil and sin, from this perspective, are not things, but privations. So, moral awareness can be gauged by what is being deprived of the good. God is not simply a being that does good, but is good (completeness, not lacking anything). Satan, at best is a created being. Classical theology deals with god existing a se, being immutable, eternal (uncreated), transcendent and a number of other matters.

If it boils down to self-referential being based on writings from first century Judea, then ok...but there is no reason to believe that over Zues or Thor or Kirshna or Allah or any other God. Or for that matter...evolution, reason, debate, etc..

Again, this is a category error. There is no reason to believe that Zeus, Krishna or the pantheon of Gods is consistent with an objective morality. Hell, they weren't moral. They were contingent beings.
Allah? I would concede, at least from natural theology, that a monotheistic, uncreated creator would at least fit the bill as a source of moral reality. But, since you seem reluctant to grant even theism, then I have no starting ground to convince you that the God of the bible (yes the one from the OT) is such.

So, I say again, lets hear the WHY a God is necessary for morality. Specifically the version of the Christian God you believe. The ontology and epistemology recourse's seem like redirects from this question.

Necessity is probably the best way to put it. Aquinas' argument from necessity is a great place to start. Kant and Hume both had problems with it, but as classical theology is revisited with better understand of he metaphysics ,we begin to see the strength of these arguments. Moving from truly objective morality to the God of Christianity is what classical christianity has spent years defending. Augustine, Anslem, Aquinas, Lewis. Take your pick and start reading. The fact is you ALREADY believe morals are objective. Like most everyone else you treat your moral faculties as if they have a referent and not one that is arbitrary of changing. Again, our moral faculties are like a compass. There are lots of things that can distort the compass or impair our use of it, but a compass is worthless if there isn't an actual magnetic north. Building the compass doesn't create magnetic north. Tying this back into my first statement. If you are right, then imagine magnetic north moving arbitrarily. One day it's in peru, the next the north pole, the next it's in Vonore. How would you ever trust your compass? You couldn't. You'd have to know that there is a fixed point.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Before we go any further we need to stop here. You said you thought i was muddying epistemology and ontology, but that is exactly what you are doing here. One, that is NOT an external referent. You are a product of evolution (granting evolution for the sake of discussion). You'd have a lot of work to defend the teleology of this approach. If evolution is responsible for moral ontology then it is unguided. You said, "programmed." Programmed by whom or what? Evolution, by definition is unguided and not directed. So, any moral faculty we have today would be accident, and if accident then it could have been different given a different set of factors in the process. Further, it would mean we are STILL evolving, which means that we have no way to know that our moral beliefs won't change. If they have changed and will change, then we have no moral certainty at all. And we would have no way to count change, in and of itself, as progress. It would only be different. If nature is just fizzing, then morals are just more fizz. Some animals breathe through their skin, some lungs and some fins. These are just how they do it and given evolution, that's just how it is and how it happened. You can't say one is better. But, this is exactly what you are saying regarding morals.


In short, yes, it's quite different.
Control is not the issue here. While i appreciate what you are trying to say, you are really taking a ton for granted. "Here we are, and that works for me." The problem, as OC pointed out is you really don't act like that. Earlier in the discussion you made a comment degrading Christian ethics and bragged on your own, but based on what? An uncertain, changing, arbitrary moral fabric? P


I think you flip flopped the two, but this supports my position. My position says people misinterpret morality and get things wrong. To say this, means that there HAS TO BE an objective moral referent. Otherwise, by what measure are we saying those people in the past were wrong? Hell, by what measure are you saying your contemporaries are right or wrong?
Pointing to God to say my morals are right is not moral ontology, and it's not what I'm doing. I'm simply saying it's consistent. Hell, I've said that no one has to believe in God to be moral. I agree, for a good part, with Kant on this, and aquinas would also agree. If morality is truly objective, then it would transcend religious practice. Ayyone, and I repeat anyone, from anytime and any place should be able to do it. Take chattel slavery as an example. It was accepted, but does the acceptance of it mean it was morally good? No. It was always wrong and the people of that time SHOULD have known better. It wasn't right because it was accepted. In fact, the people who recognized the injustice, we celebrate as heroes. Why? because despite their cultural norms, they were able to recognize objective truth and seek to take corrective action.

There is a bit of chronological snobbery here, but ok.
Again, your moral assumptions betray you here. Comparing what? Your opinion? Why is it wrong to execute someone for blasphemy? Your opinion? Who made you the moral arbiter of everyone, everywhere? Our cultural advancements have normalized all kinds of deviant behavior. In some ways we may seem better, but isn't that just what you've been taught? There are still plenty of moral practices in the world that are troubling.


Most moral arguments don't demand you accept the Christian external referent. At most they demand theism, but where one goes from that point is a different argument. You might reference back to several conversations with TRUT.
Evil and sin, from this perspective, are not things, but privations. So, moral awareness can be gauged by what is being deprived of the good. God is not simply a being that does good, but is good (completeness, not lacking anything). Satan, at best is a created being. Classical theology deals with god existing a se, being immutable, eternal (uncreated), transcendent and a number of other matters.


Again, this is a category error. There is no reason to believe that Zeus, Krishna or the pantheon of Gods is consistent with an objective morality. Hell, they weren't moral. They were contingent beings.
Allah? I would concede, at least from natural theology, that a monotheistic, uncreated creator would at least fit the bill as a source of moral reality. But, since you seem reluctant to grant even theism, then I have no starting ground to convince you that the God of the bible (yes the one from the OT) is such.


Necessity is probably the best way to put it. Aquinas' argument from necessity is a great place to start. Kant and Hume both had problems with it, but as classical theology is revisited with better understand of he metaphysics ,we begin to see the strength of these arguments. Moving from truly objective morality to the God of Christianity is what classical christianity has spent years defending. Augustine, Anslem, Aquinas, Lewis. Take your pick and start reading. The fact is you ALREADY believe morals are objective. Like most everyone else you treat your moral faculties as if they have a referent and not one that is arbitrary of changing. Again, our moral faculties are like a compass. There are lots of things that can distort the compass or impair our use of it, but a compass is worthless if there isn't an actual magnetic north. Building the compass doesn't create magnetic north. Tying this back into my first statement. If you are right, then imagine magnetic north moving arbitrarily. One day it's in peru, the next the north pole, the next it's in Vonore. How would you ever trust your compass? You couldn't. You'd have to know that there is a fixed point.

I would add Francis Schaefer and Nancy Pearcey to that list.

 

[82_VOL_83]

You guys have ****ed up a perfectly good thread.

 

[Roustabout]

You guys have ****ed up a perfectly good thread.

I’d say redeem.
I remember early in this thread saying, “start a new thread.” “This is off topic.” No one did. Snowballed.

 

[rjd970]

Before we go any further we need to stop here. You said you thought i was muddying epistemology and ontology, but that is exactly what you are doing here. One, that is NOT an external referent. You are a product of evolution (granting evolution for the sake of discussion). You'd have a lot of work to defend the teleology of this approach. If evolution is responsible for moral ontology then it is unguided. You said, "programmed." Programmed by whom or what? Evolution, by definition is unguided and not directed. So, any moral faculty we have today would be accident, and if accident then it could have been different given a different set of factors in the process. Further, it would mean we are STILL evolving, which means that we have no way to know that our moral beliefs won't change. If they have changed and will change, then we have no moral certainty at all. And we would have no way to count change, in and of itself, as progress. It would only be different. If nature is just fizzing, then morals are just more fizz. Some animals breathe through their skin, some lungs and some fins. These are just how they do it and given evolution, that's just how it is and how it happened. You can't say one is better. But, this is exactly what you are saying regarding morals.

You are wrong on evolution unless you meant something else. Natural selection guides the process of determining which random gene mutations are favorable to reproduction and which aren't. The programmer is the environment. I'm not talking about random chance, I'm talking about evolution by natural selection. It is not an accident we are where we are, it is the product of our natural environment. At some point working together provided an evolutionary advantage. Intelligence and being self-aware provided an natural evolutionary advantage and as such, those genes survived and got more pronounced over time.

In short, yes, it's quite different.
Control is not the issue here. While i appreciate what you are trying to say, you are really taking a ton for granted. "Here we are, and that works for me." The problem, as OC pointed out is you really don't act like that. Earlier in the discussion you made a comment degrading Christian ethics and bragged on your own, but based on what? An uncertain, changing, arbitrary moral fabric? P

It is actually outlined in the bible how and under what circumstances it is ok to beat ones slaves (EX 21 19-21). Was that immoral then? Yes or no? If no, what changed? Something had to, otherwise how could you say it is bad to beat slaves? At one point God's standard made it good, and it changed (or maybe it didn't). "God is immutable by definition" isn't a compelling get out of jail free card here. It...or WE...changed. Unless you believe the objective standard that endorses beating slaves never changed, then Christianity (certainly in this case) is a changing fabric, and unless one believes in God's nature beforehand, it is also arbitrary.

I think you flip flopped the two, but this supports my position. My position says people misinterpret morality and get things wrong. To say this, means that there HAS TO BE an objective moral referent. Otherwise, by what measure are we saying those people in the past were wrong? Hell, by what measure are you saying your contemporaries are right or wrong?
Pointing to God to say my morals are right is not moral ontology, and it's not what I'm doing. I'm simply saying it's consistent. Hell, I've said that no one has to believe in God to be moral. I agree, for a good part, with Kant on this, and aquinas would also agree. If morality is truly objective, then it would transcend religious practice. Ayyone, and I repeat anyone, from anytime and any place should be able to do it. Take chattel slavery as an example. It was accepted, but does the acceptance of it mean it was morally good? No. It was always wrong and the people of that time SHOULD have known better. It wasn't right because it was accepted. In fact, the people who recognized the injustice, we celebrate as heroes. Why? because despite their cultural norms, they were able to recognize objective truth and seek to take corrective action.

Perhaps this is my issue. Referencing an objective moral referent is completely different than making a moral determination of right or wrong or good or bad based on it. The first very well may be true (there are objective moral truths), but the second (they are right/wrong) is complete opinion, no different than mine. This is what I mean when I say we all have our opinions. And I would certainly question the unchanging objectivity of Christianity.

The inquisitors (including Aquinas and Augustine) were making moral determinations of right and wrong and even consequences. Was there an objective standard they were using to determine right and wrong? Sure. Were they correct in making moral determinations on it? Even you (or OC) said this is a black eye. I know you have theological answers for the difference between the OT and the NT, but at the end of the day it did in fact change. You can't get by this by simply saying "God said so and he is immutable", while at the same time saying my evolutionary reference is fluid and therefor not unchanging. "God is immutable" is not a compelling reason, nor is there any evidence suggesting he is.

There is a bit of chronological snobbery here, but ok.
Again, your moral assumptions betray you here. Comparing what? Your opinion? Why is it wrong to execute someone for blasphemy? Your opinion? Who made you the moral arbiter of everyone, everywhere? Our cultural advancements have normalized all kinds of deviant behavior. In some ways we may seem better, but isn't that just what you've been taught? There are still plenty of moral practices in the world that are troubling.

See above. Referencing a moral referent and making a moral determination based on that moral referent are separate. One very well may be true, the other is opinion.

Most moral arguments don't demand you accept the Christian external referent. At most they demand theism, but where one goes from that point is a different argument. You might reference back to several conversations with TRUT.
Evil and sin, from this perspective, are not things, but privations. So, moral awareness can be gauged by what is being deprived of the good. God is not simply a being that does good, but is good (completeness, not lacking anything). Satan, at best is a created being. Classical theology deals with god existing a se, being immutable, eternal (uncreated), transcendent and a number of other matters.

Again, and no disrespect, but unless I believed that beforehand, there is no reason for me to believe it now. I would also add if the objectivity of the external referent rests on that being true then it is without compelling basis and is classified as a belief, or opinion.

Again, this is a category error. There is no reason to believe that Zeus, Krishna or the pantheon of Gods is consistent with an objective morality. Hell, they weren't moral. They were contingent beings.
Allah? I would concede, at least from natural theology, that a monotheistic, uncreated creator would at least fit the bill as a source of moral reality. But, since you seem reluctant to grant even theism, then I have no starting ground to convince you that the God of the bible (yes the one from the OT) is such.

We agree. I'll even grant that the God of the Bible is an external referent, but I don't think he is unchanging nor immutable, given the writings and change the Bible (especially from the OT to the NT). Certainly no more than evolutionary change or nature, which I still contend could be an external referent with no qualitative difference from God.

Necessity is probably the best way to put it. Aquinas' argument from necessity is a great place to start. Kant and Hume both had problems with it, but as classical theology is revisited with better understand of he metaphysics ,we begin to see the strength of these arguments. Moving from truly objective morality to the God of Christianity is what classical christianity has spent years defending. Augustine, Anslem, Aquinas, Lewis. Take your pick and start reading. The fact is you ALREADY believe morals are objective. Like most everyone else you treat your moral faculties as if they have a referent and not one that is arbitrary of changing. Again, our moral faculties are like a compass. There are lots of things that can distort the compass or impair our use of it, but a compass is worthless if there isn't an actual magnetic north. Building the compass doesn't create magnetic north. Tying this back into my first statement. If you are right, then imagine magnetic north moving arbitrarily. One day it's in peru, the next the north pole, the next it's in Vonore. How would you ever trust your compass? You couldn't. You'd have to know that there is a fixed point.

Despite what I say sometimes, I appreciate your reference to classical theology, but at the end of the day it is not convincing. Religion is based on faith, and if that works for you then good on you. I'm glad your happy. But it is still faith, and nobody is smuggling anything. You can't show your compass is any more accurate than mine with anything other than opinion. Even assuming there is a magnetic north, how do you know you are going north? Based on what? What good is never changing direction if you are going the wrong direction? When I say something is wrong, I'm making a moral determination. When you say something is wrong you are making a moral determination. We may get there by different paths and guiding by different reference points, but at the end of the day WE are making that journey and deciding the best way to get there. We are no different and there is no smuggling.

 

[Roustabout]

You are wrong on evolution unless you meant something else. Natural selection guides the process of determining which random gene mutations are favorable to reproduction and which aren't. The programmer is the environment. I'm not talking about random chance, I'm talking about evolution by natural selection. It is not an accident we are where we are, it is the product of our natural environment. At some point working together provided an evolutionary advantage. Intelligence and being self-aware provided an natural evolutionary advantage and as such, those genes survived and got more pronounced over time.

I never said random. I said it is not directed and unguided. You are committing the fallacy of reification. You are applying traits to a term and treating it as a force, like gravity. NS is not a force. At best it is a process, but it is not a thing. There is not a trait, a power or a force called NS that exist in the physical universe. If you have evidence of it then I demand empirical proof for it now. Advantages don't provide a teleology. NS and the environment have NO predictive powers. None. Zero.
"At some point working together provided an evolutionary advantage." Well, there you are. Mother Nature and Father natural selection worked together.
NS is a term used to describe observations in nature. Nature is not a being or a mind that is picking and choosing. Some things survive and some things don't. Other RANDOM and unpredictable forces and pressure in nature (drought, hot, cold) are what affects this. Not some force or being.

It is actually outlined in the bible how and under what circumstances it is ok to beat ones slaves (EX 21 19-21). Was that immoral then? Yes or no? If no, what changed? Something had to, otherwise how could you say it is bad to beat slaves? At one point God's standard made it good, and it changed (or maybe it didn't). "God is immutable by definition" isn't a compelling get out of jail free card here. It...or WE...changed. Unless you believe the objective standard that endorses beating slaves never changed, then Christianity (certainly in this case) is a changing fabric, and unless one believes in God's nature beforehand, it is also arbitrary.

Yes, and you've been given numerous arguments over the years regarding this issue. And you keep reverting back to the same crap. Asked and answered.
This is about moral ontology and objective morality. The bible NEVER commands slavery or says it is good. Never. The prescriptive laws to Israel are not in themselves universal or even moral issues for that matter. It's illegal to murder in this country. It's also illegal to drive on the left side of the road. I'll see if you can figure out, which one is universal and which one is prescriptive. You need to stop having the same stuff explained to you over and over. If you ask the teacher a question, you will first be viewed as a good student. If you ask the same question everyday, ignoring the previous answer, the teacher will question your sincerity, indicating you're either stubborn or a dunce.

Perhaps this is my issue. Referencing an objective moral referent is completely different than making a moral determination of right or wrong or good or bad based on it. The first very well may be true (there are objective moral truths), but the second (they are right/wrong) is complete opinion, no different than mine. This is what I mean when I say we all have our opinions. And I would certainly question the unchanging objectivity of Christianity.

Hell, I'm shocked we've made this much progress. So, you think honesty being virtuous, and lying a vice is just an opinion? Forgive me for not believing you here.
How about murder versus not murder, opinion? Stealing versus not stealing, opinion? Rape?

The inquisitors (including Aquinas and Augustine) were making moral determinations of right and wrong and even consequences. Was there an objective standard they were using to determine right and wrong? Sure. Were they correct in making moral determinations on it? Even you (or OC) said this is a black eye. I know you have theological answers for the difference between the OT and the NT, but at the end of the day it did in fact change. You can't get by this by simply saying "God said so and he is immutable", while at the same time saying my evolutionary reference is fluid and therefor not unchanging. "God is immutable" is not a compelling reason, nor is there any evidence suggesting he is.

Not sure where you are going. Those two lived 1,000 years apart.
Sure, things changed between the OT and the NT. It's called JESUS CHRIST. I'll give you this example of immutability ONE more time, since i have to revisit these answers EVERY time you enter a discussion. Picture a tough drill sergeant barking orders at his troops. Tough punishments, etc. The same drill sergeant goes home and greets his children with open arms, hugs them and plays with them. Did he change? No. The difference is not a change in the person but a change in relationship. The incarnation of Christ changed how the world is now related to God. It didn't change God.

See above. Referencing a moral referent and making a moral determination based on that moral referent are separate. One very well may be true, the other is opinion.

How we interpret moral reality is definitely subjective (we're subjects). I've never said otherwise and why you continue to make these mistakes is beyond me. This isn't the first time this has been explained to you.

Again, and no disrespect, but unless I believed that beforehand, there is no reason for me to believe it now. I would also add if the objectivity of the external referent rests on that being true then it is without compelling basis and is classified as a belief, or opinion.

That is a pretty dismissive approach.

We agree. I'll even grant that the God of the Bible is an external referent, but I don't think he is unchanging nor immutable, given the writings and change the Bible (especially from the OT to the NT). Certainly no more than evolutionary change or nature, which I still contend could be an external referent with no qualitative difference from God.

Thank you, kind of. Yes, believing in the God of the Bible and the mountains of theology and philosophy that support it, is absolutely REASON to believe that moral truth is more than nature fizzing. It's absolutely reason to hold to moral ontology and that our moral reality is governed by something that transcends our individual and collective opinion.
To the second part of your response, that's little more than personal incredulity. You've again attempted to move the goalposts. We get it, you don't like the bible. That doesn't give you the right to keep taking shots at it to avoid the real focus of this argument.
Me: True objective moral reality exists
You: So, it's OK to beat my slaves. I can't eat shellfish or wear mixed fabrics.

To say that evolutionary change or nature could offer the same robust platform for moral ontology, and then offer no teleological support, and basically say mother nature and NS worked it out over tea and crumpets is the height of absurdity.

Despite what I say sometimes, I appreciate your reference to classical theology, but at the end of the day it is not convincing. Religion is based on faith, and if that works for you then good on you. I'm glad your happy. But it is still faith, and nobody is smuggling anything. You can't show your compass is any more accurate than mine with anything other than opinion. Even assuming there is a magnetic north, how do you know you are going north? Based on what? What good is never changing direction if you are going the wrong direction? When I say something is wrong, I'm making a moral determination. When you say something is wrong you are making a moral determination. We may get there by different paths and guiding by different reference points, but at the end of the day WE are making that journey and deciding the best way to get there. We are no different and there is no smuggling.

You need to stop miscategorizing "faith." The bible consistently uses the term as "trust." I have good reasons to trust my wife. Shame on you if you try to discredit our relationship by saying it's based on "faith." Damn straight it's based on faith. This is a dirty tactic. Our entire lifeexperience is based on it. You trust the bank where you keep your money. YOu trust the online company you buy from that the item pictured really exists. You trust a huge number of things to have your moral opinion. So, shame on you for trying to brush millenia of study, theology and philosophy under the rug and miscategorize faith as some blind allegiance. We have good reasons to trust that Jesus Christ is the savior of the world, and that includes you.

The compass isn't the issue. Magnetic north is the issue and it's sad that in typing that, this never registered with you. That is absolutely smuggling.

 

[rjd970]

I never said random. I said it is not directed and unguided. You are committing the fallacy of reification. You are applying traits to a term and treating it as a force, like gravity. NS is not a force. At best it is a process, but it is not a thing. There is not a trait, a power or a force called NS that exist in the physical universe. If you have evidence of it then I demand empirical proof for it now. Advantages don't provide a teleology. NS and the environment have NO predictive powers. None. Zero.
"At some point working together provided an evolutionary advantage." Well, there you are. Mother Nature and Father natural selection worked together.
NS is a term used to describe observations in nature. Nature is not a being or a mind that is picking and choosing. Some things survive and some things don't. Other RANDOM and unpredictable forces and pressure in nature (drought, hot, cold) are what affects this. Not some force or being.

You sure you want to go down this road?

I demand empirical proof for objective morality and personal intuition ain't it. I further demand empirical proof it is a force like gravity. Let's see the equation.

I also demand empirical proof for God.

I also demand empirical proof of his immutability.

Who is calling NS a "force"? I'm simply saying evolution isn't unguided. Natural selection can be empirically proven through biological process, genetics, geology, and a host of other disciplines. If Natural Selection isn't guiding evolution, then Mother Nature has a tone of explaining to do. I would say it has been all but proven by consilience from multiple disciplines. Meanwhile, Christians can't even agree on what specific Biblical versus mean (see the other thread).

Yes, and you've been given numerous arguments over the years regarding this issue. And you keep reverting back to the same crap. Asked and answered.
This is about moral ontology and objective morality. The bible NEVER commands slavery or says it is good. Never. The prescriptive laws to Israel are not in themselves universal or even moral issues for that matter. It's illegal to murder in this country. It's also illegal to drive on the left side of the road. I'll see if you can figure out, which one is universal and which one is prescriptive. You need to stop having the same stuff explained to you over and over. If you ask the teacher a question, you will first be viewed as a good student. If you ask the same question everyday, ignoring the previous answer, the teacher will question your sincerity, indicating you're either stubborn or a dunce.

No, not well enough it hasn't. This prescriptive laws stuff is whitewashing. This should be simple if it is that easy:

Simple yes or no - God is ok with beating slaves (or was ok), under certain circumstances?

Hell, I'm shocked we've made this much progress. So, you think honesty being virtuous, and lying a vice is just an opinion? Forgive me for not believing you here.
How about murder versus not murder, opinion? Stealing versus not stealing, opinion? Rape?

Read my last paragraph again. Lying is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Rape is wrong. We both BELIEVE that. How we get there is different.

Not sure where you are going. Those two lived 1,000 years apart.
Sure, things changed between the OT and the NT. It's called JESUS CHRIST. I'll give you this example of immutability ONE more time, since i have to revisit these answers EVERY time you enter a discussion. Picture a tough drill sergeant barking orders at his troops. Tough punishments, etc. The same drill sergeant goes home and greets his children with open arms, hugs them and plays with them. Did he change? No. The difference is not a change in the person but a change in relationship. The incarnation of Christ changed how the world is now related to God. It didn't change God.

That example is not relevant. This is not a drill sergeant scenario where he acts different based on who his audience is. This is more aiken to a reformed psychopath.

OT:
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

NT:
The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” John 8:3-11

You can work that one out. With the elasticity of religious belief I'm sure you have a reason that suits you.

How we interpret moral reality is definitely subjective (we're subjects). I've never said otherwise and why you continue to make these mistakes is beyond me. This isn't the first time this has been explained to you.

Then how is that any different then what I'm doing? You are finally admitting you have nothing more than your opinion. Yes, it is subjective. Thank you.

Part of your opinion is deciding Christianity is the best lens with which to make moral judgment. You are going back and forth. I provided a moral referent of evolution, which is my opinion. You claimed it was changing and fluid. I said the Bible is no different. The only thing you have to go back on is walking around with your fingers in your ears screaming "immutability", "unchanging", "evolution doesn't count".

We are all in the same boat here.

That is a pretty dismissive approach.

We've been down that road in multiple other threads. We haven't written literal books arguing the subject. It is far from dismissive. It's been discussed and refuted.

Thank you, kind of. Yes, believing in the God of the Bible and the mountains of theology and philosophy that support it, is absolutely REASON to believe that moral truth is more than nature fizzing. It's absolutely reason to hold to moral ontology and that our moral reality is governed by something that transcends our individual and collective opinion.
To the second part of your response, that's little more than personal incredulity. You've again attempted to move the goalposts. We get it, you don't like the bible. That doesn't give you the right to keep taking shots at it to avoid the real focus of this argument.
Me: True objective moral reality exists
You: So, it's OK to beat my slaves. I can't eat shellfish or wear mixed fabrics.

Its more like this:

You: True objective moral reality exists
Me: Maybe it does.
You: So I can say murder is wrong and you can't without smuggling, because you have no objective moral referent and I have the Bible and theology.
Me: I do have a moral referent, and me claiming murder is wrong is opinion, no different than you.
You: But your moral referent is unguided, changing, etc. Mine is the Bible and Theology.
Me: Yours is opinion too, unless you can prove the Bible and Theology are better than my referent.
You: Immutability

To say that evolutionary change or nature could offer the same robust platform for moral ontology, and then offer no teleological support, and basically say mother nature and NS worked it out over tea and crumpets is the height of absurdity.

Is this a joke? There is nothing robust about it.

You need to stop miscategorizing "faith." The bible consistently uses the term as "trust." I have good reasons to trust my wife. Shame on you if you try to discredit our relationship by saying it's based on "faith." Damn straight it's based on faith. This is a dirty tactic. Our entire lifeexperience is based on it. You trust the bank where you keep your money. YOu trust the online company you buy from that the item pictured really exists. You trust a huge number of things to have your moral opinion. So, shame on you for trying to brush millenia of study, theology and philosophy under the rug and miscategorize faith as some blind allegiance. We have good reasons to trust that Jesus Christ is the savior of the world, and that includes you.

The compass isn't the issue. Magnetic north is the issue and it's sad that in typing that, this never registered with you. That is absolutely smuggling.

This is not a dirty tactic, it is what it is. It is your responsibility to deal with it instead of alleging some sort of false insult. You are the one claiming the Bible and robust Theology every other sentence. Faith is the cornerstone of religion. Deal with it.

I have good, logical, rational reasons for trusting my bank, or choosing my groceries, or trusting onine companies. I have consumer reviews, interest rates, FDIC insurance. This is a false equivalency saying it is the same faith as believing what will happen to my soul after I die, or what supernatural being I should believe in, or what moral code is best defined by him/it....for which there is zero interest rates, google reviews, or Amazon ratings to base it on. In terms of trust and faith we aren't even talking the same sport.

You have done nothing to convince me here. And the funny thing is I'm not even trying to convince you of my position. I'm simply saying when you boil it down it is no different than mine. For some reason you feel the need to argue otherwise. You have your approach. Congrats. But every time you or OC says somebody can't say Murder or Rape is wrong because they are smuggling "your" beliefs I'm going to call it out for the nonsense it is. You guys are no better and have no better reason to believe these things than any of the rest of us.

 

[Roustabout]

You sure you want to go down this road?

I demand empirical proof for objective morality and personal intuition ain't it. I further demand empirical proof it is a force like gravity. Let's see the equation.

I also demand empirical proof for God.

I also demand empirical proof of his immutability.

Category error. YOU made the claim that evolution is an equally good explanation for moral ontology and sighted NS. That is YOUR claim.
Since that is a claim about science you need empirical evidence. My claim is not a scientific claim. It's like demanding empirical evidence for love.

Who is calling NS a "force"? I'm simply saying evolution isn't unguided. Natural selection can be empirically proven through biological process, genetics, geology, and a host of other disciplines. If Natural Selection isn't guiding evolution, then Mother Nature has a tone of explaining to do. I would say it has been all but proven by consilience from multiple disciplines. Meanwhile, Christians can't even agree on what specific Biblical versus mean (see the other thread).

You are absolutely using NS as a guiding force. It is unguided. if something is guiding it provide evidence. The fact that traits survice and others don't isn't being disputed by me. I'm perfectly fine with the textbook definition of NS. I'm not the one adding to it. There is NO mother nature. See, you did again. I suggest you look up reification becuase your naturalistic worldview is plagued with it.

No, not well enough it hasn't. This prescriptive laws stuff is whitewashing. This should be simple if it is that easy:

Simple yes or no - God is ok with beating slaves (or was ok), under certain circumstances?

It's not whitewashing anything. it's fact. God permitted physical punishment for slaves under those conditions. Are you saying he's wrong?
If so, by what standard? oh yeah, your opinion.

Read my last paragraph again. Lying is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Rape is wrong. We both BELIEVE that. How we get there is different.

Once again you can't distinquish between ontology and epistemology. How we get there is epistemology. I don't care how you get there. It's irrelevant. For the last time, your compass is NOT the issue. Moral north is.

That example is not relevant. This is not a drill sergeant scenario where he acts different based on who his audience is. This is more aiken to a reformed psychopath.

OT:
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

NT:
The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” John 8:3-11

So, God had harsh punishments for Israel. So? Again, argument from personal incredulity. You are making a moral judgments, but providing no basis other than your own opinion.

You can work that one out. With the elasticity of religious belief I'm sure you have a reason that suits you.

i don't have anything to work out. You think your the first person that's brought difficult things in the bible to my attention. That's hillarious. I've heard them all.

Then how is that any different then what I'm doing? You are finally admitting you have nothing more than your opinion. Yes, it is subjective. Thank you.

Then you are obtuse and unable to be reasoned with. Again, if you don't know the difference in epistemology and ontology, it's oK. Just say you don't, read up on it and get back with me. I've admitted that our interpretation of moral reality is subjective. It HAS TO BE because we are subjects. However, to interpret something means there is an OBJECT we are interpreting. I really question whether you understand what the hell we are talking about when we say objective.

Part of your opinion is deciding Christianity is the best lens with which to make moral judgment. You are going back and forth. I provided a moral referent of evolution, which is my opinion. You claimed it was changing and fluid. I said the Bible is no different. The only thing you have to go back on is walking around with your fingers in your ears screaming "immutability", "unchanging", "evolution doesn't count".

You have NOT provided a referent. You've offered no teleology. You've made an assertion that NS and mother nature worked it out.

We are all in the same boat here.

You are very mistaken.

We've been down that road in multiple other threads. We haven't written literal books arguing the subject. It is far from dismissive. It's been discussed and refuted.

Refuted? You haven't refuted anything

You: True objective moral reality exists
Me: Maybe it does.
You: So I can say murder is wrong and you can't without smuggling, because you have no objective moral referent and I have the Bible and theology.
Me: I do have a moral referent, and me claiming murder is wrong is opinion, no different than you.
You: But your moral referent is unguided, changing, etc. Mine is the Bible and Theology.
Me: Yours is opinion too, unless you can prove the Bible and Theology are better than my referent.
You: Immutability

This conversation is going on in your head and nowhere else. The bible is NOT a referent for objective morality. The bible is a collection of writings many of which do offer revelation. How do you KNOW it? YOu said morals are just opinion. how do you KNOW?

Is this a joke? There is nothing robust about it.

Again, dismissive.

This is not a dirty tactic, it is what it is. It is your responsibility to deal with it instead of alleging some sort of false insult. You are the one claiming the Bible and robust Theology every other sentence. Faith is the cornerstone of religion. Deal with it.

Perhaps you didn't mean it as tactic, but it's wrong nontheless. The person of Jesus is the cornerstone of Christianity. Placing trust in who He is and what He has done defines faith, not your distortion of it. I gave a perfectly solid explanation that faith is trust, and trust in something for good reason.

I have good, logical, rational reasons for trusting my bank, or choosing my groceries, or trusting onine companies. I have consumer reviews, interest rates, FDIC insurance. This is a false equivalency saying it is the same faith as believing what will happen to my soul after I die, or what supernatural being I should believe in, or what moral code is best defined by him/it....for which there is zero interest rates, google reviews, or Amazon ratings to base it on. In terms of trust and faith we aren't even talking the same sport.

And i have good reasons for trusting that Jesus died and rose again. I have good reason to trust that how I view all of the old testament must be filtered through the person of Jesus Christ and not my opinion or my bias or inability to understand what things were like in the ANE. Consumer reviews? You mean testimony? Wow, how about that. What happens after you die and all that are secondary issues to the person of Jesus Christ.

You have done nothing to convince me here. And the funny thing is I'm not even trying to convince you of my position. I'm simply saying when you boil it down it is no different than mine. For some reason you feel the need to argue otherwise. You have your approach. Congrats. But every time you or OC says somebody can't say Murder or Rape is wrong because they are smuggling "your" beliefs I'm going to call it out for the nonsense it is. You guys are no better and have no better reason to believe these things than any of the rest of us.

You can say whatever you want. I'm arguing because you're wrong. Whether is passes muster is another story.

This is basically more, "God doesn't exist and I hate him," rhetoric. I tried to keep the discussion on the OM issue and you kept bringing in verses you don't like. Pathetic.

 

[BigO95]

 

[FLVOL69]

Love this woman , her life story is inspirational and she takes no **** off these Muslims

 

[Roustabout]

Scary stuff that will be discounted and ignored by those on the left.

 

[T-TownVol]

I have been saying this for years. They have ONE GOAL.

 

[rjd970]

The history and doctrine of Islam is one of conquest and subjugation, and infidels are to be punished. The liberal left has it wrong here, this is a problem that needs honest conversation, not PC cover. If even 1% of Muslims believe in the extreme violent and radicalization practiced by terrorist (a conservative number) we are still talking about >10 Million avowed supporters of terrorism willing to walk into times square and detonate a suitcase bomb. This is a sobering problem that is only made worse by not calling out the dogma for what it is.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

The history and doctrine of Islam is one of conquest and subjugation, and infidels are to be punished. The liberal left has it wrong here, this is a problem that needs honest conversation, not PC cover. If even 1% of Muslims believe in the extreme violent and radicalization practiced by terrorist (a conservative number) we are still talking about >10 Million avowed supporters of terrorism willing to walk into times square and detonate a suitcase bomb. This is a sobering problem that is only made worse by not calling out the dogma for what it is.

Amen. (That means "I agree" , or "it is so." For the socialists among us)

 

[rjd970]

Category error. YOU made the claim that evolution is an equally good explanation for moral ontology and sighted NS. That is YOUR claim.
Since that is a claim about science you need empirical evidence. My claim is not a scientific claim. It's like demanding empirical evidence for love.

First, I only made the claim that evolution is an external referent to me, along with the time and place I was born. I have no control over that and it absolutely has an effect on how I shape my worldview. If I'm claiming anything, it is the epistemology is no worse than yours. You've agreed here:

Once again you can't distinquish between ontology and epistemology. How we get there is epistemology. I don't care how you get there. It's irrelevant. For the last time, your compass is NOT the issue. Moral north is.

Now, you want to talk about if there are objective moral truths, or a "Moral North" then ok. Sure, there is.

For example, a minimizing suffering can be the objective "Moral North"...imagine the worst possible suffering a human or humans can go through. The further way you get from that, the more you are minimizing suffering. Minimizing suffering is the basis of a good moral objective truth, and we can know a relative position based on that. Having something to eat everyday is better than starving to death, breathing is better than suffocating, taking a hot bath is better than having your skinned burned off. That is a fixed point from which we can find a relative moral position. "Moral North" can further be defined by pain receptors, endorphin levels, etc.

I believe I brought this up with OC and he said how do you know human life has instrinsic value (or something like that). I point back to evolution, and how bear would act as though her cubs have more value than a human and would attack and kill somebody. There is a genetic pre-disposition to feel that way.

It's not whitewashing anything. it's fact. God permitted physical punishment for slaves under those conditions. Are you saying he's wrong?
If so, by what standard? oh yeah, your opinion.

So, God had harsh punishments for Israel. So? Again, argument from personal incredulity. You are making a moral judgments, but providing no basis other than your own opinion.

Just so we are clear, we are talking about beating slaves almost to the point of death.

Is that morally wrong? And based on what moral ontology, or standard, or truth, that I have to smuggle?

You have NOT provided a referent. You've offered no teleology. You've made an assertion that NS and mother nature worked it out.

I've made the assertion that evolution by natural selection has played a part in shaping my moral worldview.

This conversation is going on in your head and nowhere else. The bible is NOT a referent for objective morality. The bible is a collection of writings many of which do offer revelation. How do you KNOW it? YOu said morals are just opinion. how do you KNOW?

How do you know, in a way that I have to smuggle? I'm seriously curious about this. It seems like when I ask the question then you revert back to there is a moral objective truth, and you have ontology. That is not answering the question. I want to know how your ontology is different than my opinion.

Perhaps you didn't mean it as tactic, but it's wrong nontheless. The person of Jesus is the cornerstone of Christianity. Placing trust in who He is and what He has done defines faith, not your distortion of it. I gave a perfectly solid explanation that faith is trust, and trust in something for good reason.

And i have good reasons for trusting that Jesus died and rose again. I have good reason to trust that how I view all of the old testament must be filtered through the person of Jesus Christ and not my opinion or my bias or inability to understand what things were like in the ANE. Consumer reviews? You mean testimony? Wow, how about that. What happens after you die and all that are secondary issues to the person of Jesus Christ.

OK. I have good reasons to believe evolution by NS. These reasons are based on scientific evidence.

You can say whatever you want. I'm arguing because you're wrong. Whether is passes muster is another story.

This is basically more, "God doesn't exist and I hate him," rhetoric. I tried to keep the discussion on the OM issue and you kept bringing in verses you don't like. Pathetic.

I'm not even saying you are wrong. I'm arguing because you keep saying I can't say stealing a pack of gum is wrong without being inconsistent, which is rubbish. And if you think bringing up verses I don't like is pathetic then let's cease with the classic theology stuff. Otherwise, it's fair game and you need to get over it.

 

[Roustabout]

First, I only made the claim that evolution is an external referent to me, along with the time and place I was born. I have no control over that and it absolutely has an effect on how I shape my worldview. If I'm claiming anything, it is the epistemology is no worse than yours. You've agreed here:

Then how do you know your worldview is right?If it's just a result of these factors, then that's all it is and nothing else. Hell, we can say the same thing about fashion. I like what i like because of the time and place I was born. But that isn't what you are saying.

Now, you want to talk about if there are objective moral truths, or a "Moral North" then ok. Sure, there is.

For example, a minimizing suffering can be the objective "Moral North"...imagine the worst possible suffering a human or humans can go through. The further way you get from that, the more you are minimizing suffering. Minimizing suffering is the basis of a good moral objective truth, and we can know a relative position based on that. Having something to eat everyday is better than starving to death, breathing is better than suffocating, taking a hot bath is better than having your skinned burned off. That is a fixed point from which we can find a relative moral position. "Moral North" can further be defined by pain receptors, endorphin levels, etc.

Minimizing suffering? While I agree that it's noble to want to minimize human suffering, How is that an objective moral north? Your claim simply begs the questions that humans have objective value. Sure, we're humans, therefore we don't want to suffer. That's about as subjective as you get. There are literally dozens of examples we could get into here about humanity, but we've already covered this ground multiple times.

I believe I brought this up with OC and he said how do you know human life has instrinsic value (or something like that). I point back to evolution, and how bear would act as though her cubs have more value than a human and would attack and kill somebody. There is a genetic pre-disposition to feel that way.

Yes, self preservation is a real thing. Objective value isn't the same as intrinsic value and I'll add to this later. I can assure the bear is very myopic when it comes to her instincts. Plus, we would never say a bear is moral or immoral if her intrinsic values direct her to maul a human who gets too close to her cubs.

Just so we are clear, we are talking about beating slaves almost to the point of death.

Just to be clear, this verse is about punishing people who do this. The bible NEVER says slavery is good or commands it. I've pointed out in this thread and others the mistakes you make by equivocating and discarding the realities of ANE culture.

Is that morally wrong? And based on what moral ontology, or standard, or truth, that I have to smuggle?

The fact that you are making an apparent objective moral claim. Specificallyt that the OT is wrong for it's prescriptive rules dealing with slave abusers.
You seem to imply that it's 'obvious', and that the OT is objectively wrong. Ok, then you need to support that claim.
The problem is you have continually said, "you have your opinion, i have mine." The problem is you are saying your opinion is better. Better implies an objective standard of measure. Therefore, you need to support that claim.

I've made the assertion that evolution by natural selection has played a part in shaping my moral worldview.

How we were raised shapes our moral view. And yes, evolution has likely played a part in our moral view.
The problem, again, is that all these factors that impact our moral view is our compass. If someone ask you how you know your compass is "right" you don't point back to the letter "N" on your compass. Yes, A properly calibrated compass has an intrinsic ability to point north. Or, i should say, the magnet in the compass has an intrinsic ability. As well, the compass has to be calibrated and have the right components, but without an objective referent (something that is not part of the composition of the compass) it is worthless. You are basically looking at the magnetic needle and saying "see, there is it." Consider all the things that can cause error in a compass, such as another magnetic force. What you are left is opinion. Your compass points that way, mine points this way. It would leave you with no ability to make the moral claims you attempt. It would be arbitrary. Unless you say that we should all have the same referent. Whereas you attempt to make the conscience morality, the conscience is our means to recognize morality. If the conscience is morality, then it is like a compass that sets it's own north.

How do you know, in a way that I have to smuggle? I'm seriously curious about this. It seems like when I ask the question then you revert back to there is a moral objective truth, and you have ontology. That is not answering the question. I want to know how your ontology is different than my opinion.

I basically just answered this in that last sentence.
Moral ontology says that evolution, what I've been taught, trends, preferences are NOT the source of moral truth. They are, at best, a means of measuring moral truth.

OK. I have good reasons to believe evolution by NS. These reasons are based on scientific evidence.

I have no problem with you "believing" evolution. Of course, belief is a synonym for faith. So, you have faith in evolution. See, faith isn't the bad word you try and make it out to be. If you want to point me towards the science text that provides a moral ontology, I'll gladly read it. The fact is biology and chemistry don't answer questions of why something is right or wrong, or 'does truth exist.' If you can show they do you'd likely be awarded a Nobel prize.

I'm not even saying you are wrong. I'm arguing because you keep saying I can't say stealing a pack of gum is wrong without being inconsistent, which is rubbish. And if you think bringing up verses I don't like is pathetic then let's cease with the classic theology stuff. Otherwise, it's fair game and you need to get over it.

You can say whatever you want. I'm saying you don't have any ultimate reasons to. The reason it bothers you is because you KNOW it's objectively the case
I'll cease with the classic theological stuff when you stay focused on the argument and stop throwing out "problem" verses. How about we just agree that you discount every verse of the bible? Would that work? And for the sake of discussion we can focus on natural theology. It's an area that has dealt philosophically with the nature of reality and God.

 

[rjd970]

Then how do you know your worldview is right?If it's just a result of these factors, then that's all it is and nothing else. Hell, we can say the same thing about fashion. I like what i like because of the time and place I was born. But that isn't what you are saying.

Here's the issue. Are you asking how, or why and what do you mean? I can answer how I know my worldview is right, then you will start claiming you have no issue with my epistemology, the issue is my moral north. This is a tired game. You ask how, then I answer, then you rant about ontology. I've answered, and I've said it's no better than yours. I'm almost convinced at this point your meaning of "objective" is changing based on the question and this whole ruse is just to wrap somebody around the axle until they have no idea what you are talking about anymore then claim they are inconsistent.

Minimizing suffering? While I agree that it's noble to want to minimize human suffering, How is that an objective moral north? Your claim simply begs the questions that humans have objective value. Sure, we're humans, therefore we don't want to suffer. That's about as subjective as you get. There are literally dozens of examples we could get into here about humanity, but we've already covered this ground multiple times.

Here we go again, you asked this:

Once again you can't distinquish between ontology and epistemology. How we get there is epistemology. I don't care how you get there. It's irrelevant. For the last time, your compass is NOT the issue. Moral north is.

I gave a fixed point from which we can find relative morality. You saying we are human and don't want to suffer is subjective is like saying 2+2=4 is subjective because it relies on the assumption of the concept of mathematical equality. That is absurd. Suffering is objectively worse than not suffering...medically, biologically, ethically, socially.

The whole idea of God's nature is good and he can't be any other thing is question begging too. We are going around in circles and it is becoming abundantly clear there is no difference distinguishing which one of us has the better argument. They are both consistent in their own right.

Yes, self preservation is a real thing. Objective value isn't the same as intrinsic value and I'll add to this later. I can assure the bear is very myopic when it comes to her instincts. Plus, we would never say a bear is moral or immoral if her intrinsic values direct her to maul a human who gets too close to her cubs.

But that is consistent with evolution is my point. The simple fact remains that species place more value on their own species. There is nothing supernatural or special about that with regards to us. Otherwise we wouldn't see it anywhere else in the animal kingdom.

Just to be clear, this verse is about punishing people who do this. The bible NEVER says slavery is good or commands it. I've pointed out in this thread and others the mistakes you make by equivocating and discarding the realities of ANE culture.


The fact that you are making an apparent objective moral claim. Specificallyt that the OT is wrong for it's prescriptive rules dealing with slave abusers.
You seem to imply that it's 'obvious', and that the OT is objectively wrong. Ok, then you need to support that claim.
The problem is you have continually said, "you have your opinion, i have mine." The problem is you are saying your opinion is better. Better implies an objective standard of measure. Therefore, you need to support that claim.

You won't answer the question but demand I do then rail that mine is opinion? I understand now why you want to harp on ontology and not tip your hand. You said this:

Consider all the things that can cause error in a compass, such as another magnetic force. What you are left is opinion. Your compass points that way, mine points this way. It would leave you with no ability to make the moral claims you attempt. It would be arbitrary. Unless you say that we should all have the same referent. Whereas you attempt to make the conscience morality, the conscience is our means to recognize morality. If the conscience is morality, then it is like a compass that sets it's own north. I've answered, and you have failed to and show why your answer is any better than mine. I'll ask again:

That isn't an answer. At best, they are on equal footing. I"m not playing this game. I answer these questions then you say you have no problem with my epistemology and rail on ontology. Take human suffering, that is an objective, real, standard I can judge by. Slavery would be wrong, in any form, and beating them to death certainly would be by that standard. There is nothing subjective about that at all. I'm pointing to a fixed point that suffering is bad and claming that is subjective and question begging is absurd. It can be medically proven that suffering is worse than not suffering.

Your continual reference to ANE culture is proving my point that yes, time and place impact our reference of objective moral truth. If we say slavery is objectively wrong no matter what, then time and place will impact how well we can determine that. Same as today on any host of issues. I'll say it again, objective moral truths is not what I have issue with, it's your inability to show why your interpretation is better than mine while demanding that I do that very thing.

I'll ask again:

Is beating slaves to the point of death morally right or wrong, and based on what moral ontology, or standard, or truth, that I have to smuggle?

How we were raised shapes our moral view. And yes, evolution has likely played a part in our moral view.
The problem, again, is that all these factors that impact our moral view is our compass. If someone ask you how you know your compass is "right" you don't point back to the letter "N" on your compass. Yes, A properly calibrated compass has an intrinsic ability to point north. Or, i should say, the magnet in the compass has an intrinsic ability. As well, the compass has to be calibrated and have the right components, but without an objective referent (something that is not part of the composition of the compass) it is worthless. You are basically looking at the magnetic needle and saying "see, there is it." Consider all the things that can cause error in a compass, such as another magnetic force. What you are left is opinion. Your compass points that way, mine points this way. It would leave you with no ability to make the moral claims you attempt. It would be arbitrary. Unless you say that we should all have the same referent. Whereas you attempt to make the conscience morality, the conscience is our means to recognize morality. If the conscience is morality, then it is like a compass that sets it's own north.

I've already stated I will agree there is an objective morality. I don't know why are you arguing this. Your issue seems to be that unless I agree the source of that objective north is supernaturally transcendent then I'm being inconsistent. Are you referencing William Craig in your arguments? Because his entire premise has been picked apart on this. Much like what I'm understanding here, his arguments play fast and loose with the definition of "objective". He then claims victory because the moving target he is creating can't be hit. I get now why you don't even want to touch the epistemology part of this.

I basically just answered this in that last sentence.
Moral ontology says that evolution, what I've been taught, trends, preferences are NOT the source of moral truth. They are, at best, a means of measuring moral truth.

I don't disagree. And I will agree there are objective moral truths. I'm glad you have no issue with my epistemology. However, I feel like there will be a moving target of what objective is or a railing on ontology while asking me to explain my epistemology, then saying you have no issue with my epistemology. I'm past going around in circles here and not falling for this game.

I have no problem with you "believing" evolution. Of course, belief is a synonym for faith. So, you have faith in evolution. See, faith isn't the bad word you try and make it out to be. If you want to point me towards the science text that provides a moral ontology, I'll gladly read it. The fact is biology and chemistry don't answer questions of why something is right or wrong, or 'does truth exist.' If you can show they do you'd likely be awarded a Nobel prize.

Negative. What evidence, piece of information, or proof would it take for you to discount your belief in God, and specifically Christianity, and more specifically your flavor of Christianity? Until you can answer that, then yes, there is a difference between my belief in evolution and your faith in God.

Given what we know about God and his ability to interject, be all powerful, speak to me in prayer, etc...I can name any number of things that would constitute sufficient evidence that he does in fact exist and it would be in my best interest to start believing. Can you do that for not believing? What exactly would that be? The answer that faith does not work that way is invalid, because that is exactly the way my "belief" works.

You can say whatever you want. I'm saying you don't have any ultimate reasons to. The reason it bothers you is because you KNOW it's objectively the case
I'll cease with the classic theological stuff when you stay focused on the argument and stop throwing out "problem" verses. How about we just agree that you discount every verse of the bible? Would that work? And for the sake of discussion we can focus on natural theology. It's an area that has dealt philosophically with the nature of reality and God.

Again, so what? Without comparing how we are getting to KNOW it is the case (which you don't have an issue with) then this entire point is hollow. It's about reasons for the belief, not the belief itself.