Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

FFT*: Charles unmasks the anti-ID trollish tactic of attacking God, Christian values and worldview themes

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In a current thread on SJW invasions in engineering education,  in which yet another anti-ID commenter crosses over into troll territory, Charles does a very important worldviews and cultural agendas dissection. One, that is well worth headlining as *food for thought (as opposed to a point by point across-the-board endorsement):

Charles, 51>>The point of the original post was that Engineering was being contaminated with Social Justice Warrior values & viewpoints. As any engineer knows, what makes engineering “Engineering” is the rigorous adherence to physical reality, analysis, and testing to design something that is reliably fit for purpose. As the author’s article at American Conservative elaborates, Prof. Riley’s SJW viewpoint is the antithesis of sound Engineering. kairosfocus summarized this point with his comment that:

“Bridges gotta stand up under load.”

[Troll X’s]  snide and dismissive comment that

”How’s that [bridges needing to stand up under load] working out for ID?”

juxtaposed civil engineering with ID, impugning that ID was not Engineering. That is a fallacious comparison on several levels, not least of which is Engineering’s maturity born of hundreds of years of applied science, advancing technology, and development of best practices, contrasted with ID in its relative infancy, as well as engineering being all about “how to design” versus ID which endeavors to reduce to practice the “recognition of design”.

Implicit in [Troll X’s] comment is the presumption that evolution (or materialism or atheism) has a laudable track record over ID similar to engineering. As if to say “evolution” is a successful, testable, reliable theory like “engineering”, whereas ID is an engineering failure.

But evolution has no such track record of theoretical success. Modern evolution doesn’t even have a theory that makes testable predictions, and moreover, all of Darwinian evolution’s predictions (such as transition forms will be found in the geologic record)) have all failed, which I likened to engineering failures in my response to [Troll X]:

As compared to Darwinian Evolution’s collapsed bridges, toppled buildings, crashed airplanes and lack of repeatable, testable theory?

john_a_designer then affirms that [Troll X] hadn’t thought through the implications of his atheism, namely that atheism is bankrupt and contributes nothing intellectually, summed up as

“Haven’t we been told that atheism is “just disbelief”?”

Indeed.

At which point, I elaborated that while atheists claim they “just disbelieve”, atheists are not content with just disbelieving. That in fact, atheists fear and worry they are wrong as evidenced by the effort they put out to convince “believers” that there is no evidence for their belief in God or Jesus Christ.

When someone “just disbelieves” there is little or no concern attached to the disbelief. I gave the example of disbelieving in a flat earth. When someone argues the earth is flat, the atheist might criticize that belief and show a space station picture of our spherical green, blue and white “marble”, but they don’t define themselves by their disbelief – they don’t call themselves “aflatearthers”, they don’t write volumes on the philosophy of aflatearthism, they don’t dedicate websites to flatearth skepticism, they don’t spend countless man-years holding flatearthers up to ridicule. No. They shrug, and move on.

As wrong headed as flatearthers are, why don’t disbelievers define themselves as “aflatearthers” and lobby for flatearth beliefs to be eliminated from society? Because they don’t care, because they have a confidence born of evidence and experience that the earth is round, and flatearth arguments just don’t matter.

But atheists define themselves as A-Theists – against, without, absent, sans, theism. They invariably in social or political gatherings are self-compelled to declare, to signal, their atheistic world view and how it is self-evident to be intellectually superior over Christians in specific and over religionists in general (cowards that they are, they rarely take specific exception with Muslims or Islam). And atheists write volumes about their self-labeled viewpoint, they fill libraries, they write textbooks, they lobby legislatures, they put signs on buses, all to advance their self-defined atheistic world view. They are very concerned and discontent about their disbelief.

Why?

Because they are intellectually threatened. Because “The Enlightenment” and atheism’s ascendancy is over. Back in the day, when we didn’t know about the Big Bang, when we didn’t know how the universe was fine-tuned for our life, when we didn’t know how exquisitely mechanized are cellular functions, when we didn’t know that DNA and RNA were actually huge complex information programs densely encoded in precisely folded chemical molecules that have no natural tendency to otherwise so organize themselves (let alone replicate and error correct), and then there is the little matter of human consciousness. Back then being an atheist was easy, almost automatic. It was easy to say “random chance did it” – but that was an ignorant and arrogant presumption.

Today, the materialist, the atheist, has no answer for any of that. They have a multitude of speculations, yes, but no engineering-like understanding or scientific theories that make testable predictions. Evolutionary “theory” in all its claims (setting aside its failures) has nothing like our level of understanding of relativity, quantum mechanics, chemistry, or information theory. In fact the scientists who are expert in those subjects [—> will often] acknowledge that “chance” could not have begun our fine-tuned universe or life.

The modern atheist is forced into special pleading for a multi-verse, that free-will is imaginary and then piggyback on Christian morality as they have no basis in their own materialism to justify good or evil other than personal preference in any particular situation. About all of which, they could be complacent if it weren’t for Christian theists.

While the atheist has no defense against the failure of science to prove a multiverse or that life arose from inert chemicals, the Christian has an affirmative argument for what the atheist can’t prove. The Bible records that God made the Heavens and Earth, ex nihilo (the Big Bang), created life with consciousness and morality, and gave us free will to love and obey God, or not. Only the Christian is so audacious as to confront atheism directly.

Hence the atheist or materialist drive to remove Christian prayer from schools, thought from universities, and gatherings from public places. And the atheist was not content to merely suppress Christian viewpoints, but now seeks to impose atheist behavior on Christians; Christians must bake cakes for homosexual weddings, Christian chaplains must teach Islam, Christian schools must hire atheists and allow them to teach “diversity”. What the atheist can not achieve by intellectual persuasion, they seek to impose by legislation and force of confiscation and imprisonment.

All the foregoing while atheists cloak themselves in a false morality that they hijacked from aspects of Christianity. Atheists talk of being opposed to murder, except when Muslims murder homosexuals and then it’s abject silence. Atheists talk of being for equal rights for women, except unborn women or Muslim women. Atheists talk of doing good for mankind, but atheists don’t start hospitals, didn’t start universities (like Harvard or Princeton), and you don’t see atheists organizing charities or feeding the homeless. [–> NB: There are exceptions to this, we don’t have to endorse every claim to think something is worth headlining.]

The atheist argues that religious views have no justification in society’s laws, yet declaring bankruptcy has its roots in Judeo “jubilee” forgiveness of debt and servitude, marriage is a Judeo Christian sacrament, and the legal prohibitions on murder, theft, and lying all are millennia’s old Judeo-Christian teachings.

To Christian arguments against the atheist, the atheist in variably responds with a) “science will some day prove _____” and b) “there is no evidence for God (and the Bible doesn’t count as evidence)”

The problem for the atheist is that a) science is further away than ever of proving “chance” underlay the big bang and our information-based life. In fact, information may also underlie the laws of physics and the hence the fine-tuned universe in which we live, and b) there is evidence for the existence of God, some of it logical, philosophical arguments, some of it forensic proofs.

And now we come to the atheists’ discomfort with their own disbelief. So, not only is materialistic evolution a theoretical failure and scientific near impossibility, the atheist has no alternative proven scientific explanation for what the Bible plainly declares were creative acts of God. The atheist is forced to borrow and impose biblical concepts just to maintain a civil society (while banning Christian beliefs the atheist dislikes). Lastly the atheist is further confronted with evidence for God’s existence and that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior. That forensic evidence is fulfilled biblical prophecy in which God supernaturally declares to Daniel several hundred years in advance that the Messiah would appear, and forensic evidence further shows that prophecy to have been fulfilled by Jesus Christ.>>

Let’s “embed” a highly relevant video that we need to be reminded of:

[vimeo 17960119]

Food for thought, let us ponder and let us discuss responsibly, noting that we are not here endorsing every point or claim but rather think it is well worth pondering together. END

Comments
The burden of proof rest with the claimant.
Exactly and evolutionists don't have anything to offer to support their claims. And if there isn't any compelling explanation of origins (I disagree) then there isn't any reason to keep ID out of schools and there isn't any reason to allow materialism free reign.ET
February 18, 2018
February
02
Feb
18
18
2018
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
Charles @ 21
Upon sincerely believing that Jesus is in fact, Messiah, Lord and Savior, the Holy Spirit indwells the believer as a “pledge” (2Co 1:22, 2Co 5:5, Eph 1:14) that all God’s promises will be fulfilled and the believer has become a co-heir with Jesus. This indwelling Holy Spirit is evident to the believer as a newfound feeling of peace and confidence, and is often evident to others who detect a change in attitude in the believer.
In other words, they find peace in trusting that God will keep His promises.
I made 3 points in my original post; Atheists and/or materialists: 1) have failed to provide a materialist explanation for the origins of the universe and life without special pleading to an unprovable multi-verse
Agreed, no one has a compelling explanation of how it all originated - assuming it had an origin.
2) are not content with mere disbelief as evidenced by the effort they expend to compel Christians to likewise disbelieve
Some atheists hold that religious belief is a form of superstition that should be eradicated. I think that view is naïve. Religion has been around probably for as long as humans have been human and will continue to as such for the foreseeable future. Whatever the merits of their various doctrines, those faiths plainly provide their adherents a degree of comfort and support that atheism cannot possibly match.
3) have failed to disprove the existence of God and Jesus Christ as Messiah, Lord and Savior.
The burden of proof rest with the claimant. If a Christian claims their God exists then and if they want to persuade me that the claim has merit then it is for them to furnish evidence and arguments for it. I don't have to disprove it. If I find the case unconvincing then that's all I need to say. If the Christian wants to know why I find his or her case unconvincing then I should be prepared to do so.
Seversky enters the fray @ 174 with the ever-popular (among atheists & materialist) “Christian hoax theory” of Jesus’ messianic office:
I'm not claiming that it was a hoax. I'm saying that the only evidence we have for Jesus Christ, son of God, are the Gospel accounts, that they were all written well after the events they purport to describe by unknown authors who did not claim to have been eyewitnesses, which makes them hearsay technically. There are well-known discrepancies between those accounts. Only Matthew, as I recall, reports the "massacre of the innocents", an atrocity so bad that you would have thought it would have merited inclusion in the other Gospels. The authors were not historians but Christians bent on promoting their own faith. It is not too much of a stretch to suspect that they were 'massaging' the facts or embroidering the stories the had been told in order to align them with the OT prophecies.
Seversky again misunderstands the nature of the messianic prophecies, assuming that Matthew stands alone, Seversky being unaware that the “Massacre of the innocents” was also foretold in the Old Testament at Micah 5:2, Hosea 11:1, and Jeremiah 31:15.
Micah 5:2
But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
Hosea 11:1
When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
Jeremiah 31:15
Thus saith the Lord; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rahel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not.
Assuming the KJV translation was accurate, those prophecies are so vaguely-worded as to be almost meaningless. Certainly not a clear prophecy that newborns will be massacred following the birth of the Messiah.
... it does not change the fact that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and fled to Egypt, all as prophesied, before Herod the Great died.
It is a fact that is the story told in the Gospels. There is no evidence from anywhere else that such events actually happened. You clearly take it all "as Gospel". I am not convinced.Seversky
February 18, 2018
February
02
Feb
18
18
2018
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
AnimatedDust @ 512 Thank you for the encouragement. I do put my research online at God’s Signature of Authenticity Nothing there on Daniel 12, yet, years out probably. It is crude from an HTML format & visual style viewpoint, but the information content is there. Someday I’ll “spruce it up”. It hasn’t been updated in a couple years, I have a lot of partially finished additions, but other priorities have demand my time….. maybe some updates this winter.Charles
September 26, 2017
September
09
Sep
26
26
2017
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
Charles, is there a place where you have more of your research published? I am interested in your thoughts on Daniel 12 among other things. Thanks and I hope you see this.AnimatedDust
August 22, 2017
August
08
Aug
22
22
2017
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
F/N: Some reflections on morality i/l/o F H Bradley's Why be moral:
In his Ethical Studies, a collection of essays, F H Bradley pondered the means-end challenge on morality and the implied infinite regress if good only means good for something else. This implies that at some level, the good must be self evidently an end in itself, neither question-beggingly circling in a chicken-egg loop nor trailing off to unattainable endlessness. His answer is, goodness must be a self-realisation, something inherent to our nature that we can only truly thrive by seeking even if for the time being we cannot fully attain -- and it seems to me this echoes in C S Lewis as he muses on longing for a "joy" that lies beyond any earthly fulfillments [cf. sehnsucht], a yearning hunger that points to the eternity that lies in our hearts:
To ask the question Why? is rational; for reason teaches us to do nothing blindly, nothing without end or aim. She teaches us that what is good must be good for something, and that what is good for nothing is not good at all. And so we take it as certain that there is an end on one side, means on the other; and that only if the end is good, and the means conduce to it, have we a right to say the means are good. It is rational, then, always to inquire. Why should I do it? But here the question seems strange. For morality (and she too is reason) teaches us that, if we look on her only as good for something else, we never in that case have seen her at all. She says that she is an end to be desired for her own sake, and not as a means to something beyond. Degrade her, and she disappears; and to keep her, we must love and not merely use her. And so at the question Why? we are in trouble, for that does assume and does take for granted that virtue in this sense is unreal, and what we believe is false. Both virtue and the asking Why? seem rational, and yet incompatible one with the other; and the better course will be, not forthwith to reject virtue in favor of the question, but rather to inquire concerning the nature of the Why? . . . . [If] we are taking for granted that nothing is good in itself; that only the means to something else are good; that "good," in a word, = "good for," and good for something else. Such is the general canon by which virtue would have to be measured . . . . [But then] if we hold to [this] canon, it is not good as an end; the good was always good for something else, and was a means. To be good, the end must be a means, and so on forever in a process which has no limit . . . . Is it not [then] clear that, if you have any Ethics, you must have an end which is above the Why? in the sense of What for?; and that, if this is so, the question is now, as it was two thousand years ago, Granted that there is an end, what is this end? And the asking that question, as reason and history both tell us, is not in itself the presupposing of a Hedonistic answer, or any other answer . . . . Has the question, Why should I be moral? no sense then, and is no positive answer possible? No, the question has no sense at all; it is simply unmeaning unless it is equivalent to: Is morality an end in itself; and if so, how and in what way is it an end? Is morality the same as the end for man, so that the two are convertible; or is morality one side or aspect or element of some end which is larger than itself? Is it the whole end from all points of view or is it one view of the whole? Is the artist moral, so far as he is a good artist, or the philosopher moral, so far as he is a good philosopher? Are their art or science and their virtue one thing from one and the same point of view or two different things, or one thing from two points of view? . . . . What remains is to point out the most general expression for the end in itself, the ultimate practical "why"; and that we find in the word self-realization . . .
The Christian response to such, is that we are made as creatures of love, a love that can only be filled in the end by the One who is love himself, but which must even now be the engine of our living, doing, serving. Where, to truly love requires genuine rational, responsible freedom, or it cannot be love. And to truly love as we are made, requires and implies the practice of virtue in service. Indeed, love is self-evidently virtue in action and the fountainhead of the true virtues manifested in life and service. So, self-realisation turns out to be, to grow into and persist -- however stumblingly -- in the path of love; first to God our Creator, then to others who are as we are, in his image. And to so live by love to God and man that fills our being is to live an is that is and fulfills all ought.
One of those things where one feels challenged to bear witness to a truth that one cannot even remotely claim to fill out here and now. One can point, tremble, and then, having stumbled and skinned knees yet again, get up and try yet again. And then, again. KFkairosfocus
June 1, 2017
June
06
Jun
1
01
2017
01:34 AM
1
01
34
AM
PDT
O, objective truth on the subject of morality entails objectivity of knowledge in that context; and by direct implication, beyond. I trust you have looked at the summary from IEP. The actually existing object is independent of the particular subject of our order of existence* and his/her perceptions etc for its status as being real (even if abstract -- Math entities etc), truth about it accurately describes it, and we hold confidence in that truth on a warrant. The point about moral truth applies this to issues of what ought to be. Why warrant becomes a pivotal matter, is that we are all too fallible. KF *PS: God, as perceiver, is in a different order of being as it is he who would be the source and sustainer of existence.kairosfocus
May 28, 2017
May
05
May
28
28
2017
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT
StephenB, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. Kairosfocus, did you notice that StephenB declined to extend the discussion to 'objective knowledge'?
SB #497: I am arguing only that the source of objective moral truth cannot come from the inside of the creature. That you exist and can act is not a moral truth.
This is, I believe, profoundly wise.Origenes
May 28, 2017
May
05
May
28
28
2017
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT
O, I think you may find the IEP discussion on objectivity as clipped at 503, useful. Similarly, if Mao's or Marx's moral claims wholly lack objective warrant [= are "entirely subjective" = they made them up out of their imaginations], that is a red flag. Then, when we see objective evidence of horrific error, we see reason to hold them subjective as to origin, imposed by ruthless factions and ending in marches of bloodily ruinous folly. KF PS: Genuine liberty -- as opposed to the counterfeit, licence -- is tempered by justice, so seeks the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities for all in a common, sound community.kairosfocus
May 26, 2017
May
05
May
26
26
2017
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT
Origenes
I would like to see your comment on this, because we should be clear on what kind of ‘thing’ we are discussing when we say ‘morality.
Morality is a function of goodness, and goodness if a function of purpose. So, the question is this: What is a good person? Well, what is a “good” anything? If something is good, it *operates the way it was designed and intended to perform.* What is a good can-opener? It is one that opens cans efficiently and easily. What is a good pencil? It is one that writes well. Can a pencil be a good can opener? No. If it tries, not only will it fail to open the can, it will destroy itself in the process. What is a good person? A good person is one who acts the way he was designed and intended to act, i.e., in accordance with his created nature and the ultimate (not temporal) purpose of his existence, which is to be with God. This is objective morality. No created thing (or person) can decide what it was made for. Only the Creator can do that. In keeping with that point, I will now cite the stupidest comment ever made: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life"...Anthony Kennedy (U. S. Supreme Court Justice). I define “bad morality” as any code that deviates from the true morality. All subjective codes are like that, though some are worse than others, causing greater or lesser degrees of destruction. The murderous tyrant, for example, whose lust for power and personal enjoyment prompts him to pervert his own nature by assuming the morality of a wild animal, will [like the pencil that tries to open cans] destroy himself (and others around him).StephenB
May 25, 2017
May
05
May
25
25
2017
09:52 PM
9
09
52
PM
PDT
StephenB @502:
SB: I would characterize Mao’s communism as a subjective creation of Karl Marx …
What I mean by ‘Mao’s morality’ is his personal stance on how he should interact with people. Doubtlessly some ideas of Marx were added to that mix, but pivotal is the bottomless moral ravine that allowed Mao to cause the death of an estimated 65 million Chinese. Clearly Mao did not humbly follow what others prescribed for him. So, Mao’s morality, in my view, is neither an articulated charter by Marx, nor is it his own ‘little red book’, but an unpublishable impenetrable personal mix of all sorts of megalomaniacal half-baked half-developed ideas. I would like to see your comment on this, because we should be clear on what kind of ‘thing’ we are discussing when we say ‘morality.’
SB: One could say, for example, as you have indicated, the Marx’s bad morality, which is subjective, came to Mao “from the outside,” and is, for him, objective. However, I think that this problem can be solved by simply saying that if the *ultimate source* of the morality comes from inside the creature, it is always bad, and if it does not come from inside the Creature, then it is always good. With this new refined definition, I think we can safely say that objective morality is always good and subjective morality is always bad.
I appreciate your refined definition, which solves many of my problems, but what do you mean by “subjective morality is always bad”? Bad in every aspect? Or “bad” in the kinder sense of being ‘incomplete’? Would you care to clarify please.Origenes
May 25, 2017
May
05
May
25
25
2017
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT
PPS: Lest we forget, again, Plato's warning:
Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only [ --> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . . [Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.-
[ --> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by "winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . " cf a video on Plato's parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]
These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,
[ --> Evolutionary materialism -- having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT -- leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for "OUGHT" is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in "spin") . . . ]
and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ --> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ --> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush -- as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [--> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].
His parable of the ship of state then carries this to the stage of the state:
It is not too hard to figure out that our civilisation is in deep trouble and is most likely headed for shipwreck. (And of course, that sort of concern is dismissed as “apocalyptic,” or neurotic pessimism that refuses to pause and smell the roses.) Plato’s Socrates spoke to this sort of situation, long since, in the ship of state parable in The Republic, Bk VI:
>>[Soc.] I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures. Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain [–> often interpreted, ship’s owner] who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. [= The people own the community and in the mass are overwhelmingly strong, but are ill equipped on the whole to guide, guard and lead it] The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering – every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer [= selfish ambition to rule and dominate], though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them [–> kubernetes, steersman, from which both cybernetics and government come in English]; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard [ = ruthless contest for domination of the community], and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug [ = manipulation and befuddlement, cf. the parable of the cave], they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them [–> Cf here Luke’s subtle case study in Ac 27]. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion [–> Nihilistic will to power on the premise of might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc], they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing? [Ad.] Of course, said Adeimantus. [Soc.] Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State[ --> here we see Plato's philosoppher-king emerging]; for you understand already. [Ad.] Certainly. [Soc.] Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary. [Ad.] I will. [Soc.] Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him –that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ –the ingenious author of this saying told a lie –but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him [ --> down this road lies the modern solution: a sound, well informed people will seek sound leaders, who will not need to manipulate or bribe or worse, and such a ruler will in turn be checked by the soundness of the people, cf. US DoI, 1776]; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers. [Ad.] Precisely so, he said. [Soc] For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed [--> even among the students of the sound state (here, political philosophy and likely history etc.), many are of unsound motivation and intent, so mere education is not enough, character transformation is critical]. [Ad.] Yes. [Soc.] And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained? [Ad.] True. [Soc.] Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable, and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other? [Ad.] By all means. [Soc.] And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature.[ -- > note the character issue] Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things [ --> The spirit of truth as a marker]; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy [--> the spirit of truth is a marker, for good or ill] . . . >>
(There is more than an echo of this in Acts 27, a real world case study. [Luke, a physician, was an educated Greek with a taste for subtle references.] This blog post, on soundness in policy, will also help)
kairosfocus
May 25, 2017
May
05
May
25
25
2017
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT
PS: I would say that the content of marxism came from Marx et al as subjects. Its claims and principles are now open to inspection in texts, and the consequences of attempted implementation are all around us. Indeed, part of what we are dealing with is cultural marxism and its agit prop tactics etc. Those principles are objectively moral errors of the first magnitude, nihilism and radical relativism tied to utopian political messianism and systematic deception that paved the way for an extreme form of what Plato warned against in The Laws Bk X, 2350+ years ago now. The reality of moral errors, of course, instantly implies objective moral truths, starting with, X, Y, Z etc. are moral errors.kairosfocus
May 25, 2017
May
05
May
25
25
2017
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT
Origines & SB: I clip SB just above:
If, for example, I were to say that true morality is of “Divine” origin, which of course it is, some might say that since they are not “religious” and have no faith in God, they are entitled to make up their own morality. On those same grounds, they might claim that since they don’t believe in it, they are entitled to ignore it and make up one for themselves. In that case, it is better, I think, to express it as the “natural moral law,” which it also is. To grasp the natural moral law requires no faith; it can be known through reason. Thus, those are are not “religious” are still bound by it because its origins are objective. Or, again, if we say that morality is of Divine origin, a pantheist might claim claim that he is God or a “part” of God, and by virtue of his own divinity, he can make up his own morality. So we need the full vocabulary to emphasize which aspect of morality they need to know about. For those who think it is changeable, we need the word “absolute.” For those who think they are exempt, we need the word “universal,” and so on.
In short, we see the key importance of balanced warrant, including for morality. It is that balanced warrant that we are dealing with a just, evident law of our nature as responsibly and rationally free creatures which clarifies the objective quality of sound morality, its credible, well-grounded truth content and backs up its claim to be just, duly balancing rights, freedoms and responsibilities. This also takes us beyond the implied alternative of might and/or manipulation imposing agendas under dubious colour of morality. Backing up a bit, the Internet Enc of Phil (IEP) is helpful on objectivity:
The terms “objectivity” and “subjectivity,” in their modern usage, generally relate to a perceiving subject (normally a person) and a perceived or unperceived object. The object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it. In other words, the object would be there, as it is, even if no [particular?] subject perceived it. Hence, objectivity is typically associated with ideas such as reality, truth and reliability. [--> I suggest particular as a clarification.] The perceiving subject can either perceive accurately or seem to perceive features of the object that are not in the object. For example, a perceiving subject suffering from jaundice could seem to perceive an object as yellow when the object is not actually yellow. Hence, the term “subjective” typically indicates the possibility of error. The potential for discrepancies between features of the subject’s perceptual impressions and the real qualities of the perceived object generates philosophical questions. There are also philosophical questions regarding the nature of objective reality and the nature of our so-called subjective reality . . . . Many philosophers use the term “subjective knowledge” to refer only to knowledge of one’s own subjective states. Such knowledge is distinguished from one’s knowledge of another individual’s subjective states and from knowledge of objective reality, which would both be objective knowledge under the present definitions. Your knowledge of another person’s subjective states can be called objective knowledge since it is presumably part of the world that is “object” for you, just as you and your subjective states are part of the world that is “object” for the other person.
[--> I suggest, direct awareness of one's interior life, thought and perceptions etc, is intuitive, incorrigible and self-evidently true. Even the hypothetical self-aware brain in a vat stimulated to perceive itself as a man running in a Marathon race, is aware of itself as conscious subject, and of its perceptions, though its own objective circumstances are tantamount to a dream-world rather than its externally observable case of being in a vat instead. And, I recall here, people with brain-probes stimulated to vividly recall laying a brick wall in a peculiar pattern many years before or the like. I also recall the report of such an experimenter electrifying and getting an arm to move. There, YOU are moving your left arm. In response, the conscious patient reportedly moved his other arm over to hold the first still. Brain electrochemical activity is not equal to being self-moved as an initiating agent with a mind and will of one's own. And, much more.]
This is a prominent distinction in epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) because many philosophers have maintained that subjective knowledge in this sense has a special status. They assert, roughly, that knowledge of one’s own subjective states is direct, or immediate, in a way that knowledge of anything else is not. It is convenient to refer to knowledge of one’s own subjective states simply as subjective knowledge. Following this definition, objective knowledge would be knowledge of anything other than one’s own subjective states. One last prominent style of usage for terms related to objectivity deals with the nature of support a particular knowledge-claim has. “Objective knowledge” can designate a knowledge-claim having, roughly, the status of being fully supported or proven. Correspondingly, “subjective knowledge” might designate some unsupported or weakly supported knowledge-claim. It is more accurate to refer to these as objective and subjective judgments, rather than knowledge, but one should be on guard for the use of the term “knowledge” in this context. This usage fits with the general connotation for the term “objectivity” of solidity, trustworthiness, accuracy, impartiality, etc. The general connotation for many uses of “subjectivity” includes unreliability, bias, an incomplete (personal) perspective, etc. “Objective judgment or belief” refers to a judgment or belief based on objectively strong supporting evidence, the sort of evidence that would be compelling for any rational being. A subjective judgment would then seem to be a judgment or belief supported by evidence that is compelling for some rational beings (subjects) but not compelling for others. It could also refer to a judgment based on evidence that is of necessity available only to some subjects.
I would suggest, that subjects are able to perceive many things accurately, but typically we are prone to being finite, fallible, morally and epistemologically struggling and too often we are ill-willed. There are other things that we cannot perceive, e.g. radio waves, that we can form good reasons to accept as having that independently existing character that we term objective. Further, some things such as numbers (and especially imaginary ones) are inherently abstract, must be contemplated by subjects, and yet we can also warrant to have that individual perception-independent character, indeed, many mathematical entities have an astonishing, law-like ability to govern experienced reality. This credibly traces to mathematics being the logic of structure and quantity. Where, logic and its core principles are also another domain with that independent, law-like capability to govern reality -- and to ground our claims to know it beyond merely a battle of wills over fallible opinions. The same character obtains for well-tested, empirically reliable laws of physical nature, and arguably those of morally governed nature. Yes, just as there are discernible laws of the dynamic-stochastic physical world, the logical-mathematical world and other domains of interest, there are law-like regularities and guidelines for the world of responsibly and rationally free beings who live together in a common orderly world. For instance, we live in a day where several major powers hold the capability to blow up our world and wipe out life. It is a general consensus that someone prone to carry out such an act should not be allowed to come near to control of such weapons or plants. This is driven by a shared sense of the value of life, especially human life. And yet, in the name of rights and choice and averting over-population etc, we have carried out the killing of over 800 million unborn children in the womb over the past 40+ years, and this toll mounts up at a million more per week. Yet, we have every good reason to recognise that life is the first right and we have a mutual duty of recognising and respecting it. Without life, there are no other rights. (And already, we see that rights can have objectively justified character attested to by our consciences, but that these can be warped. Moral error is possible, so objectivity of moral thought is vital. Where, rights are generally recognised and carry with them the flip side, duties: if you have a right to your life, it means that I and others have a duty to respect and protect it, i.e. once rights are acknowledged, morality and moral governance are there. Does anyone now wish to defend the idea that rights are nothing but power claims backed up by might and manipulation? Just to put it in words brings out the absurdity. The US founders were right in 1776: we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life . . . ) Likewise, if we see a young child kidnapped, bound, sexually tortured and violated then murdered for the sick pleasure of a predator, it is self-evident that such is evil, grave moral error. We see this on pain of absurdity if we were to try to deny or dismiss, evade or studiously ignore the pleas of the ghosts of children victimised like that. Sometimes, the ghost in the room is the most eloquent teacher of all. Going further, to assert or imply that conscience and its testimony that we are under moral law towards duties to truth, right, rights, justice etc, instantly lets loose grand delusion in our mindedness. For, this is a characteristic feature of mindedness that pervades our reasoning, knowing, choosing and doing. To taint mindedness with such a delusion is to undermine rationality. Such would make reasoned, responsible conversation into futility. Absurd. So, we need to face the challenge of living in a world where at its core (despite potential for error in moral perceptions and musings, just as with mathematical, scientific and other perceptions and thoughts) it is credible that conscience speaks truly. This then points to the need for a world-root capable of bearing the weight of moral government. For which, as has often been pointed out and explained above and elsewhere -- not to mention tested successfully across the past weekend JDK -- there is but one serious candidate, the God of ethical theism. Namely, the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, the world-root, worthy of loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. So, objectivity is an objective concept and it is tied to issues of the objectivity of our being under moral government. KFkairosfocus
May 25, 2017
May
05
May
25
25
2017
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT
Origenes continues to ask excellent questions and issue meaningful challenges of substance-- a rarity on this site. Origenes
IOWs ‘objective’, in the sense of ‘coming from the outside’, does not distinguish between perverse and true morality and more qualifiers are needed. So, why not speak of ‘divine morality’ instead of ‘objective morality’, which would narrow it down considerably?
It is a question of which aspect of morality we want to emphasize for the sake of clarity. If, for example, I were to say that true morality is of "Divine" origin, which of course it is, some might say that since they are not "religious" and have no faith in God, they are entitled to make up their own morality. On those same grounds, they might claim that since they don't believe in it, they are entitled to ignore it and make up one for themselves. In that case, it is better, I think, to express it as the "natural moral law," which it also is. To grasp the natural moral law requires no faith; it can be known through reason. Thus, those are are not "religious" are still bound by it because its origins are objective. Or, again, if we say that morality is of Divine origin, a pantheist might claim claim that he is God or a "part" of God, and by virtue of his own divinity, he can make up his own morality. So we need the full vocabulary to emphasize which aspect of morality they need to know about. For those who think it is changeable, we need the word "absolute." For those who think they are exempt, we need the word "universal," and so on.
For clarity, ‘objective’ only tells us that it comes from outside. For instance, you would call Mao Zedong’s morality ‘objective’.
I would characterize Mao's communism as a subjective creation of Karl Marx, but I know what you are saying. Your point is that the loose definition of "objective," meaning coming from the outside, will mean that objective morality can be both good and bad. One could say, for example, as you have indicated, the Marx's bad morality, which is subjective, came to Mao "from the outside," and is, for him, objective. However, I think that this problem can be solved by simply saying that if the *ultimate source* of the morality comes from inside the creature, it is always bad, and if it does not come from inside the Creature, then it is always good. With this new refined definition, I think we can safely say that objective morality is always good and subjective morality is always bad.StephenB
May 24, 2017
May
05
May
24
24
2017
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT
Origines, something can be objectively wrong, on a warrant that shows why we may confidently hold that to be so. In the case of Marxian political messianism and linked materialism etc, the democides of the past 100 years send a clear message about what happens when morality is radically relativised and ruthless factions gain power by radical revolution. Of course, other things can be objectively right, such as recognising fundamental rights, freedoms and responsibilities that frame a just social order and lay a basis for sound governance. KF PPS: Kindly, cf. 498 & 499 above. Notice, what Cicero is able to discern, C1 BC.kairosfocus
May 24, 2017
May
05
May
24
24
2017
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
StephenB @495
SB: So, yes, Mao’s perverse morality (communism) comes from the outside of you (just as it came from the inside of Karl Marx). The true morality comes from the outside (from God) but so can bad morality (from Marx).
IOWs ‘objective’, in the sense of ‘coming from the outside’, does not distinguish between perverse and true morality and more qualifiers are needed. So, why not speak of ‘divine morality’ instead of ‘objective morality’, which would narrow it down considerably?
SB: To the extent that we are moving in that direction, we are performing good acts; to the extent we are moving away from that purpose, we are performing bad acts. Morality is inextricably tied to purpose. If there is no purpose for the universe (or us) there can be no morality–no right or wrong–no good or bad.
Well said.
SB: We don’t call what comes from God objective because he is a divine person. We call it objective because it comes from outside of us.
For clarity, ‘objective’ only tells us that it comes from outside. For instance, you would call Mao Zedong’s morality ‘objective’.
SB: *Subject/object–answers the question: Where does morality come from? (God and the moral universe He created)
Excuse me, but, as you have stated several times before, ‘objective’ only tells me that it comes from the outside. It does not tell me if it is divine or not, good or bad.
SB: I am arguing only that the source of objective moral truth cannot come from the inside of the creature. That you exist and can act is not a moral truth.
I agree.Origenes
May 24, 2017
May
05
May
24
24
2017
03:01 AM
3
03
01
AM
PDT
PS: Cicero still has much to teach us, in De Legibus:
—Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC]: . . . the subject of our present discussion . . . comprehends the universal principles of equity and law. In such a discussion therefore on the great moral law of nature, the practice of the civil law can occupy but an insignificant and subordinate station. For according to our idea, we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man. We shall have to examine those principles of legislation by which all political states should be governed. And last of all, shall we have to speak of those laws and customs which are framed for the use and convenience of particular peoples, which regulate the civic and municipal affairs of the citizens, and which are known by the title of civil laws. Quintus. —You take a noble view of the subject, my brother, and go to the fountain–head of moral truth, in order to throw light on the whole science of jurisprudence: while those who confine their legal studies to the civil law too often grow less familiar with the arts of justice than with those of litigation. Marcus. —Your observation, my Quintus, is not quite correct. It is not so much the science of law that produces litigation, as the ignorance of it, (potius ignoratio juris litigiosa est quam scientia) . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for “Law (say they) is the highest reason, implanted in nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary.” This, they think, is apparent from the converse of the proposition; because this same reason, when it [37]is confirmed and established in men’s minds, is the law of all their actions. They therefore conceive that the voice of conscience is a law, that moral prudence is a law, whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones. They think, too, that the Greek name for law (NOMOS), which is derived from NEMO, to distribute, implies the very nature of the thing, that is, to give every man his due. [--> this implies a definition of justice as the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities] For my part, I imagine that the moral essence of law is better expressed by its Latin name, (lex), which conveys the idea of selection or discrimination. According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans, an equitable discrimination between good and evil. The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
kairosfocus
May 24, 2017
May
05
May
24
24
2017
12:04 AM
12
12
04
AM
PDT
SB (& attn, Origines & Sev), I would add the point about warrant, and that about accuracy as also involved in the framework, subjective vs objective vs absolute, all in the context that truth accurately describes reality. Above, at 494 I commented:
recall that it is warrant that moved us from perception of truth to its objectivity as credibly true beyond what an admittedly fallible person may sense or think or believe or intuit etc. God would be beyond delusion or error so his perceptions would be accurate, indeed as he is the source and sustainer of reality that is almost self-evidently so. But even so, we can see that God in grace would provide evidence and warrant that would lead us to confidence that certain things are warranted and credibly true, becoming objective truth. That such can include moral truths starts with something like, it is self-evidently wrong to kidnap, bind, torture, sexually assault and murder a young child for one’s sick pleasures. This case study is of instructive character and if followed up would point to many root-level principles of morality that are of objective character. I also point out that to in effect blanket dismiss conscience as delusion is to taint all our mental life, including our reasoning, which is circumscribed by duties to truth, rational inference and more. Of course, consciences can be defective or warped or benumbed, but there is a clear hard core that we have every reason to understand is informing us soundly. This is similar to the way we perceive our inner consciousness and indeed the outer world with some reasonable confidence that in a hard core, we are not deluded.
I think the root problem is that many have lost sight of the nature of God and his role as necessary, maximally great being, the root of reality who is source and sustainer so that in him we live, move and have our being. (I suspect, many don't understand possible vs impossible being i/l/o coherence/incoherence of core characteristics as a key factor. I also suspect they do not realise that if there were ever utter non-being, as such a true nothing has no causal capacity such would forever obtain. If a world now is, SOMETHING always was, a world-root. Such a being must be in core characteristics, wholly independent of other beings for its existence and so a serious candidate will either be in any possible world (it is a framework reality for a world to exist) or else will be as impossible as a square circle. That is, it is a necessary being, necessary for any world to exist and in particular for ours. Other possible beings, like a fire, depend on other things for coming into or remaining in existence, they are contingent. We are of this class, creatures within an actualised world, a creation.) In this context, many beings in our world are embodied, spatial entities moved and changing by virtue of mechanical necessity and/or stochastic factors [aka "chance"]. They belong to an essentially mechanical, dynamic-stochastic order of cause-effect chains. As I have often pointed out, computational substrates are of this order, they are inherently non-rational, mechanical entities also subject to chance events or processes. (I would argue that our brains in our skulls, insofar as they are based on neural networks etc, are of this order.) We manifest also, a different order of being, one that makes sense of moral government instead of making it seem to be an arbitrary, resented dictatorial imposition from outside by some killjoy divine tyrant. Sadly, we live in an era where manipulative image, drama and narrative too often hold our reasoning captive to largely unexamined worldviews and linked socio-cultural agendas. In such a world, it is no wonder that philosophy, and particularly the critical analysis of worldviews, is at a steep discount. (Wisdom, hard bought and precious, is dismissed.) The key point is, that just to be able to freely argue and be sensitive and duty-bound to be responsive to the rational, convincing force of reasoned discussion, we MUST take it as effectively self-evident that we are responsibly and rationally free. That is, we traffic in meanings, implications, ground-consequent chains, and cogent inference to supported conclusions on relevant evidence, especially when we infer what is a best explanation for an otherwise puzzling circumstance of facts, experiences, observations, apparent associations and patterns of order or organisation, etc. Another way to put that is to say we are self-moved, rationally and responsibly ensouled, morally governed truly significantly free beings. We are not merely trapped in a blind space-time, causally successive chain driven by an unbroken chain of the blind force of dynamic-stochastic process in a cosmos that has neither reason nor purpose at its root. Such a chain would reduce rationality and responsible freedom to absurdity, grand delusion. This, of course is stoutly resisted by evolutionary materialist objectors and the fellow travellers. Often, they appeal to an inexplicable poof-magic of emergence, failing to realise that emergent properties of [quasi-]material entities depend on components, their organisation and their dynamic-stochastic interaction. Categorically distinct from rational behaviour. Ruse and Wilson, and many others serve to illustrate the result: reduction of responsible, rational freedom to grand delusion. When we face reduction to self-referential absurdity, our task becomes, to turn back to sounder footing. In this case, taking our manifestly evident responsible, rational freedom and associated moral government and conscious existence as self-moved initiators of events, as agents, seriously. Taking it, in fact, as first empirical fact, the fact through which we explore our inner life and interact with the outer world. Thus, it is a hard fact of reference in developing or testing worldview options. That is the context in which it becomes at once clear that there is a gap between what IS and what OUGHT to be. Being, and being free implies we may or may not act as we ought to. But, once oughtness is informed by the realities of our world -- think, we ought to be guided by careful, sound reason, we ought to seek truth, we ought to respect others who are of like order and our fellow creatures generally -- to act beyond its guidelines will be perverse, futile, frustrating of things from their proper nature and ends. Evil, and folly, ruinous folly. So, moral government is for our own good, and helps us be sound stewards of our common world including fellow creatures not gifted with rational, responsible freedom. (I think here of wanton waste, destruction and cruelty.) But, how are IS and OUGHT unified? This of course immediately appeals to conscience-guided, well-informed and advised reason, but it is pointing to the need for cosmic unity. To which the answer is, they can only be unified at world-root level. To make coherent sense of a world with morally governed creatures, is and ought must be inextricably fused in the world-root. And of course, all of the above points to a warrant, to objectivity. Further, after centuries of debates -- and last week we had yet another round in this thread regarding JDK's version of Taoism -- there is one serious candidate, the God of ethical theism. Namely, the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being, worthy of loyalty and the responsible reasonable freely given service of doing the good in accord with our evident nature. Yes, a mouthful, but one deeply compressed and brimming over with underlying relevant thoughts and reasons. (Onlooker, if you doubt, simply put up a coherent, effective alternative that fills the bill: ________ ) In this context the objectivity comes from outside us, from the source and sustainer of the world, in whom we live and move and have our being. It is also made evident to us, in light of accessible evidence and linked reasoning, amounting to warrant. That warrant addresses our subjectivity as responsible, rational, morally goveerned creatures. It takes seriously both our perception of the compass-sense, conscience, and the possibility of error. So, it addresses issues of evident reason and how implying (often implicitly) that the testimony of conscience that we are under moral government, under moral law is delusional looses grand delusion on our whole enterprise of rationality. So, in the face of reduction to absurdity, we face the challenge of starting instead from the first facts of our existence as rational agents and sees from that how morality is anchored at world-root level. Where God, the credible world root, will know the full, pure truth, including moral truth. And given goodness and greatness, such a God would indeed grant us the grace of a candle within, genuinely enlightening our inner lives and calling us to act aright, with conscience and reason, guiding us to wisdom and sound stewardship. But, how often, we itch to throw over those lights and do as we please or lust or rage! Which, is precisely why we need that inner light and need to take it seriously. KFkairosfocus
May 23, 2017
May
05
May
23
23
2017
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PDT
Origines
So, by ‘subjective’ is indicated that morality comes from inside the human person and ‘objective’ indicates that it comes from outside the human person. Here is one problem: from my personal perspective Mao Zedong’s morality comes from the outside, but I am sure that this does not represent the ‘objective morality’ you are talking about.
That is correct. Recall that the subject/object relationship is always contextual. At the moment, I am a subject, but you are the object of my thoughts; just as you are a subject and I am the object of your thoughts. So, yes, Mao's perverse morality (communism) comes from the outside of you (just as it came from the inside of Karl Marx). The true morality comes from the outside (from God) but so can bad morality (from Marx). The question of how good or moral we are is settled by a standard that preceded us and it outside of us. Why is that so? It is because the Creator is the one who measures and judges while the creature is the one who is measured and judged. The morality of our acts is determined by the extent to which we act according to the purpose for which we were made, which is to be with God. To the extent that we are moving in that direction, we are performing good acts; to the extent we are moving away from that purpose, we are performing bad acts. Morality is inextricably tied to purpose. If there is no purpose for the universe (or us) there can be no morality--no right or wrong--no good or bad.
So, God is a Divine person, and because of this we call what comes from God ‘objective’. Why is that?
We don't call what comes from God objective because he is a divine person. We call it objective because it comes from outside of us.
Why not term God’s morality ‘absolute’ or ‘true’ and leave it at that? What is being clarified by using the term ‘objective’?
God's morality *is* absolute, but to say so is to clarify a different aspect of its nature. There are different continuums to describe various aspects of morality: *Subject/object--answers the question: Where does morality come from? (God and the moral universe He created) *Absolute/relative--answers the question: Does it change? (No) *Universal/particular--answers the question: To whom does it apply? (Everyone) Notice that there is some overlap and there surely must be.
The reason I brought it up is that ‘I act therefore I am’ is a clear example of an absolute (“objective”) truth that comes from inside a person.
I am arguing only that the source of objective moral truth cannot come from the inside of the creature. That you exist and can act is not a moral truth.StephenB
May 23, 2017
May
05
May
23
23
2017
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT
StephenB @495
SB: Let me change the vocabulary slightly to make things more precise. Subjective morality comes from inside the *creature* (who is a “human person”) and objective morality comes from the outside.
So, by ‘subjective’ is indicated that morality comes from inside the human person and ‘objective’ indicates that it comes from outside the human person. Here is one problem: from my personal perspective Mao Zedong’s morality comes from the outside, but I am sure that this does not represent the ‘objective morality’ you are talking about.
SB: On the other hand, objective morality comes from inside the *Creator.* (who is a “Divine” person).
So, God is a Divine person, and because of this we call what comes from God ‘objective’. Why is that? Why not term God's morality ‘absolute’ or 'true' and leave it at that? What is being clarified by using the term 'objective'?
SB: Recall that objective morality is the true morality and subjective morality is really no morality at all.
My general impression is that, for some reason unknown to me, ‘objective’ is used to indicate what is true, good and reliable and ‘subjective’ is used to indicate all things that are not true, good and reliable. I still wonder why that is. Moreover it is self-contradictory. Besides, since I am a subject, I find it offensive, so I would prefer the use of other terms (‘true’, ‘false’, ‘absolute’ and so forth) unless you can convince me that they are inadequate.
SB: Obviously, subjective morality, which is false, cannot come from inside the Creator, who is all good and cannot lie.
I regard ‘subjective’ as neutral towards being true or false. In my view consciousness, the person, is the root of all things.
SB: Can you elaborate? How can God’s morality, which comes from the outside of you, which you can put inside of you–but only if you choose to do so– come between you and your actions.
This confusion is due to my insertion of ‘I act therefore I am’, which has little or nothing to do with morality, in this discussion about morality. Maybe it is unhelpful. The reason I brought it up is that ‘I act therefore I am’ is a clear example of an absolute (“objective”) truth that comes from inside a person. IOWs ‘I act therefore I am’ is an example of an absolute unchanging subjective truth — but it is not about morality.Origenes
May 23, 2017
May
05
May
23
23
2017
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
Origenes
Returning to your answer to my question about the meaning of ‘objective’ in ‘objective morality’, which said: “… subjective morality refers to a standard that comes from inside the person … while objective morality … comes from outside the individual …” This does not sit well with the fact that God is a person/individual. If true morality — “objective” morality — comes from inside God, who is a person, then, in line with your answer, it should be termed subjective morality.
Thank you for your highly thoughtful and probing responses. Yes, as you point out, we can fall into a contradiction here if we continue to use the word "person" without making the proper distinctions. Let me change the vocabulary slightly to make things more precise. Subjective morality comes from inside the *creature* (who is a "human person") and objective morality comes from the outside. On the other hand, objective morality comes from inside the *Creator.* (who is a "Divine" person). Recall that objective morality is the true morality and subjective morality is really no morality at all. Obviously, subjective morality, which is false, cannot come from inside the Creator, who is all good and cannot lie.
Your first sentence makes perfect sense, but how would you argue that this truth comes from outside the creature? I do not see how anything external to me, God included, can come ‘between’, so to speak, ‘I’ and ‘I act therefore I am’.
I am not clear on your meaning. Can you elaborate? How can God's morality, which comes from the outside of you, which you can put inside of you--but only if you choose to do so-- come between you and your actions.StephenB
May 23, 2017
May
05
May
23
23
2017
01:32 PM
1
01
32
PM
PDT
Sev and Origines, recall that it is warrant that moved us from perception of truth to its objectivity as credibly true beyond what an admittedly fallible person may sense or think or believe or intuit etc. God would be beyond delusion or error so his perceptions would be accurate, indeed as he is the source and sustainer of reality that is almost self-evidently so. But even so, we can see that God in grace would provide evidence and warrant that would lead us to confidence that certain things are warranted and credibly true, becoming objective truth. That such can include moral truths starts with something like, it is self-evidently wrong to kidnap, bind, torture, sexually assault and murder a young child for one's sick pleasures. This case study is of instructive character and if followed up would point to many root-level principles of morality that are of objective character. I also point out that to in effect blanket dismiss conscience as delusion is to taint all our mental life, including our reasoning, which is circumscribed by duties to truth, rational inference and more. Of course, consciences can be defective or warped or benumbed, but there is a clear hard core that we have every reason to understand is informing us soundly. This is similar to the way we perceive our inner consciousness and indeed the outer world with some reasonable confidence that in a hard core, we are not deluded. KFkairosfocus
May 23, 2017
May
05
May
23
23
2017
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT
Seversky @490
Sev: If subjective morality is that which originates within the individual, that has no existence beyond the individual, then how is morality which originates within a highly-advanced alien or even a God-as-a-person anything other than subjective?
I agree, except for the part ”… that has no existence beyond the individual…”. If a moral standard is shared by multiple individuals/persons on the basis of freedom and rationality, then, in my metaphysics, its ontological status is distinct from what is being upheld by a (single) person/individual. In that sense a shared morality does have existence beyond the individual.
Sev: So, in what sense can morality possibly be objective? … Does that fact that a number of individuals hold the same moral beliefs make them objective?
Like you I have a problem with the term ‘objective’. Whether a moral standard is hold by a single person — God included— or multiple persons, the term ‘objective’ doesn’t seem to apply. That said, I have no problem whatsoever with the idea that we ultimately arrive at a true morality and, more generally, an absolute truth, both of which are (already) apprehended by God. However I do not see any reason for the use of the term ‘objective’.Origenes
May 23, 2017
May
05
May
23
23
2017
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT
StephenB @489
SB: Only a person can create a moral universe.
Indeed, being a person is a prerequisite for understanding morality. If God were to be impersonal, then God would not be sufficient explanation for a moral universe.
SB: A physical law can only keep doing what it has always done. Unlike an intelligent agent, it cannot decide to change its behavior, cease not creating, and begin to create.
Here you offer a second reason, as to why God must be a person. Makes perfect sense. Returning to your answer to my question about the meaning of ‘objective’ in ‘objective morality’, which said: “… subjective morality refers to a standard that comes from inside the person … while objective morality … comes from outside the individual …” This does not sit well with the fact that God is a person/individual. If true morality — "objective" morality — comes from inside God, who is a person, then, in line with your answer, it should be termed subjective morality.
SB: I would argue that the causal truth expressed epistemologically as “I act therefore I am,” (from effect to cause) and metaphyscially as “I am therefore I act (from cause to effect) is, indeed, unchanging. I would also argue that it comes from outside the creature (and from inside the Creator), though it is perceived by the creature from the inside.
Your first sentence makes perfect sense, but how would you argue that this truth comes from outside the creature? I do not see how anything external to me, God included, can come ‘between’, so to speak, ‘I’ and ‘I act therefore I am’.Origenes
May 23, 2017
May
05
May
23
23
2017
01:06 AM
1
01
06
AM
PDT
Sev, you may find my recent comments on moral truth and on objectivity vs subjectivity and the absolute, helpful, start with 488 and its onward link in context; this is inherently complex and challenging stuff that needs to be dealt with at responsible length. Second, the necessary being world root is in a different relation to reality than any creature within that reality, whether 13.85 BY old or part of a wider even older reality or on whatever scenario, the issue is that reality has a finitely remote world root that must be adequate to account for responsibly and rationally free creatures such as us as empirical facts constraining our reasoning on core characteristics of that root. (And that is a more generic concept than the claim that God is a serious candidate to be that root; as it turns out, after centuries of discussion, the only such that would adequately account for morally governed creatures such as we are, as is discussed above.) The God of ethical theism is inherently good and thus creation of a responsible, rationally free and thus morally governed creature would involve relevant and objectively warranted laws that should guide that level of being, e.g. mutual respect for one another and justice that duly balances rights, freedoms and responsibilities. This is how sound and reliable systems of ethics and rules or laws can then be constructed, beyond the nihilism of intimidatory might and deceitful, agenda-driven manipulation to gain advantages at the expense of the disdained other. Where, if a crooked yardstick is made the standard, what is true and sound will never measure up, until everything goes crash . . . exactly the path our civilisation is on, never mind those who are smugly satisfied as they gain the inevitably temporary advantages from the dirty power games. So, it is not just a matter of one opinion vs another but the principles of a sound and just order of a sustainable community of good neighbours. That includes recognising the quasi-infinite worth of each individual, the protection of his and her life, the support and defence of sound family and nurture of children, freedom balanced by the principles of rights and correlate duties, right to innocent reputation and the fruit of one's mental or manual toil, right to legitimately acquired property, and much more. As has been worked out time and again across history, this is not airy fairy, cloud cuckoo-land daydreams but the stuff of sound law, codes of ethics, corporate bylaws and more. All of that civics stuff backed up by sound lessons of hard bought history that our insistently wayward and untoward generation is so fain to forget, dismiss and discard. But, those who refuse to heed the sound lessons of history that were bought with blood and tears doom themselves and their posterity to pay the same coin over and over again. Which is precisely why I have a very pessimistic estimate of where our civilisation is headed on its current march of ruinous folly: straight over the cliff. KFkairosfocus
May 23, 2017
May
05
May
23
23
2017
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT
Origenes @ 486
So, in the context of morality, ‘objective’ means unchangeable and coming from outside the person. At this point I have two follow-up comments: (1) “Objective morality” is a standard that comes from inside God, who is arguably a person.
If subjective morality is that which originates within the individual, that has no existence beyond the individual, then how is morality which originates within a highly-advanced alien or even a God-as-a-person anything other than subjective? Moral codes are prescriptive. They do not tell gravity or the weather how to behave, they decree how human beings should behave towards one another. Why? Who cares? Well, obviously, people care about how they are treated by their fellows and it is not inconceivable that some non-human intelligence might also be concerned about the well-being of humanity. But those are all subjective views. They originate within the subjective consciousness of individual intelligent agents. So, in what sense can morality possibly be objective? Does recording it somewhere like in a book or computer memory somehow make it objective? Does that fact that a number of individuals hold the same moral beliefs make them objective? Talking about "...objective morality, the true morality, refers to a standard that comes from outside the individual and is not subject to change." is a bit vague. Where does this standard come from? Has it been there since the Universe began? Are you claiming that morality was somehow embedded in the Universe from the very beginning, even though the species to whom it applies would not appear until over 13 billion years later?Seversky
May 22, 2017
May
05
May
22
22
2017
05:38 PM
5
05
38
PM
PDT
Origenes, At this point I have two follow-up comments:
(1) “Objective morality” is a standard that comes from inside God, who is arguably a person.
Yes and yes. Only a person can create a moral universe. A physical law can only keep doing what it has always done. Unlike an intelligent agent, it cannot decide to change its behavior, cease not creating, and begin to create.
(2) The truth “I act therefor I am” comes from inside the person and is uniquely held by the person. I would like to argue that, once properly understood, this truth from inside is not going to change.
I would argue that the causal truth expressed epistemologically as "I act therefore I am," (from effect to cause) and metaphyscially as "I am therefore I act (from cause to effect) is, indeed, unchanging. I would also argue that it comes from outside the creature (and from inside the Creator), though it is perceived by the creature from the inside.StephenB
May 22, 2017
May
05
May
22
22
2017
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT
F/N: Please recall, my context of argument on these matters, I here clip again:
. . . We may elaborate on Paul, Locke, Hooker and Aristotle, laying out several manifestly evident and historically widely acknowledged core moral principles; for which the attempted denial is instantly and patently absurd for most people -- that is, they are arguably self-evident (thus, warranted and objective) moral truths; not just optional opinions. So also, it is not only possible to (a) be in demonstrable moral error, but also (b) there is hope that such moral errors can be corrected by appealing to manifestly sound core principles of the natural moral law. For instance: 1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought. (This is manifest in even an objector's implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial.) 2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.) 3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. (That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity.) 4] Fourth, we are objectively under obligation of OUGHT. That is, despite any particular person’s (or group’s or august council’s or majority’s) wishes or claims to the contrary, such obligation credibly holds to moral certainty. That is, it would be irresponsible, foolish and unwise for us to act and try to live otherwise. 5] Fifth, this cumulative framework of moral government under OUGHT is the basis for the manifest core principles of the natural moral law under which we find ourselves obligated to the right the good, the true etc. Where also, patently, we struggle to live up to what we acknowledge or imply we ought to do. 6] Sixth, this means we live in a world in which being under core, generally understood principles of natural moral law is coherent and factually adequate, thus calling for a world-understanding in which OUGHT is properly grounded at root level. (Thus worldviews that can soundly meet this test are the only truly viable ones. If a worldview does not have in it a world-root level IS that can simultaneously ground OUGHT -- so that IS and OUGHT are inextricably fused at that level, it fails decisively.*) 7] Seventh, in light of the above, even the weakest and most voiceless of us thus has a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of fulfillment of one’s sense of what s/he ought to be (“happiness”). This includes the young child, the unborn and more. (We see here the concept that rights are binding moral expectations of others to provide respect in regards to us because of our inherent status as human beings, members of the community of valuable neighbours. Where also who is my neighbour was forever answered by the parable of the Good Samaritan. Likewise, there can be no right to demand of or compel my neighbour that s/he upholds me and enables me in the wrong — including under false colour of law through lawfare; usurping the sword of justice to impose a ruthless policy agenda in fundamental breach of that civil peace which must ever pivot on manifest justice. To justly claim a right, one must first be in the right.) 8] Eighth, like unto the seventh, such may only be circumscribed or limited for good cause. Such as, reciprocal obligation to cherish and not harm neighbour of equal, equally valuable nature in community and in the wider world of the common brotherhood of humanity. 9] Ninth, this is the context in which it becomes self evidently wrong, wicked and evil to kidnap, sexually torture and murder a young child or the like as concrete cases in point that show that might and/or manipulation do not make ‘right,’ ‘truth,’ ‘worth,’ ‘justice,’ ‘fairness,’ ‘law’ etc. That is, anything that expresses or implies the nihilist’s credo is morally absurd. 10] Tenth, this entails that in civil society with government, justice is a principal task of legitimate government. In short, nihilistic will to power untempered by the primacy of justice is its own refutation in any type of state. Where, justice is the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities. (In Aristotle's terms as cited by Hooker: "because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like .") Thus also, 11] Eleventh, that government is and ought to be subject to audit, reformation and if necessary replacement should it fail sufficiently badly and incorrigibly. (NB: This is a requisite of accountability for justice, and the suggestion or implication of some views across time, that government can reasonably be unaccountable to the governed, is its own refutation, reflecting -- again -- nihilistic will to power; which is automatically absurd. This truth involves the issue that finite, fallible, morally struggling men acting as civil authorities in the face of changing times and situations as well as in the face of the tendency of power to corrupt, need to be open to remonstrance and reformation -- or if they become resistant to reasonable appeal, there must be effective means of replacement. Hence, the principle that the general election is an insitutionalised regular solemn assembly of the people for audit and reform or if needs be replacement of government gone bad. But this is by no means an endorsement of the notion that a manipulated mob bent on a march of folly has a right to do as it pleases.) 12] Twelfth, the attempt to deny or dismiss such a general framework of moral governance invariably lands in shipwreck of incoherence and absurdity. As, has been seen in outline. But that does not mean that the attempt is not going to be made, so there is a mutual obligation of frank and fair correction and restraint of evil. _________________ * F/N: After centuries of debates and assessment of alternatives per comparative difficulties, there is in fact just one serious candidate to be such a grounding IS: the inherently good creator God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. (And instantly, such generic ethical theism answers also to the accusation oh this is “religion”; that term being used as a dirty word — no, this is philosophy. If you doubt this, simply put forth a different candidate that meets the required criteria and passes the comparative difficulties test: _________ . Likewise, an inherently good, maximally great being will not be arbitrary or deceitful etc, that is why such is fully worthy of ultimate loyalty and the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good in accord with our manifestly evident nature. As a serious candidate necessary being, such would be eternal and embedded in the frame for a world to exist at all. Thus such a candidate is either impossible as a square circle is impossible due to mutual ruin of core characteristics, or else it is actual. For simple instance no world is possible without two-ness in it, a necessary basis for distinct identity inter alia.
That is what I would contend for, as a reasonable and responsible framework for morality in community, including in government, tied to justice -- a primary moral responsibility. KFkairosfocus
May 22, 2017
May
05
May
22
22
2017
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT
Origines: You will see that, above, I took the approach of looking at degrees of truth, i/l/o what truth in the end is. The absolute truth on a given matter in its context will in a sense be timeless, the God's eye view. However, we are not God, nor do we have his knowledge, while at our best we struggle towards his ways, being finite, fallible, morally struggling and too often ill-willed. So, we must be all too aware of not just that error is possible but that our perspectives are partial. Isaiah is classic:
Isaiah 55Amplified Bible (AMP) The Free Offer of Mercy 55 “Everyone who thirsts, come to the waters; And you who have no money come, buy grain and eat. Come, buy wine and milk Without money and without cost [simply accept it as a gift from God]. 2 “Why do you spend money for that which is not bread, And your earnings for what does not satisfy? Listen carefully to Me, and eat what is good, And let your soul delight in [a]abundance. 3 “Incline your ear [to listen] and come to Me; Hear, so that your soul may live; And I will make an everlasting covenant with you, According to the faithful mercies [promised and] shown to David. 4 “Listen carefully, I have appointed [b]him [David, representing the Messiah] to be a witness to the nations [regarding salvation], A leader and commander to the peoples. 5 “In fact, you [c][Israel] will call a nation that you do not know, And a nation that does not know you will run to you, Because of the Lord your God, even the Holy One of Israel; For He has glorified you.” 6 Seek the Lord while He may be found; Call on Him [for salvation] while He is near. 7 Let the wicked leave (behind) his way And the unrighteous man his thoughts; And let him return to the Lord, And He will have compassion (mercy) on him, And to our God, For He will abundantly pardon. 8 “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord. 9 “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts higher than your thoughts. 10 “For as the rain and snow come down from heaven, And do not return there without watering the earth, Making it bear and sprout, And providing seed to the sower and bread to the eater, 11 So will My word be which goes out of My mouth; It will not return to Me void (useless, without result), Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it. 12 “For you will go out [from exile] with joy And be led forth [by the Lord Himself] with peace; The mountains and the hills will break forth into shouts of joy before you, And all the trees of the field will clap their hands. 13 “Instead of the thorn bush the cypress tree will grow, And instead of the nettle the myrtle tree will grow; And it will be a memorial to the Lord, For an everlasting sign [of His mercy] which will not be cut off.” [AMP]
This, is where the issue of warrant and the degree we can or do have becomes material. For, while there are plumb-line, self evident truths (including moral ones) that once we understand a claim i/l/o adequate experience, intellectual/moral development and reflection, we see it is so and must be so on pain of patent absurdity on attempted denial or dismissal, there are many things we cannot know to that strength of warrant. Indeed, SET's will never amount to enough to form a worldview or a significant slice such as ethics; but they give us plumb-lines that allow us to test what we have built. So, we face degrees of warrant, which injects an inevitable provisionality into our thought as a whole. For practical reason, this means that where possible, we seek moral certainty, a degree of warrant sufficient that we would be irresponsible to act as if the thing so warranted were not so. In court [in the anglophone, common law world tracing its roots to Alfred's Book of Dooms], criminal matters must be shown by the state beyond reasonable, responsible doubt; precisely because of the possibility of error and the imbalance between the power of the state and the individual. Other things are warranted to lesser degree. For instance, no scientific theory in itself -- as an explanatory context arrived at by abductive inference to the best current explanation -- is morally certain. Indeed, the famous pessimistic induction would lead us to infer that the current theories too are not just works in progress but will likely be succeeded by onward theories. What is much more certain for well founded, observationally readily tested, experiment-based "operational" theories that have stood the test of time and repeated accurate predictions, is that in the tested zone, they are empirically reliable. That's what we build engineering on. Theories that are about a remote, not readily accessible process or entity etc that we access through traces and inferred adequate causes, should be held with a lot more provisionality i/l/o their want of direct, at-close-hand ready observability of the reality. This includes issues in astrophysics, exoplanets, cosmology and broader origins sciences. Also, sciences of the future, such as climatology insofar as it seeks to project global climate dynamics. And of course, no computer simulation is an actual observation. Of course, these points will be hotly contested by those locked into various popular ideologies shot through with scientism -- they see such due cautions as "antiscience," in reality only knocking their ideologies off pedestals. Be that as it may, that is a far more balanced view than is too common today. So, objectivity is based on warrant that in general is less than absolutely certain. Including in moral spheres. So, we are forced to live by faith in the face of uncertainty, and must be open to clarification and correction. Hence, the value of plumb-line, self evident truths and yardstick cases or principles shown to be credible through the plumb-line test. Objective truth, including objective moral truth, is that which has been tested and is sufficiently warranted that we can responsibly and rationally trust it for serious action. God knows the absolute truth, and as rational communication himself, he can doubtless communicate truth to us. But, our means of reception are often dull, are finite, fallible, may be distorted by our moral struggles and may be perverted by our ill-will. So, to come to trust a claimed revelation of God's will involves a process of warrant. In the case of the gospel, that warrant -- a main focus of this whole thread -- pivots on the prophecies of scripture, their fulfillment in Jesus of Nazareth, especially his death, burial and resurrection with 500 witnesses who simply could not be stopped or turned, not even at the cost of their lives. In that context, it is reasonable and responsible to trust the ethical teachings, especially as we come to them with a spirit of penitent trust and thereby are led to grow through positive morally driven life transformation energised by insights such as these from Paul of Tarsus, Paulo, Apostolo, Mart as his gravestone records:
Rom 2:1 . . . you have no excuse or justification, everyone of you who [hypocritically] [a]judges and condemns others; for in passing judgment on another person, you condemn yourself, because you who judge [from a position of arrogance or self-righteousness] are habitually practicing the very same things [which you denounce]. [--> mirror principle, our expectations of others should apply consistently to ourselves] 2 And we know that the judgment of God falls justly and in accordance with truth on those who practice such things. 3 But do you think this, O man, when you judge and condemn those who practice such things, and yet do the same yourself, that you will escape God’s judgment and elude His verdict? . . . . 14 When Gentiles, who do not have the Law [since it was given only to Jews], do [c]instinctively the things the Law requires [guided only by their conscience], they are a law to themselves, though they do not have the Law. 15 They show that the [d]essential requirements of the Law are written in their hearts; and their conscience [their sense of right and wrong, their moral choices] bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or perhaps defending them [--> conscience-guided morally tinged reasoning as God's candle within, leading us to respond aright to truth and right] 16 on that day when, [e]as my gospel proclaims, God will judge the secrets [all the hidden thoughts and concealed sins] of men through Christ Jesus. [--> eternal judgement with Jesus as yardstick] [AMP] Rom 13:8 [b]Owe nothing to anyone except to [c]love and seek the best for one another; for he who [unselfishly] loves his neighbor has fulfilled the [essence of the] law [relating to one’s fellowman]. 9 The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet,” and any other commandment are summed up in this statement: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor [it never hurts anyone]. Therefore [unselfish] love is the fulfillment of the Law. [--> Principle of love as main plumb-line of and teacher concerning morality] 11 Do this, knowing that this is a critical time. It is already the hour for you to awaken from your sleep [of spiritual complacency]; for our salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed [in Christ]. 12 The night [this present evil age] is almost gone and the day [of Christ’s return] is almost here. So let us fling away the works of darkness and put on the [full] armor of light. 13 Let us conduct ourselves properly and honorably as in the [light of] day [--> Principle of walking by honourable light] , not in carousing and drunkenness, not in sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility, not in quarreling and jealousy. 14 But clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for [nor even think about gratifying] the flesh in regard to its improper desires. [AMP] Titus 2:11 For the [remarkable, undeserved] grace of God that [a]brings salvation has appeared to all men. 12 It teaches us to reject ungodliness and worldly (immoral) desires, and to live sensible, upright, and godly lives [lives with a purpose that reflect spiritual maturity] in this present age, 13 awaiting and confidently expecting the [fulfillment of our] blessed hope and the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus [--> the principle of the godly, upright Christian lifestyle of discipleship], 14 who [willingly] gave Himself [to be crucified] on our behalf to redeem us and purchase our freedom from all wickedness, and to purify for Himself a chosen and very special people to be His own possession, who are enthusiastic for doing what is good. [AMP]
That's not airy-fairy or arbitrary stuff, it is reasonable, responsible, principled, powerfully insightful, relevant and applicable far and wide. Indeed, this specific cluster of teachings dramatically transformed our civilisation. But, too often, due to stubborn, impenitent hearts, we resist, choosing darkness over light and calling good evil, evil being deemed good. That comes from making a crooked yardstick into a warped standard. For, the truth already conforms to reality so it will never align with a warped, crooked, inaccurate yardstick. So, the deluded will suspect, reject, resist or disregard the plumb-lines of truth. They will insist on building a wall out of true and out of plumb. They will think all is well, they have seen off those silly fundy yokels with their outdated plumb-lines. Until, everything crashes to the ground in ruins. (And BTW, that happened here, literally, some years ago. A sad case.) KF PS: The premise of being a consciously aware, responsible and rationally significantly free, self-moved morally accountable agent is a case of a self-evident truth. One that is shared in common by our race, one we communicate in conversation and demonstrate in action. It is true, it is undeniably true on pain of absurdity [who is objecting and why should we take him as more than a zombie controlled by blind, GIGO-driven forces in the end of chance and necessity], it is a plumb-line test principle, it is objectively accessible. Objective and subjective are not in antithesis to each other. (And yes, God whom made us in his image is an agent of this general order too, but one who is a necessary and maximally great being, our creator and utterly honourable, trustworthy Lord who we owe loyalty and reasonable, responsible service in accord with our evident nature. [--> this BTW brings out how evils frustrate, pervert or distract things from fulfilling their proper, evident purpose.])kairosfocus
May 22, 2017
May
05
May
22
22
2017
02:40 AM
2
02
40
AM
PDT
StephenB @ 485 Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me.
… subjective morality refers to a standard that comes from inside the person, which can change from one day to the next, while objective morality, the true morality, refers to a standard that comes from outside the individual and is not subject to change.
So, in the context of morality, ‘objective’ means unchangeable and coming from outside the person. At this point I have two follow-up comments: (1) “Objective morality” is a standard that comes from inside God, who is arguably a person. (2) The truth “I act therefor I am” comes from inside the person and is uniquely held by the person. I would like to argue that, once properly understood, this truth from inside is not going to change. My second comment is not within the context of morality, but may have relevance nonetheless.Origenes
May 22, 2017
May
05
May
22
22
2017
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT
1 2 3 18

Leave a Reply