Thread Title At TSZ Headlines Moral Confusion of Materialists

_{William Murray

May 24, 2015

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Irish Voters Do the Right Thing. Church Was On the Wrong Side, As Usual

There is no “the” right thing under materialism and moral subjectivism. There is no “the” wrong side. Had Irish voters elected to round up and execute all gays and lesbians, under materialism and moral subjectivism that too would have been a right thing. Had they elected to lobotomize them, that too would have been a right thing, made right by that which legitimizes as right any subjective moral or ethical good under materialism: the individual, or the group, or the community, or the society, or the culture consider a thing to be good or right.

That headline corrected for logical consistency under materialism and moral subjectivism would be: “Irish Voters Do the Right Thing What I Personally Preferred. Church Was On the Wrong Side, In Disagreement With My Personal Preferences As Usual.”

Only a moral outlook where morality is guided by an absolute, objective commodity can be logically consistent with that thread headline. Theism is the only source of an absolute, objective morality. As I have said before, materialists cannot even act or argue as if materialism is true.

Comments

Seversky asks some good questions:
So who is “right”? How do we decide who is “right” Or do we hand over the whole problem to somebody’s god to decide? Except how do we decide which is the “right” god? In fact, how does it help in the slightest? So tell me how you get from an undefined Creator – not necessarily the Christian God – to morality being an objective “commodity”? How are a god’s views on morality any more objective than yours or mine?
Once one has realized that atheist/materialist morality is both morally unacceptable and rationally incoherent, and one realizes that the theisms they may be familiar with may be no better, the defining, necessary question is, which category of morality is required practically, to describe our expectation that some things are just universally wrong or right (gratuitous child torture on one hand, protecting the innocent on the other), and logically, to provide a morality that can be sorted out rationally? The only form of morality categorically up to the task is some form of objective morality, whether we like it or not. And, whether we like it or not, that implies and requires certain other necessary conclusions and assumptions which narrows the field of candidate worldviews down to certain specific formulations that can (1) provide an objective morality that doesn't have the fatalfailings of other systems (subjectivity, command authority, etc), (2) provide for our capacity to both apprehend/discern it and for our capacity to ignore/defy/deny it, and (3) provides for a reason why moral behavior is important.William J Murray_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

There is no “the” right thing under materialism and moral subjectivism. There is no “the” wrong side. Had Irish voters elected to round up and execute all gays and lesbians, under materialism and moral subjectivism that too would have been a right thing.
That's right. There is no absolute right or wrong under subjectivism. If a majority of the Irish voters had decided that rounding up all the gays and lesbians and executing them (they're moving in that direction in parts of Africa, inspired in part by American evangelical Christians) that would have been the "right" thing to do. For them. You and I and most others here would have said it was most definitely "wrong". I'm pretty sure the LGBT community would have said it was most definitely "wrong". So who is "right"? How do we decide who is "right" Or do we hand over the whole problem to somebody's god to decide? Except how do we decide which is the "right" god? In fact, how does it help in the slightest? From Merriam-Webster
Full Definition of THEISM : belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world
So tell me how you get from an undefined Creator - not necessarily the Christian God - to morality being an objective "commodity"? How are a god's views on morality any more objective than yours or mine?Seversky_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

semi related: Discussing Mere Christianity Small Group Bible Study - Session One (narrated by Eric Metaxas?) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcQ70cPYcB8bornagain77_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

Although Darwinism & The Church are on the same page when it comes to same sex marriage, they differ on the concept of celibacy. Darwinisn would encourage Priests & Nuns to mate/reproduce.ppolish_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT}

harry said:
There is simply no such thing. Nature, through the “plumbing” of males and females, even if there were no other indications of the non-existence of same-sex marriage (which there most certainly are), couldn’t have made that fact more clear.
Because infanticide exists in the wild doesn't mean that it is moral for humans to engage in it; similarly, because self-reflective, logical thought and analysis doesn't seem to appear elsewhere in nature doesn't mean humans shouldn't engage in it.William J Murray_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

I checked out the thread at TSZ. Gee, what a bunch of nonsense. Scores of people trying to educate William about the differences between subjectivism and relativism, while they oh so conveniently fail to explain how any morality they can conceive of is better than another. Lizzie takes the cake with this gem: "Whereas the non-theistic version has the benefit of being the result of a consensus view on the goal of a moral system (minimise harm, for instance), supported by actual evidence of what actions are best suited to achieving it." Which is EXACTLY what William has been saying all along. If it is simply about achieving a consensus view (actually she means a majority view-because there is no such thing as a consensus for all) , then of course ANY decision was the right one. How can she be so stupidly blind to the obvious. She can't, that is how. But deception, and dodging is such a better option than admission, it appears.phoodoo_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT}

harry @10,
Even so, simple Boolean logic indicates that either same-sex marriage is allowable under the genuine “absolute, objective morality,” or it isn’t.
I should have said there
Even so, simple Boolean logic indicates that either there is such a thing as same-sex marriage under the genuine “absolute, objective morality,” or there isn’t.
There is simply no such thing. Nature, through the "plumbing" of males and females, even if there were no other indications of the non-existence of same-sex marriage (which there most certainly are), couldn't have made that fact more clear.harry_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
09:37 AM
9
09
37
AM
PDT}

Many Theists do not have issue with same sex marriage. Many Theists are part of a sane sex marriage. But same sex marriage is a no no with Darwinism. Unnatural.ppolish_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT}

harry said:
If there is such a thing as an “absolute, objective morality,” then that “absolute, objective morality” either allows for same-sex marriage or it doesn’t.
I agree. But the question of if same-sex marriage is moral, and the question of if same-sex marriage should be legal or illegal, are two different questions.
While there are indeed several forms of theism, Christianity is the correct form of theism. Of course, adherents of the other forms of theism will tell you that theirs is the correct form. ;o)
Whether or not Christianity is the correct form of theism or not is irrelevant to the question of what metaphysical framework allows for an objective, absolute form of morality that in turn allows for such statements as the headline at TSZ. Whether or not Christianity is the correct form of theism, only theism can categorically provide the moral grounds for such a statement.
Even so, simple Boolean logic indicates that either same-sex marriage is allowable under the genuine “absolute, objective morality,” or it isn’t. Zero or one. Off or on. It is or it isn’t.
"Allowable" is not the same as "moral". We have free will; we are allowed to do all sorts of things that are immoral, even if there is a price to pay, which brings up the distinction between "legal" and "moral". IMO, all sorts of things that may be immoral should still be legal, because we should respect the free will of the individual to make their own choices - even bad ones - as much as possible, as long as they are not directly hurting other people.William J Murray_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

Hello, William J Murray,
While theism is logically necessary for an absolute, objective morality, that logical fact by itself doesn’t say anything about the morality of same-sex marriage.
If there is such a thing as an "absolute, objective morality," then that "absolute, objective morality" either allows for same-sex marriage or it doesn't. While there are indeed several forms of theism, Christianity is the correct form of theism. Of course, adherents of the other forms of theism will tell you that theirs is the correct form. ;o) Even so, simple Boolean logic indicates that either same-sex marriage is allowable under the genuine "absolute, objective morality," or it isn't. Zero or one. Off or on. It is or it isn't. It isn't.harry_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT}

WJM is right. One cannot rationally speak of right or wrong from a materialist or physicalist perspective. There is simply no logical pathway from matter to morality. Without God, there can be no moral code proper to human nature.StephenB_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

Their Patron Saint is Doubting Thomas. That made me laugh.Mung_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

It's not The Skeptical Zone; it's not even The Twilight Zone, though that's close; it's The Penumbral Zone. TPZ.Axel_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT}

Harry said:
According to theism there is no such thing as same-sex marriage.
You're conflating theism with certain specific religious views. While theism is logically necessary for an absolute, objective morality, that logical fact by itself doesn't say anything about the morality of same-sex marriage. Christianity is just one form of theism. Jim Smith said:
According to Theism should same-sex marriage be legal?
I'm not sure what you think morality has to do with legality.William J Murray_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT}

“An unjust law is no law at all.” One of the reasons we have jury nullification in this country.Mung_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

Further on the moral confusion at TSZ. Elizabeth Liddle:
That’s not what “undermines the case for design” William. What undermines the “case for design” chiefly, is that there isn’t a case for a designer.
Mung_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT}

Jim Smith @1
Theism is the only source of an absolute, objective morality.
According to Theism should same-sex marriage be legal?
According to theism there is no such thing as same-sex marriage. There can be same-sex fornication, but not same-sex marriage. Marriage existed prior to the state and was then what it is now and will always be: A commitment of a man and a woman to each other and to the raising of any children that may result from their union. Talking about same-sex marriage being "legal" is like discussing whether it should be legal for 2 + 2 to equal 3. The state can declare that 2 + 2 is equal to 3. It can declare that the Earth is flat. The state once declared that Blacks could be bought and sold like animals. It can and did declare that the child in the womb doesn't count and can be killed right up to birth based on nothing more than the whim of its mother. Many contemporary Christians need to get it through their heads that the state's authority does not extend so far that it can make legal what is irrational and/or blatantly immoral. As Augustine put it, "An unjust law is no law at all." Nor is there any such thing as a profoundly irrational law.harry_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

The existence of God or gods does not tell us anything about same-sex marriage.Mung_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

Theism is the only source of an absolute, objective morality.
According to Theism should same-sex marriage be legal?Jim Smith_{May 24, 2015
May
05
May
24
24
2015
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply