In a meaningless world, does truth always have value over delusion?

_{scordova
July 6, 2013

Atheism, Philosophy, Religion

3}_{Categories
Atheism
Philosophy
Religion}

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

I care about truth if there is a God. But why should I care about truth if there is no God? In fact if there is no God, maybe I shouldn’t care about truth because it would be too sad to know…I’d rather live out my life with the illusion of happily ever after in that case.

Two thousand years ago, someone echoed those sentiments:

What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.”

Paul of Tarsus
1 Cor 15:32

There was an exchange between KeithS and I in another thread, and he fired off this comment:

Your comment epitomizes one of the biggest problems with Pascal’s Wager. It doesn’t ask the question “What is most likely to be true?” It only asks, “How can I get the best payoff?”

That’s anathema to anyone who truly cares about truth.

Holy Rollers, Pascal’s Wager;Comment 100

To which I responded:

But why should I care about truth if there is no God? In fact if there is no God, maybe I shouldn’t care about truth because it would be too sad to know…I’d rather live out my life with the illusion of happily ever after in that case.

Why, logically speaking should an atheist care about truth in a meaningless universe? Perhaps the logical answer is no answer. If you say, truth has a better payoff, well, then you’ve just put payoffs ahead of truth! Right back where you started.

Further KeithS wrote:

Because the value of truth doesn’t depend on the existence of God.

To which I responded:

Value means PAYOFF! What is the payoff if there is no God?

I recall Dawkins in a debate with Lennox was asked about how humans can live their lives in a meaningless world. Dawkins said, “we create our own meaning”. Other atheists have repeated that statement such KeithS:

Life is full of meaning even without God. We create our own meanings, whether you realize it or not.

Holy Rollers, Pascal’s wager; Comment 59

to which I responded:

[the phrase] “we create our own meaning” is pretty much to me “we concoct our own unproven falsehoods to make us feel better”.
…
this whole “we create our own meaning” is worse than the religious ideas you are criticizing. You “know” there is no meaning, but you’ll pretend there is anyway. Reminds me of Coyne who “knows” there is no free will but he’ll pretend there is anyway.

And that is what continues to puzzle me about the atheistic variety of Darwinists (not Christian Darwinists). They seem to find much purpose in life in proving life has no purpose!

[posted by scordova to assist News desk with content and commentary until 7/7/13]

Comments

Sure, he could communicate that way. But we aren’t absolutely certain that he does communicate that way.
You aren't. But if He did communicate that way to someone else, they could be. In other words, iff Divine Revelation (as described), then absolute certainty.
And if you think the Bible is the word of God, then the Bible is strong evidence that God doesn’t communicate absolute certainty, because people don’t agree on what the Bible means!
That is a non sequitor. Why is it necessary for God to communicate absolute certainty to everyone? Perhaps you are making some assumptions about what it means for the Bible to be the word of God. The traditional view is that, for the reader of the Bible, revelation includes the work of the Holy Spirit in interpreting the word. In other words, every part of the communication, from God to the writer to the word to the reader, requires Divine intervention in order to overcome the fallibility of the humans involved and make absolute certainty possible.Phinehas_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
03:40 PM
3
03
40
PM
PDT}

@Barb I agree with you 100% Barb, and this isn't meant to be an insult to Keiths, but I think the cheese has slid right off his cracker.KRock_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
It isn’t a quibble. Anyone can “feel” certain that he is right. Only someone who knows the truth can “be” certain about what is right.
Drawing that distinction doesn't help your case. The question in this thread is whether you can justifiably claim to be absolutely certain of any particular thing. The answer is no, because it is always possible that God exists and that for some inscrutable reason(s) he wants to deceive you about that particular thing. You can't rule that out, so it is irrational to be absolutely certain of anything.
You asked if God had the power to create someone who could feel certain about a lie. Well, you feel certain about a lie, and God created you, so that should settle the matter.
I'm almost certain you know how ridiculous that argument is, so I won't bother addressing it unless you insist.
The question is could God create someone IS certain about a lie. That answer is no. By definition, a perfect, loving, omnipotent God who personifies truth cannot deceive.
God doesn't have to conform to your definition, and it's easy to conceive of a God who doesn't. And even if you think that he does conform to your definition, you can't be absolutely certain of it.
I know that I exist and I know that I cannot both exist and not exist at the same time.
You don't know either of those things with absolute certainty. God might be tricking you about either one, or both. You can't rule that out, so you can't rationally insist that you are absolutely certain.keiths_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

Has anyone else noticed how keiths has tried to turn the conversation to the Bible and God while failing to answer a point I made in a post he has yet to reply to: If the law of noncontradiction is wrong, then everything we know about everything else is wrong. Including evolution and philosophy and physics and astronomy. Are you willing to throw all that out for an untenable argument?Barb_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

Phinehas,
I think that it is entirely possible that some or all of the Bible’s writers had absolute certainty.
That doesn't help, because the mere possibility that they were absolutely certain isn't enough. You're not absolutely certain that they were absolutely certain. And even if the biblical authors thought that God was speaking to them, they could have been mistaken. It could have been a hallucination or a delusion, or it could have been Satan trying to fool them, etc. So even they had no reason to feel absolutely certain.
Here’s the case I would make for absolute certainty. 1. If an omniscient and omnipotent God exists, then… 2. Based on His omniscience, God can be said to be absolutely certain 3. Based on His omnipotence, God can communicate in such a manner that another can be absolutely certain
Sure, he could communicate that way. But we aren't absolutely certain that he does communicate that way. And if you think the Bible is the word of God, then the Bible is strong evidence that God doesn't communicate absolute certainty, because people don't agree on what the Bible means!
Absolute certainty is only accessible via Divine Revelation.
And since you can never be absolutely sure of what is, or isn't, divine revelation, you have no reason to be absolutely certain.keiths_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT}

I think that it is entirely possible that some or all of the Bible’s writers had absolute certainty.
I agree with this, however this doesn't mean that the object of their certainty was real, even if such certainty was given by the Designer itself. We can't rule out the possibiliy that the Designer may have given men the Bible as a guide to stop them from destroying themselves, even if the God described in such text is not the real Designer, but a made-up God which attributes were designed to accomplish the TRUE Designer's purpose for humans, a purpose that couldn't be accomplished if humans knew the real identity of the Designer. In other words, the Bible might have in fact been created by the Designer and shown to men, and at the same time be completely false in it's depiction of the very Designer. Therefore, that religious text can provide access to absolute certainty is highly questionable under the scenario considered above.Proton_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

vividbleau, You make the same error again and again in your comment. A good argument is still good even if it isn't absolutely certain. I am making a good argument for why absolute certainty is a mistake. You are making a poor argument for why absolute certainty is justified. Neither of us is absolutely certain that his (I'm assuming you're male; please correct me if I'm wrong) argument is correct, but that's okay. We should prefer the better argument to the worse one, even if neither is certain.keiths_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

keiths #117: That’s extremely similar to what William says about God, objective morality, and “necessary consequences”. I’m not sure why you keep denying the obvious similarities.
For some reason you're failing to see the difference between his affirmative case, and my (what amounts to a) dismissive statement. Essentially a big "so what?" Maybe this will help if I restate it this way: if there is no ultimate meaning or morality, then "so what?" to anything you have to say about morality, and it's amusing to me that would you even dare. Clear enough?CentralScrutinizer_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

keiths
Your quibble doesn’t affect my argument at all. Change “are” to “feel” in the second part and the argument still holds:
It isn't a quibble. Anyone can "feel" certain that he is right. Only someone who knows the truth can "be" certain about what is right. That is the formal difference between absolute metaphysical certainty (not physical certainty, which comes in greater or lesser degrees of probability) and subjective certitude, which is not absolute. You "feel" subjective certitude (except when you qualify that to be almost certain) that I cannot be certain that I exist. But I have objective certainty that I do exist. Someone like yourself who doesn't even know he exists cannot, with any rational justification, tell someone like me, who knows he exists, that he doesn't know what he knows. By your own standard, you may not even exist.
But if you answer yes, then it’s possible that God is using that power to deceive you about anything that you currently believe, even if you feel “absolutely certain” of it:
You asked if God had the power to create someone who could feel certain about a lie. Well, you feel certain about a lie, and God created you, so that should settle the matter. The question is could God create someone IS certain about a lie. That answer is no. By definition, a perfect, loving, omnipotent God who personifies truth cannot deceive. Do you now understand the difference between feeling certain and being certain?
That’s my point: you aren’t justified in feeling absolutely certain of anything, because you can’t rule out the possibility that God is deceiving you.
It isn't a question of feeling. I know that I exist and I know that I cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. …"is unjustified, because it is possible that God is deceiving you about the Law of Non-contradiction. You can’t rule it out, even if you feel pretty sure that he isn’t deceiving you." By definition, God, who is truth, cannot deceive or be deceived.StephenB_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

...the Bible is irrelevant to the issue of absolute certainty.
I'm not certain this is the case. I think that it is entirely possible that some or all of the Bible's writers had absolute certainty. What matters is whether you start from fallible man or from an omniscient and omnipotent God. Here's the case I would make for absolute certainty. 1. If an omniscient and omnipotent God exists, then... 2. Based on His omniscience, God can be said to be absolutely certain 3. Based on His omnipotence, God can communicate in such a manner that another can be absolutely certain All of the above is consistent with Biblical teaching. The communication referenced in (3) is typically known as Divine Revelation. Absolute certainty is only accessible via Divine Revelation.Phinehas_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

It’s staring you in the face. If God might be tricking you, then this thought of yours might be false,…
But you don't know its a thought you just think you think it is a thought so you might be wrong. But even if the thought is false I am still absolutely certain that "I" think "I" think I am typing this. What is staring you in the face is that it does not change what I think I think!
Of course I can’t! For the umpteenth time, I am not absolutely, 100.0% certain of anything,
Then your not absolutely certain that I am wrong yet your telling me that
Absolute certainty of anything, including that thought, is a mistake.
WOW WOW No, because I’m not saying “You’re wrong because I say so.” I’m saying “You’re wrong, and here is my argument in support of that claim.” But your argument that you make you admit may be wrong.Once again you think you think you are right but you may be wrong and I am supposed to accept your argument even though you are not certain it is a correct argument.Got it!
If you accept logic, and I hope you do, then you must accept the correctness of a logical argument, unless you can identify a flaw in it. None of this requires being absolutely certain of anything.
But you are not sure that a logical argument is correct, any logical argument you present could be wrong. So I am to accept an argument that may be wrong because you think you think it is correct. Got it.
No, I can also show why I think you are wrong
But your not sure that you think. If your not sure if you think you can only think you think.
because I think such certainty is profoundly irrational.
What is more irrational someone who is not absolutely certain that they typed the above or someone who is absolutely certain that they think they think they are the one actually doing the typing? Vividvividbleau_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT}

Phinehas,
Are you absolutely certain that I can’t be absolutely certain?
No, and we've been through this a thousand times in the thread already. I can't be absolutely certain of anything, but I can make a better argument against absolute certainty than you can make for it.
How certain are you of your interpretation of the Bible? :)
Pretty certain, at least of the parts that mention God's deceit.
God certainly(sorry) chooses to hide some things.
I'm talking about deceit. In any case, as I said, we can't be absolutely certain that the Bible is true or that our interpretations of it are correct, so the Bible is irrelevant to the issue of absolute certainty.keiths_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

keiths:
But you can’t be absolutely certain, without the slightest possibility of error, that the Bible is true. And even if you could be certain of that, you couldn’t be absolutely certain that your interpretation of it was correct.
Are you absolutely certain that I can't be absolutely certain?
P.S. By the way, the Bible does say that God deceives people.
How certain are you of your interpretation of the Bible? :) God certainly(sorry) chooses to hide some things. I personally believe that God values faith over knowledge (without faith it is impossible to please God), that humility is a prerequisite for doubt, and that doubt is a prerequisite for faith. Thus, God gives grace to the humble, but allows the proud to continue in their own self-deceit.Phinehas_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

vividbleau, It's staring you in the face. If God might be tricking you, then this thought of yours...
“I” think “I” think “I” am typing this.
...might be false, because God might be tricking you into believing it, even though it is not true. Absolute certainty of anything, including that thought, is a mistake.
But you cant be absolutely certain that I am wrong.
Of course I can't! For the umpteenth time, I am not absolutely, 100.0% certain of anything, because I think such certainty is profoundly irrational.
All you can say is that you think you think I am wrong.
No, I can also show why I think you are wrong. That's what this discussion has been about.
As StephenB has already pointed out you are telling me that I dont know with absolute certainty what I say I do know even you have no way of knowing what I know and don’t know.Thats hubris!
That's not what StephenB is saying. Don't saddle him with your bad argument. It isn't about what you do or don't know. It's about what you can and can't know. If God might be tricking you about X, then even if you think he probably isn't tricking you, you still cannot be absolutely certain of X. God might be tricking you, after all.
...and nothing but an argument from authority. Because you think you think I am wrong that I am wrong.
No, because I'm not saying "You're wrong because I say so." I'm saying "You're wrong, and here is my argument in support of that claim." If you accept logic, and I hope you do, then you must accept the correctness of a logical argument, unless you can identify a flaw in it. None of this requires being absolutely certain of anything.keiths_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

But then the game is over. If God may be tricking you, then what you believe may be wrong.
Of course I already said that, doesnt change anything. I am absolutely certain that "I" think "I" think "I" am typing this.
If what you believe may be wrong, then it is foolish to claim absolute certainty.
But you cant be absolutely certain that I am wrong. All you can say is that you think you think I am wrong.As StephenB has already pointed out you are telling me that I dont know with absolute certainty what I say I do know even you have no way of knowing what I know and don't know.Thats hubris! and nothing but an argument from authority. Because you think you think I am wrong that I am wrong. Vividvividbleau_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
11:03 AM
11
11
03
AM
PDT}

Phinehas,
The Bible also speaks to God’s immutability or His consistency in acting according to His own character. Given the above, though God has the power to deceive, it is simply not possible that He could act against His own character to do so. Saying so is in no way inconsistent with Biblical theism.
But you can't be absolutely certain, without the slightest possibility of error, that the Bible is true. And even if you could be certain of that, you couldn't be absolutely certain that your interpretation of it was correct. God might be deceiving you about anything. You may think that he isn't, and you may think that it would be out of character for him to do so, but you can't be absolutely certain, with a 0.0 percent possibility of error, that he isn't deceiving you. Therefore you cannot be absolutely certain of anything, because it is always possible that God is deceiving you about that thing, even if you think that it is unlikely. And as I pointed out above, this argument applies to both theists and atheists, because atheists cannot be absolutely certain that God doesn't exist. We just think the evidence is poor. As long as the probability is nonzero, this argument applies. Now you can see why my interlocutors aren't rushing to answer my questions. P.S. By the way, the Bible does say that God deceives people. But let's not get into a discussion of that. It's irrelevant because, as I pointed out above, you could never be absolutely, 100.0% sure that the Bible is true anyway.keiths_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

Since all of you are theists, as far as I know, let me ask a simple question: Do you think that God has the power to create a being who feels absolutely certain of something that is false? I am not asking if you think he has done so, only whether you agree that he has that power.
Power and ability are two different things. For instance, the Bible says that God cannot tell a lie. This is not a statement about His omniscience, but about His character. It also says that there is no shadow of turning (or deceit) in Him. Again, this isn't about what He can do from a power standpoint, but what He can do from a character standpoint. The Bible also speaks to God's immutability or His consistency in acting according to His own character. Given the above, though God has the power to deceive, it is simply not possible that He could act against His own character to do so. Saying so is in no way inconsistent with Biblical theism.Phinehas_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

Anyone willing to defend the immaterial soul on the other thread?keiths_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
02:06 AM
2
02
06
AM
PDT}

Sal,
But decimal arithmetic is based on faith axioms.
They're not purely arbitrary. They're selected based on our experiences in the real world. As I wrote to Lizzie:
Don’t forget — premises can be truth statements too! So can conclusions based on premises. We generally want both our premises and conclusions to be true, after all. The reason I think “1+1=2?is a truth statement (though not an absolutely certain one!) is that cultures all over the world agree on its truth, the reasoning appears to be valid, and the result doesn’t appear to be due to a cognitive bias in humans. The same can be said of scientific truths.
keiths_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PDT}

CentralScrutinizer:
OK. But I disagree. I make no affirmative argument for any particular morality or that any absolute morality exists (whatever that means.)
Sure you do:
Sal and Keiths, If God exists, it is incumbent on us to do what he says or else. If God doesn’t exist, then why shouldn’t it be an “eat, drink and be merry” pragmatism? I can’t see why it’s a complicated matter.
That's extremely similar to what William says about God, objective morality, and "necessary consequences". I'm not sure why you keep denying the obvious similarities. The TSZ thread is relevant, and so are the arguments that I and others make against William's position.keiths_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
01:00 AM
1
01
00
AM
PDT}

vividbleau,
I will add for your benefit “God may be tricking me”
But then the game is over. If God may be tricking you, then what you believe may be wrong. If what you believe may be wrong, then it is foolish to claim absolute certainty.keiths_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
12:31 AM
12
12
31
AM
PDT}

StephenB, Your quibble doesn't affect my argument at all. Change "are" to "feel" in the second part and the argument still holds:
But if you answer yes, then it’s possible that God is using that power to deceive you about anything that you currently believe, even if you feel “absolutely certain” of it:
That's my point: you aren't justified in feeling absolutely certain of anything, because you can't rule out the possibility that God is deceiving you. So this statement of yours...
As it turns out, I am absolutely sure that the Law of Non-contradiction is true.
...is unjustified, because it is possible that God is deceiving you about the Law of Non-contradiction. You can't rule it out, even if you feel pretty sure that he isn't deceiving you. After all, you could be wrong about that.keiths_{July 9, 2013
July
07
Jul
9
09
2013
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT}

Will you continue to dodge the questions? Believe me, you’re not fooling anyone if you do so.
Your making things up I am starting to think that you are delusional. None of the questions you asked are relevant since I have already addressed these issues thus I see no need to take a trip to see the Queen. From previous posts:
“I” am absolutely certain that “I” think I think “I” am typing this. Now there may be no I, the I maybe an illusion, an hallucination, a dream, in the matrix, a brain in the vat, whatever, it does not matter. It does not change that I am absolutely certain that “I” think I think “I” am typing this.
I will add for your benefit "God may be tricking me"
I don’t know whether my thoughts are correct, they may not be my thoughts, there may be no such thing as thoughts,doesnt change a thing about what “I” think “I” think.
Vividvividbleau_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
11:58 PM
11
11
58
PM
PDT}

keiths
Do you think that God has the power to create a being who feels absolutely certain of something that is false?
Of course.
But if you answer yes, then it’s possible that God is using that power to deceive you about anything that you currently believe, even if you are “absolutely certain” of it:
That doesn't follow at all. Your second formulation is not parallel to your first formulation. One can "feel" absotlutely certain about something that is false, but one can "be" absolutely certain about something only if it is true.StephenB_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
11:42 PM
11
11
42
PM
PDT}

vividbleau, My questions are entirely relevant, because they show that you cannot claim absolute certainty without contradicting some of your theistic beliefs. Will you continue to dodge the questions? Believe me, you're not fooling anyone if you do so. P.S. As I explained, my argument applies to both theists and atheists. It also doesn't require invoking God (or the possibility of God); the mere fact that our cognition isn't guaranteed to be reliable is enough to show that absolute certainty can't be justified.keiths_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
11:22 PM
11
11
22
PM
PDT}

Yes, if “rabbit trails” are “questions that vividbleau is afraid to answer”.
Like a grade school yard bully you are resorting to taunt's. Sad really. If I resorted to grade school taunts I would be embarrassed. The questions have no bearing whatsoever on my position that "I" am absolutely certain that "I" think "I" think "I" am typing this. One need not be a theist to hold this position, it is god neutral. Thus the Rabbit Trail alert Vividvividbleau_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT}

vividbleau:
Rabbit trail alert.
Yes, if "rabbit trails" are "questions that vividbleau is afraid to answer". I understand why you and the others are afraid to answer them. You don't want to deny God's omnipotence, so you would have to answer "yes" to this question:
Do you think that God has the power to create a being who feels absolutely certain of something that is false? I am not asking if you think he has done so, only whether you agree that he has that power.
But if you answer yes, then it's possible that God is using that power to deceive you about anything that you currently believe, even if you are "absolutely certain" of it:
If God has that power, then how can you be 100.0% certain, with literally no chance of being mistaken, that he hasn’t used that power to make you believe that you are sitting in front of your computer, reading this, when in reality you are somewhere else entirely? Again, I know you don’t think he’s deceiving you, but that’s not the issue. The question is how you could ever — ever — be 100.0 percent certain of that.
If any of you try to claim that you are absolutely certain that God isn't deceiving you, then the question becomes "Who are you to say what God is or isn't doing? He may have his own reasons for deceiving you. God works in mysterious ways." And this argument doesn't just apply to theists. Being an atheist, I doubt that God exists or that any of this is true. But atheists can't be absolutely sure that God doesn't exist (and I'm not -- I just think the evidence for his existence is poor). Thus, it is at least possible that God exists and is deceiving me. I can't rule it out, even though I doubt that it's true. And if I can't rule out the possibility that God is deceiving me, then I can't be absolutely sure of anything. All of us, theist or atheist, are in the same boat. We can't be absolutely certain of anything. I look forward to your responses.keiths_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
10:46 PM
10
10
46
PM
PDT}

I would be willing to bet an extremely large amount of money on the fact that 1 + 1 = 2 (in decimal arithmetic).
But decimal arithmetic is based on faith axioms. Taking 1 of something and 1 of something doesn't always mean you end up with 2 something. 1 rabbit plus 1 rabbit could yield a litter of several rabbits. Thus, what 1+1=2 actually means is a matter of faith and convention, it's true if the premises it is based on are true, but the premises are unprovable. And in terms of pure math, the Banach-Tarski paradox adds a twist where 1 of something can be made into lots of that something: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradoxscordova_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
08:42 PM
8
08
42
PM
PDT}

keiths, OK. But I disagree. I make no affirmative argument for any particular morality or that any absolute morality exists (whatever that means.) That you do not apprehend that fact is puzzling to me. But, hey, don't sweat it.CentralScrutinizer_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT}

CentralScrutinizer:
So where does that leave us?
It leaves us with you pretending not to see the obvious similarity between these two comments: CentralScrutinizer:
Of course, the whole “morality argument” doesn’t prove there is a God, but if reality has no ultimate meaning and I’m free to concoct my own, don’t be surprised (or give me a bunch of subjective sentimental hogwash) why I shouldn’t slit your throat for whatever you may have in your wallet. Or kill you and eat your liver with fava beans.
William J. Murray:
If I’m just making up my own purposes – like, “don’t harm others” or “do whatever I want” or “altruism”, then my purpose, and thus my morality, is based on “because I say so”, and we have a “because I say so” morality. If, however, my purpose is generate by the God I’ve outlined (source of logic, math, good, etc., omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient (inasmuch as other qualities allow), then I have an absolute, objective purpose. Only with such an objective (absolute) purpose can my morality escape being based on “because I say so”.
keiths_{July 8, 2013
July
07
Jul
8
08
2013
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 18 19 20 21 22 … 26 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply