A World without Religion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter_Plato said:
Not sure what your point is here.

I agree that for a metaphysical naturalist - in particular, one who thinks “good” is entirely subjective AND relative - the statement is trivial. If “good” means nothing but what the speaker intends it to mean, then, as a proposition that purports to make a truth claim, it is meaningless. It states precisely nothing.

There are, I think, two ways around this problem and neither of them are very appealing to atheists because one involves admitting the essential teleology in nature and the other straight out requires that the ground of existence is intentional, i.e., God exists as Ipsum Esse Existens.

The first is the Aristotelian view where the inherent nature of the universe has embedded within it final causes or outcomes. A thing can then be said to be “good” according to whether it achieves its integral ends which is found in a complete accounting of what it is. Aristotle’s theory of the four causes spell out what is required to fully explain the existence of any entity - its function or why it exists determining how “good” it is. Does it fulfill the ends integral to what it is?

Again, the problem for atheists is that Aristotelian metaphysics points towards the integral purpose or teleology in things and meaning that is derived from that purpose. Absent God or Uncaused Cause it is difficult to account for final causality which is why atheists simply resort to denial.

The second way of resolving the problem is full-blown classical theism where qualitative reality is part and parcel of the ground of existence itself. Good is a quality that exists within things by virtue of what they are.

Catholicism uses both the above to account for what “good” is.

Metaphysical naturalism has nothing to offer which is why it hangs on by the skin of its fingertips to insisting that “good” is subjective and, therefore, undefinably “meaningful” to each individual but fails miserably when it must explain why anyone should be compelled or obligated to act morally - especially where serious moral ground is at stake.

If morality is entirely the domain of the individual why should anyone have any “right” to force their subjective view on someone else? Morality and definitions of “good” simply evaporate in a fog of amoral or immoral pragmatism or might simply determines “right.”
Click to expand...
👍 Both relativism and subjectivism are self-refuting. Truth and goodness become illusions - and all opinions are equally valueless!
 
Peter_Plato said:
Not sure what your point is here.

I agree that for a metaphysical naturalist - in particular, one who thinks “good” is entirely subjective AND relative - the statement is trivial. If “good” means nothing but what the speaker intends it to mean, then, as a proposition that purports to make a truth claim, it is meaningless. It states precisely nothing.

There are, I think, two ways around this problem and neither of them are very appealing to atheists because one involves admitting the essential teleology in nature and the other straight out requires that the ground of existence is intentional, i.e., God exists as Ipsum Esse Existens.

The first is the Aristotelian view where the inherent nature of the universe has embedded within it final causes or outcomes. A thing can then be said to be “good” according to whether it achieves its integral ends which is found in a complete accounting of what it is. Aristotle’s theory of the four causes spell out what is required to fully explain the existence of any entity - its function or why it exists determining how “good” it is. Does it fulfill the ends integral to what it is?

Again, the problem for atheists is that Aristotelian metaphysics points towards the integral purpose or teleology in things and meaning that is derived from that purpose. Absent God or Uncaused Cause it is difficult to account for final causality which is why atheists simply resort to denial.

The second way of resolving the problem is full-blown classical theism where qualitative reality is part and parcel of the ground of existence itself. Good is a quality that exists within things by virtue of what they are.

Catholicism uses both the above to account for what “good” is.

Metaphysical naturalism has nothing to offer which is why it hangs on by the skin of its fingertips to insisting that “good” is subjective and, therefore, undefinably “meaningful” to each individual but fails miserably when it must explain why anyone should be compelled or obligated to act morally - especially where serious moral ground is at stake.

If morality is entirely the domain of the individual why should anyone have any “right” to force their subjective view on someone else? Morality and definitions of “good” simply evaporate in a fog of amoral or immoral pragmatism or might simply determines “right.”
Click to expand...
Why does one need their right to force their subjective moral view on someone else? If I stated “morality is subjective, therefore nobody should force their views on anybody else” that would be a clear contradiction- the second clause would be an absolute moral statement, violating the first clause. Instead, we form societies with some agreed upon core principles. Some of those principles (“no killing”, “no stealing” [of course there are not absolute as both are allowed in some circumstances]) are, subjectively, deemed permissible to enforce on others. It really isn’t so complicated- in the absence of the objective moral law giver enforcing his code, this is how the world has been operating for as long as “society” has been a sensible term. Different groups living under different moral systems, either imposed by elites or by vote. It’s just that this removes the presupposition that laws of the universe care about what some slightly “more evolved” primates do to each other on on of many planets, orbiting one of many stars, in one of many clusters, in one of many galaxies.
 
tonyrey said:
👍 Both relativism and subjectivism are self-refuting. Truth and goodness become illusions - and all opinions are equally valueless!
Click to expand...
In which case, if what you say is true, you would be free to do whatever you pleased. There would be nothing to stop you. So here’s your chance to add meat to your argument:

If there were no God, would you feel free to rape and murder as the mood took you?
 
Bradski said:
If there were no God, would you feel free to rape and murder as the mood took you?
Click to expand...
No, but then I am a Catholic. I can’t speak for anyone who doesn’t believe these things are objective evils.

Moreover, as a Catholic I believe in Matthew 25, which teaches that I must not only not do evil, but I must do good.

There is nothing in atheism that requires either moral mandate. In a world without God life would be “nasty, brutish, and short.” As a prison ministry volunteer I see many prisoners who are in prison, and they are there because they have no interest in God, yet the devil is in them.

The vast majority of prisoners in any prison do not avail themselves of chapel services, again because they have no interest in God. This does not mean that God has no interest in them.

God will not force himself on anyone, though atheists run for the hills when they see him coming. 🤷
 
Peter_Plato said:
Not sure what your point is here.

I agree that for a metaphysical naturalist - in particular, one who thinks “good” is entirely subjective AND relative - the statement is trivial. If “good” means nothing but what the speaker intends it to mean, then, as a proposition that purports to make a truth claim, it is meaningless. It states precisely nothing.
Click to expand...
Potentially not knowing what someone means by “good” is a general problem and not one limited to one group.

Limiting consideration of usages to what might be expressive of moral evaluations a statement such as “John is a good person” by itself only tells an opinion that some person has of another but doesn’t quite tell me enough to make my own evaluation (ignoring the problems that come with hear say evidence or that over time people can change for the time being). If I know the person speaking about John is non-religious, a variation of Christian, Muslim, or Hindu that doesn’t help me much in further interpreting their statement. If I know the person speaking has some similar or dissimilar views as myself on making moral evaluations the statement might be more meaningful. But in either case further discussion about John might be advisable and necessary to share a meaningful moral evaluation about John.
 
Bradski said:
. . . If there were no God, would you feel free to rape and murder as the mood took you?
Click to expand...
The question sounds bizarre to me, like asking, “there were no life, would you . . . ?”
God is love; if there were no love, every sexual encounter would be a rape. Murder would be a natural solution for most problems. It would all be about power. Welcome to hell.
When you appeal to your moral code, you are accessing your conscience, which is the dialogue you have with God, recognized or not.
 
AnimalSpirits said:
It’s just that this removes the presupposition that laws of the universe care about what some slightly “more evolved” primates do to each other on on of many planets, orbiting one of many stars, in one of many clusters, in one of many galaxies.
Click to expand...
Can you 'splain a bit more what you mean by the “laws of the universe”?
 
ThinkingSapien said:
Potentially not knowing what someone means by “good” is a general problem and not one limited to one group.

Limiting consideration of usages to what might be expressive of moral evaluations a statement such as “John is a good person” by itself only tells an opinion that some person has of another but doesn’t quite tell me enough to make my own evaluation (ignoring the problems that come with hear say evidence or that over time people can change for the time being). If I know the person speaking about John is non-religious, a variation of Christian, Muslim, or Hindu that doesn’t help me much in further interpreting their statement. If I know the person speaking has some similar or dissimilar views as myself on making moral evaluations the statement might be more meaningful. But in either case further discussion about John might be advisable and necessary to share a meaningful moral evaluation about John.
Click to expand...
Sure, but the point is that if “good” to some people merely means a subjective determination without any objective grounds for it then “subjective” isn’t tethered to any objective reality by that person’s own admission. What fruit does discussion bear if the very meaning of good simply is “I have decided it to be so.” Such a discussion is as meaningless as trying to understand the flavour of ice cream the person prefers when what the person MEANS is they simply prefer something for no objective reasons.

Either that or the person does not understand the implications of entirely “subjective” when “subjective” is moored to a metaphysical world view that entails individual subjects are merely epiphenomena or illusions cast up from chemical processes.

That is why this very thread has circled endlessly on certain points. Some want their cake (morality has merely subjective grounds) and eat it, too; when, for example, they insist rape or murder is morally wrong or make statements that good moral agents do good things. If “good” is defined as merely what a subject prefers there is no sense in which “good” means anything other than what is implied in the statement, “Ice cream tastes good.”

If, however, your metaphysic is that subjects have real, abiding and objective natures then moral determinations can be objective and significant while, at the same time being subjective. However, the metaphysical naturalist denies that very possibility by their insistence that subjectivity is essentially illusory and insubstantial.
 
Bradski said:
In which case, if what you say is true, you would be free to do whatever you pleased. There would be nothing to stop you. So here’s your chance to add meat to your argument:

If there were no God, would you feel free to rape and murder as the mood took you?
Click to expand...
That is just the point, Bradski. We are what we are because there is a God. Our view of the world is the way it us BECAUSE it is written in our hearts by the essential nature of Existence Itself Who created us. If there were no God we would be essentially different and would, indeed, feel free to rape and murder. That we don’t is an argument FOR God and AGAINST metaphysical naturalism
 
Peter_Plato said:
If “good” is defined as merely what a subject prefers there is no sense in which “good” means anything other than what is implied in the statement, “Ice cream tastes good.”
Click to expand...
'zactly.

The fact that anyone is here arguing that his position is consonant with truth is, ironically, testimony to the fact that he believes in objective morality.

I am 100% certain that none of the posters here would go on a forum and expend as much time and energy as has been done here affirming their personal preference that butter pecan ice cream is much better than chocolate.

Why? Because there is no objective truth to which tastes better. It’s simply a personal preference.
 
Peter_Plato said:
That is why this very thread has circled endlessly on certain points. Some want their cake (morality has merely subjective grounds) and eat it, too; when, for example, they insist rape or murder is morally wrong or make statements that good moral agents do good things. If “good” is defined as merely what a subject prefers there is no sense in which “good” means anything other than what is implied in the statement, “Ice cream tastes good.”
Click to expand...
Look at posts in the 420’s. The question was asked do good moral agents do good things. I said then what I’ve said now- for a given moral standard, a good person is one who follows that moral standard. The point of the discussion was to highlight the difference between definitional and obligatory requirements.

And hopefully I’m not the person being referred to, as I strongly doubt that I’ve stated that rape and murder are objectively wrong.
 
PRmerger said:
'zactly.

The fact that anyone is here arguing that his position is consonant with truth is, ironically, testimony to the fact that he believes in objective morality.

I am 100% certain that none of the posters here would go on a forum and expend as much time and energy as has been done here affirming their personal preference that butter pecan ice cream is much better than chocolate.

Why? Because there is no objective truth to which tastes better. It’s simply a personal preference.
Click to expand...
If there was a forum where people were espousing the belief that ice cream flavor wasn’t subjective- but rather, the creator of the universe had deemed chocolate as the chosen ice cream- I might indeed want to participate. That wouldn’t be arguing a subjective point- either the creator of the universe demands we refuse to eat the evil butter pecan ice cream, or he doesn’t.
 
PRmerger said:
Wow.

Can you give an example in which rape would be right?
Click to expand...
From my perspective, no- I think rape is wrong 100% of the time. A strongly held subjective view does not somehow become objectively true, however.
 
AnimalSpirits said:
From my perspective, no- I think rape is wrong 100% of the time. A strongly held subjective view does not somehow become objectively true, however.
Click to expand...
Well, unless you can give an example of rape being morally right, then, despite your denial, you are actually professing that you believe in an absolute truth: it is never right to rape someone.

It’s like you are refusing to declare that cows are mammals.

You agree: Only mammals produce milk.
And affirm: Cows produce milk.
Yet state: But that doesn’t mean that I have to declare that cows are mammals.

It’s an incoherent position.
 
PRmerger said:
Well, unless you can give an example of rape being morally right, then, despite your denial, you are actually professing that you believe in an absolute truth: it is never right to rape someone.

It’s like you are refusing to declare that cows are mammals.

You agree: Only mammals produce milk.
And affirm: Cows produce milk.
Yet state: But that doesn’t mean that I have to declare that cows are mammals.

It’s an incoherent position.
Click to expand...
No… I think that rape is always wrong. Someone else might disagree and think rape is okay on Tuesdays. Neither of us is objectively right.
 
AnimalSpirits said:
No… I think that rape is always wrong. Someone else might disagree and think rape is okay on Tuesdays. Neither of us is objectively right.
Click to expand...
That is the point: you want to make an objective statement at the same time as denying that you are making it. You say, “Rape is always wrong,” as if you were saying something objective but then turn around and insist it isn’t an objective statement at all, merely an expression of your distaste.

Why not be consistent with your belief system and simply proclaim, “I don’t like rape and choose not to.” Full end stop. No, you want to go beyond the warrants of your own metaphysical system and insist that “rape is always wrong” as if you don’t want to take full responsibility for the implications of your grounding belief system. You seem to feel a need to preserve a level of moral respectability at the same time as purporting to eschew the very moral system you are surreptitiously abdicating. Classic wanting to have your cake as you regretfully make it disappear down your throat.
 
Peter_Plato said:
Why not be consistent with your belief system and simply proclaim, “I don’t like rape and choose not to.” Full end stop.
Click to expand...
Because it does, in fact, go beyond that. I disapprove of rape no matter who is doing it no matter where they are doing it. Not only do I not like raping myself, I dislike the fact that it happens at all. My subjective morality influences my actions- not just the decision “rape/not rape” but “do nothing/seek to prevent rape.”
 
Bradski said:
Both relativism and subjectivism are self-refuting. Truth and goodness become illusions - and all opinions are equally valueless!
Code: 
                            In which case, if what you say is true, you would be free to do  whatever you pleased. There would be nothing to stop you. So here's your  chance to add meat to your argument:
If there were no God, would you feel free to rape and murder as the mood took you?
Click to expand...
Your supposition doesn’t make sense because nothing would make sense. There would no rational basis for agreement or disagreement because there would be no common ground for understanding if everything is subjective and relative. Every single belief, opinion, statement, argument, question, suggestion and proposition would be nonsense. Everyone would live in a world of their own and communication would be impossible without any objective meaning to the words or symbols they use. On the slippery slope to absurdity there is no logical stopping place unless truth and goodness exist independently of individual opinions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top