Help With A Question?

[Chris_W]

Drew98:

It’s still subjective because it’s all relative to what God says is right and wrong. He could have just as easily said that human life has no more value than a blade of grass, right?

Indeed, He could have. The fact that human life has value unlike any other life form is such only because God elevated that creation to a higher state, creating us in His image and likeness.

Drew98:

Or are you saying that even God is bound by an objective moral order higher than himself?

That’s a confusing question. God is the ultimate. He is “bound” only by what He is. It was a decision to create mankind in His image and likeness. So, no, there is no moral order higher than Himself. If He hadn’t created mankind as He did, there would be no moral order…not a **different ** moral order.

Drew98:

I don’t see any real evidence that there exists any objective, absolute morality. In fact, I think the concept is nonsensical.

I find it interesting that this idea would be nonsensical to you. The fact is that with very few exceptions, most all of mankind perceives a higher value to human life. There is something inside of us, which you describe as your core, which urges us to feel a certain way. Yet you think the idea that there is a reason for this nearly unanimous reaction against cruelty and injustice, is a nonsensical concept? It is more sensible to conclude it is coincidence that nearly the whole world (save some white supremecists perhaps) is horrified by Hitler’s actions?

Drew98:

But in the case of Hitler I can understand why many people are tempted to resort to such a concept. Simply saying that his beliefs and actions offends our individual consciences does seem a little weak when talking about the Holocaust. It would be very satisfying if there existed some ultimate authority that would say we were right and he was wrong. But then I suppose there would also be the possibility that this authority would say that Hitler was right and we were wrong to oppose him.

You feel no need to know you are grounded in truth? You are content to think “well, I personally think murder is wrong, but hey, that’s up to the individual…I cannot say with any certainty that murder is in fact objectively wrong.”?

Perhaps it is the fact that I was raised believeing in God, but I am unable to comprehend being satisfied with that position. I see no peace in that reasoning.

Drew98:

So maybe subjective morality isn’t so bad after all… So no, I can’t say that what Hitler did was objectively wrong but can say that I am repulsed by what he did and support the use of force to stop him.

Well, I guess you answered my question, at least somewhat. I was indeed basing my question on the presupposition that even atheists would acknowlege that murder is in fact, (not ,merely in the opinion of some) wrong. But you seem to be saying murder in not necessarily wrong. Hmmm. Back to the drawing board I guess.

 

[Chris_W]

wolpertinger:

If you want a serious discussion, you should start by making your presuppositions explicit and to stop begging the question.

Atheism and theism alike are just a component of a larger world view and in that sense, either one is incomplete. It is therefore nonsensical to ask questions of atheists in general. You also assume a false dichotomy - that all atheistic and theistic world views are alike.

You then beg the question by making unwarrented assumption of what an atheist’s world view should be like and persist in asking an open-ended question.

My apologies if I have been unclear. The following is from my post yesterday afternoon:

1. Do athiests acknowledge that human life holds a value objectively higher than other life forms (like a blade of grass)?
2. If the asnwer is yes (as I suspect) then where does that value come from?

What is unclear or less than explicit about this?

wolpertinger:

As to the value of life, human or otherwise, you should start by giving a precise definition of what you mean by that. To me, value is a measurable quality that is intrinsically relative and subjective. It seems like you presuppose that human life is intrinsically more valuable than non-human life and the question is non-sensical to me unless you fill in the blank - valuable in what sense?

Indeed I was presupposing that human life is intrinsically more valuable than non-human life. I was assuming (although Drew98 has set me straight) that atheists would agree that the killing of another human being is objectively wrong (as per the first part of my question listed above). Aparrently that is not the case.

wolpertinger:

And it already has been debated - ad nauseam - in this forum alone. Questions pertaining to the value of life are moral questions; I consider morality to be innate and of evolutionary origin. Other posters have given similar answers; if that doesn’t satisfy you, so be it.

Sorry to bore you.

 

[AnAtheist]

Chris W:

I was assuming (although Drew98 has set me straight) that atheists would agree that the killing of another human being is objectively wrong (as per the first part of my question listed above). Aparrently that is not the case.

I doubt that you will find agreement on that subject among theists. Thoughout history it seems very much right for some theists to kill another human, as long as he is somewhat different. Of a different religion for example.
What I think of that matter, I have answered above.

 

[wolpertinger]

1. Do athiests acknowledge that human life holds a value objectively higher than other life forms (like a blade of grass)?

1. If the asnwer is yes (as I suspect) then where does that value come from?

What is unclear or less than explicit about this?

Your definition of value.

To me, ‘objective value’ is an oxymoron. So, either your first (loaded) question is meaningless or I have to answer in the negative. As AnAtheist pointed out, it remains to be established that theists themselves universally agree on what the objective value of life of some sort or other is, either between adherents of different religions or between the different schools of thought of members of the same religion.

Is it wrong to murder? Let’s say I could have assassinated Hitler well before he got in a position to effect atrocities and that nobody else would have taken his place. Would my action be objectively wrong or objectively justifiable? Is it objectively wrong to cold-bloodedly murder a single person if such an action will save the lives of millions? Hundreds of thousands? A few thousands? Dozens? A few? One? None?

Sorry to bore you.

If you have to ask…

 

[john_doran]

wolpertinger:

To me, ‘objective value’ is an oxymoron.

how so?

wolpertinger:

Is it wrong to murder? Let’s say I could have assassinated Hitler well before he got in a position to effect atrocities and that nobody else would have taken his place. Would my action be objectively wrong or objectively justifiable?

it would have been wrong.

Is it objectively wrong to cold-bloodedly murder a single person if such an action will save the lives of millions? Hundreds of thousands? A few thousands? Dozens? A few? One? None?

it is always wrong intentionally to kill another human being.

the famous alternative view you suggest is utilitarianism or consequentialism, where the (moral) value of an action is a function of the (moral) value of the outcome of the action. that particular theory is incoherent as a moral theory. but even if it wasn’t, i’m not sure what you’re getting at: even if it turned out that some version of utilitarianism was right, it would still be a theory about objective morality…i.e. about what ought or ought not to be done in any partoular situation no matter what anyone thought.

so. even if christian denominatons disagree about ***what ***makes certain actions objectively right or wrong, or about precisely which actions are objectively to be done or avoided, they all agree that, in every situation, there is an action that is objectively good or bad.

 

[Randell]

Heathen Dawn:

I am indwelt by the spirit of my Goddess and God. Therefore you see that it is an untruth that Christianity is the only way to experience the Divine.

Turn away from whom and to whom? The Living God, the Creator of the universe, is personified through many Gods and Goddesses. They all are the persons of the True Creator. One God, many persons (Gods and Goddesses). To worship any of the Gods is to worship the Creator.

Nay, but it is you who have been deceived. The Bible has deceived so many people.

Death is the natural order of things, instilled from the beginning of creation. Creation was never perfect, and we never fell from any kind of perfect state. No original sin taints us.

Thanks, but I am joyful in my personal, living and loving relationship with the Goddess and the God. They have been with me all my life, even when I didn’t know Them, and I won’t turn my back on Them, I won’t return bad for Their abundant good.

Your discussion interests me, I am wondering where you get all your information from? Can you quote some piece of history for your beliefs? Christians can go all the way to the beginning with Peter and Jesus surely you would agree that is fact. Where do you find your information? Who wrote it? I think it is great that you have this idealology, I would just wonder where
you got it from…and if it is true…

I think the bible is not a book of deception, I think the way people are allowed to interpet on their own, provides the deception. NOT the bible.

 

[Randell]

1) Yes, one.
2) I think.
3) This is my classic: A god explains nothing, but everything can be explained without one.

We have enough theories, that explain how the universe came into being without divine intervention. Some of them are still flawed, but the overall picture points into the right direction. God is always udes as an explaination for anything, we don’t or didn’t understand (lightings, stars, origin of life). Science has explained one of those things after another, I see no reason, why that should stop anywhere.

I agree that Science has explained many things, but Science has also spoiled many things. Science has also proven itself wrong on many occasions. This is something GOD has never done! I am not sure If I can trust science more than God.

 

[Chris_W]

AnAtheist:

I doubt that you will find agreement on that subject among theists. Thoughout history it seems very much right for some theists to kill another human, as long as he is somewhat different. Of a different religion for example.
What I think of that matter, I have answered above.

I disagree with you, AnAtheist, although I appreciate your thoughtful response.

The baseline of all thiests (at least as far as I am aware) is that the killing of another human being is objectively wrong. This baseline is derived from an acnowlegement of the fact that mankind is created in an elevated state above all other creation. Different religions justify the killing of another as exceptions to the basic rule and for varying theological reasons. But all theists, I think, would agree in the objective wrong of killing another.

Curiosity question (feel free not to answer if I am getting too personal): Are you really at peace with the position that what you believe, and the beliefs by which you govern your life, are merely your opinion and not necessarily grounded in any objective truth? I can’t get past how unsettling I think that would be in my life.

 

[Joseph_Romero]

This thread has wandered. Please start new threads each dealing with a specific issue.

God Bless,