Objective truth and absurdity of relativism

  • Thread starter Thread starter fisherman_carl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
👍 Then it is an absolute, objective fact that there are subjective elements. 😉
Would it be possible to put this “absolute, objective fact” into precise words of definition or explanation --including the reasoning which determined the objective fact.

This thread is teaching me that “objective facts” can refer to various things from the fact that I have blue eyes to the fact that the nature of all humans, including different eye color, is totally unique on planet earth.

This thread is teaching me that there are subjective elements. Thus, I kind of wonder if my objective fact of blue eyes depends on the genetics I inherited from my ancestors, immediate or distant.

I love learning all this. 😃
 
I had taken it on faith, without even looking, that the Church is openly committed to freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and respect for every person. I took it on faith since it’s obvious to everyone who is born again in Christ, whichever building they walk into on a Sunday. But I had a little time today so here are a few of the references found by a quick google:

Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.” - CCC 1782

This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits. The council further declares that he right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person as this dignity is known through the revealed word of God and by reason itself - Dignitatis Humanae

In order that this freedom, willed by God and inscribed in human nature, may be exercised, no obstacle should be placed in its way, since “the truth cannot be imposed except by virtue of its own truth”. The dignity of the person and the very nature of the quest for God require that all men and women should be free from every constraint in the area of religion. - Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church

The very fact that we share a common human dignity provides the indispensable base that sustains the inter-relatedness and indivisibility of human rights, social, civil and political, cultural and economic. - vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2007/documents/rc_seg-st_20071210_udhr_en.html

It is noted with satisfaction that during the last decades the international community has shown interest in the safeguarding of human rights and fundamental liberties and has carefully concerned itself with respect for freedom of conscience and of religion in well-known documents such as: the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights of December 10, 1948 (article 18) - John Paul II, 1980

  • UDHR article 18*: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. ]
I think we can safely conclude, on the basis of that evidence, that some people don’t know their own religion :D.

Well, it’s a parable, so Jesus made it up along with the characters. One explanation for why He has the priest and Levite pass by on the other side, is that their main concern is being defiled by touching the man, in contravention of cleanliness laws. Imho Jesus still loves them of course, though their behavior saddens Him.

Indeed.

By the by, Jesus doesn’t like legalists. They believe that as long as someone follows their religion, their worship and their rules, then Grace is irrelevant, along with conscience, love and mercy. To them, salvation has nothing to do with what is within, it is all about outward appearances: “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean [Matt. 23]". The angrier we are with legalists, the closer we are to Christ :).
My friend, we ARE morally obligated to follow our “informed conscience”; HOWEVER, that obligation extends to in an absolute sense to seek TRUTH:

**Pope Benedict XVI taught this:

“There cannot be your truth and my truth or there would be NO truth”**

While one may not force any religious beliefs on another soul; EACH of us is to assist our sisters and brothers in actually discovering the truth shared by Pope Benedict. THAT is the goal of this FORUM.

TRUTH is, as it has to be: singular per defined item. Catholic Faith = TRUTHS have LONG been known and defined. AND if we are to believe the bible: TAUGHT & Accepted.

Mt 16:18-19
John 17:17-20
Mt 28:19-20
1 Jn 1:5-6
1 Jn 5:16-17
Jn 20:19-23
1st. Cor. 11:23-30


These teaching either are God’s singular truth per defined issue or the bible is a sham:eek:

Conscience is only a valid guide to the degree that it is CONFORMED to God’s Will. Amen!

Blessings,
Patrick
 
Thank you, Patrick. 🙂 I always come back to the view that a secular society is a spiritual desert. Yet there is hope because even Richard Dawkins admitted that Jesus was ahead of his time. From a man who regards religious education as child abuse that is quite a concession! It implies that Christian precepts are not relative to time or place but enduring truths about personal relationships and social harmony.

God bless you.
Tony
AMEN!👍

Thanks Tony!
 
My friend, we ARE morally obligated to follow our “informed conscience”; HOWEVER, that obligation extends to in an absolute sense to seek TRUTH:

Pope Benedict XVI taught this:

**“There cannot be your truth and my truth or there would be NO truth” **
Truth in CAPITAL letters and Truth in red.

Do you think that TRUTH regarding human morality should be based on Universal Objective Truth instead of subjective reasoning (absurdity of relativism)?

Do you think that those words in red by Pope Benedict XVI refer to ordinary truth? Or do you see any possibility that these words refer to something greater?

Do you possibly recognize that those words can possibly point to Universal Objective Truth when it comes human morality?

Would you explain and/or define Universal Objective Truth since that seems to be the implication of the excellent wording of Pope Benedict XVI?
 
There is an atheist philosopher named Sam Harris who claims that morality is objectively external to us and is about well-being. He argues that well-being can be determined objectively, and therefore science should organize morality to maximize well-being.
So how does it work when we turn morality over to scientists who do not believe in God?

Do they create their own Bible, their own books of revelation that supersede the Holy Scripture?

If Harris said this, he is only intending to advance the atheistic triumph over religion.
 
So how does it work when we turn morality over to scientists who do not believe in God?

Do they create their own Bible, their own books of revelation that supersede the Holy Scripture?

If Harris said this, he is only intending to advance the atheistic triumph over religion. ?
For the benefit of readers, this is the concluding paragraph in post 177.
"Personally, I’d say that although science can inform morality, it doesn’t seem at all reasonable to hand a defining aspect of human nature, moral agency, to a technical process. The issue is whether well-being is really objective, seems to me it has subjective elements which cannot be measured scientifically. "

" …technical process" refers to the scientific (inductive) method which functions in the physical/material realm of the scientific community. The issue of “well-being” can be described differently due to different human personalities. In other words, well-being would have subjective elements when it comes to defining human nature, moral agency."

The paragraph quoted above does not propose turning "morality over to scientists who do not believe in God?

Instead, the paragraph is properly questioning the reasonableness of natural science (technical process) to address all possible elements which are found in the human person. Consequently, because “reasonableness” is an open question, there can be a variety of replies which in turn need to go back to the sense of the paragraph.
 
So how does it work when we turn morality over to scientists who do not believe in God?

Do they create their own Bible, their own books of revelation that supersede the Holy Scripture?

If Harris said this, he is only intending to advance the atheistic triumph over religion.
You edited-out where I said I think he’s wrong - quote mining. 😃

I’m sure you’ll agree that it would be just as wrong to summarily discount someone only on their religion or lack of religion, as it would be on gender or color of skin, since that breaks the principles of freedom of conscience and respect for the person.

Although I think he’s wrong, imho he makes a very persuasive case for objective morality, have a look:
ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right?language=en
 
Although I think he’s wrong, imho he makes a very persuasive case for objective morality, have a look:
ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right?language=en
And belief in objective morality is one step closer to being a Believer.

As atheist convert Leah Libresco acknowledged (paraphrasing): once one acknowledges an objective morality, one cannot deny belief in a Objective Lawmaker.

It’s just the logical consequence of that belief.
 
February 10, Ash Wednesday, is an important day.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
grannymh grannymh is offline
Default Re: Objective truth and absurdity of relativism
Originally Posted by PJM View Post
It might be interesting to discuss on this STRING, just WHY or {How} this condition so readily exist
I am interested in this discussion because I am interested in the “objective truth” of human nature per se which every human being has
.

[PJM]This pronominal happening can only be understood in light of God-Grace- & Freewill.
God-Grace & Freewill is a good objective description of human nature per se.

[PJM]As 1st Timothy 2: 4-5 attest:
"Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

[PJM]Complicating [if that is the correct term here?] this desires fulfillment is man’s Intellect, Mind and Freewill, which are permanent components of man;s Soul. What we might think of as our other-self.

Ever since someone nailed me for my Cartesian extreme dualism, I am leery of an “other-self,”
God certainly has done His part to fulfill this desire of His. From the Incarnation, to His Ministry, to His Death and Resurrection and the gifts of
Please explain completely “is traceable back to that same source: God Himself.” Thank you

I suspect that the clearest bible teaching on this issue are:

.John 14:6
Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.

Mt 16:18-19
And I say to thee:** That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church**, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it**. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.** And **whatsoever thou shalt bind **upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Jn 17: 17-20
Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. [18] As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. [19] And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth. [20]** And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;
**

Mt 28: 19-20
Going therefore, teach YOU all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world.

The multiplicity of understandings then with in and as a result of this shortfall in the existence of non-Catholic-Christian communities ought to be telling.That dates back to Adam and Eve’s family. In every large family there is usually a rebel.

TRUTH as Pope Benedict XVI articulated so precisely:
“There cannot be your truth and my truth or there would be no truth” is sufficient of this position.
Sounds like "objective truth and absurdity of relativism
.
Thanks &

God Bless you,
Patrick
And do it quickly.
👍
 
Truth in CAPITAL letters and Truth in red.

Do you think that TRUTH regarding human morality should be based on Universal Objective Truth instead of subjective reasoning (absurdity of relativism)?

What I thinnk

What you think

What anyone thinks is at BEST secondary to what

GOD THINKS:thumbsup:
Do you think that those words in red by Pope Benedict XVI refer to ordinary truth? Or do you see any possibility that these words refer to something greater?
 
And belief in objective morality is one step closer to being a Believer.

As atheist convert Leah Libresco acknowledged (paraphrasing): once one acknowledges an objective morality, one cannot deny belief in a Objective Lawmaker.
I can think of only one famous exception to this: Ayn Rand, who was both an atheist and a believer in objective morality.

Yet Rand was drawn to the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle

medievalwisdom.com/articles/ayn-rand-atheist-and-thomas-aquinas-saint-strange-philosophical-bedfellows
 
I can think of only one famous exception to this: Ayn Rand, who was both an atheist and a believer in objective morality.

Yet Rand was drawn to the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle

medievalwisdom.com/articles/ayn-rand-atheist-and-thomas-aquinas-saint-strange-philosophical-bedfellows
She just didn’t examine the logical consequences of her belief.

It’s like someone acknowledging these 2 points:

A: All female animals that make milk are mammals
B: Cows are female animals that make milk

Yet she still is recusant to this idea:

Cows are mammals.

If she acknowledges A and B, then, logically, she should make the necessary conclusion.

But for some reason, however, there is this obduracy to reason.
 
I can think of only one famous exception to this: Ayn Rand, who was both an atheist and a believer in objective morality.

Yet Rand was drawn to the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle

medievalwisdom.com/articles/ayn-rand-atheist-and-thomas-aquinas-saint-strange-philosophical-bedfellows
She just didn’t examine the logical consequences of her belief.

It’s like someone acknowledging these 2 points:

A: All female animals that make milk are mammals
B: Cows are female animals that make milk

Yet she still is recusant to this idea:

Cows are mammals.

If she acknowledges A and B, then, logically, she should make the necessary conclusion.

But for some reason, however, there is this obduracy to reason.
 
You edited-out where I said I think he’s wrong - quote mining. 😃

I’m sure you’ll agree that it would be just as wrong to summarily discount someone only on their religion or lack of religion, as it would be on gender or color of skin, since that breaks the principles of freedom of conscience and respect for the person.

Although I think he’s wrong, imho he makes a very persuasive case for objective morality, have a look:
ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right?language=en
Why do you think Sam Harris is wrong or what is he wrong about?

When I look at his list of questionable actions, are these the persuasive case for objective morality? I would think so.

Being not used to Sam Harris, I failed to find the objective morality solution. From my point of view, the talk’s clearest approach to objective morality would be connected to “needless human suffering.” (16:55)

I ignored the reference to religious demagogues of one form or another and the voice in a whirlwind.

For me, the best point is the question at 01:31.“Why don’t we feel compassion for rocks?” This reminds me that we need to look at the difference in kind (human to our fellow primates) when we consider the human person and objective reality.

What really started my creative thinking was this: “And if we’re more concerned about our fellow primates than we are about insects, as indeed we are, it’s because we think they’re exposed to a greater range of potential happiness and suffering.” There can be a lot creative thinking when the words “a greater range of potential” is before happiness.
 
She just didn’t examine the logical consequences of her belief.

It’s like someone acknowledging these 2 points:

A: All female animals that make milk are mammals
B: Cows are female animals that make milk

Yet she still is recusant to this idea:

Cows are mammals.

If she acknowledges A and B, then, logically, she should make the necessary conclusion.

But for some reason, however, there is this obduracy to reason.
I agree that Rand’s worship of reason often enough led her to irrational conclusions. 😉
 
As an observer, I wonder why it is so difficult to find objective truths in human nature. Why is it so hard for Catholics to consider a human person worthy of profound respect?

In the rush to remove literal interpretations from the first three chapters of Genesis, perhaps Catholics no longer consider Genesis 1: 26-27 as an objective Catholic truth. As an observer, it looks like Catholics would rather debate all the principles proposed for morality instead of using common sense to get at the nitty-gritty of human nature and its ultimate goal. Maybe the ultimate goal of human nature is the stumbling block.
 
Why do you think Sam Harris is wrong or what is he wrong about?

When I look at his list of questionable actions, are these the persuasive case for objective morality? I would think so.

Being not used to Sam Harris, I failed to find the objective morality solution. From my point of view, the talk’s clearest approach to objective morality would be connected to “needless human suffering.” (16:55)

I ignored the reference to religious demagogues of one form or another and the voice in a whirlwind.

For me, the best point is the question at 01:31.“Why don’t we feel compassion for rocks?” This reminds me that we need to look at the difference in kind (human to our fellow primates) when we consider the human person and objective reality.

What really started my creative thinking was this: “And if we’re more concerned about our fellow primates than we are about insects, as indeed we are, it’s because we think they’re exposed to a greater range of potential happiness and suffering.” There can be a lot creative thinking when the words “a greater range of potential” is before happiness.
His proposal seems to be:

(1) There are objective answers to moral questions.
(2) The correct answers will maximize well-being,
(3) The best way to find the answers is by empirical research.

Agreed he makes a persuasive case. I’m fine with (1), as it makes a break with a lot of other ethicists who argue morality is just opinion. Then (2) is standard consequentialism, which is a little shaky as he doesn’t seem to rule out anything as categorically wrong. But my real issue is (3).

For instance, take abortion. Harris has faith that empirical research will tell us the conditions when abortion is and isn’t allowable, to maximize well-being for all, and therefore be a good answer to the moral question. I’m not sure empirical research alone can answer such a question, but for the sake of argument assume it could.

Now we currently don’t know what answer that process would produce. For all we know it could ban abortion completely, or allow it on-demand up to full term, or anywhere in between. Are you willing ahead of time to say that whatever the process comes up with, you’ll accept it as the most moral answer? I’m not, that’s my main problem with his argument.
 
Although I think he’s wrong, imho he makes a very persuasive case for objective morality, have a look:
I don’t believe he is talking about objective morality. At least, not as a religious person might describe it. I saw the TED talk quite some time ago and read his book The Moral Landscape some time back. His argument is relatively simple and I personally could not agree with him more.

Harris’s argument concerns well being. And the fact (yes fact), that reasonable people, using reasonable arguments, having as much information as it is possible to have about any given situation, should be able to make a reasonable case as to what the right course of action should be.

This is so mind numbingly obvious to me that I find it a little depressing that Harris’s book caused something of a stir when it came out. What could possibly be controversial about such a proposal? Well, the secularists and some atheists suggested that he was proposing a scientific method of determining objective morality. Which he wasn’t. And the religious poured scorn on the fact that man could decide what constituted a moral act. This was God’s business, not some jumped up neuroscientist. And an atheist to boot!

Well, religions do not have any answers as to what constitutes objective morality because, put simply, there is no such creature. All moral questions are dependant on the situation. That there are scenarios whereby we would all agree that something is wrong doesn’t not detract from that. And the phrase ‘dependant on the situation’ is critical to understanding Harris’s point.

Considering any given situation, if all reasonable people have as much knowledge as required to make a decision, enter into reasoned arguments, using the scientific method for determining facts as may be required, then there is no reason why we can’t reach a conclusion that offers the best solution.

This is anathema to, for example, Christians, who would demand that there be only one solution covering all circumstances in all situations. No contraception. Period. No sex outside marriage. Period. No abortions. Period. No gay marriage. Period. No divorce. Period.

This is completely the opposite of what Harris proposes. That we look at each situation individually and reach reasonable conclusions.

Incidentally, if you need some support for what you think his views might be, try this:

'This book is different, though every bit as readable as the other two. I was one of those who had unthinkingly bought into the hectoring myth that science can say nothing about morals. To my surprise, The Moral Landscape has changed all that for me. It should change it for philosophers too. ’

Thank you Dr. Dawkins.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top