|
Post by Ginnie on Oct 18, 2007 16:20:37 GMT -4
How do we know if a particular morality that claims to be divinely-revealed is good? That is to say, that it conforms to reality? By testing it.
Then, by 'testing' the Bible , it 's morality is shown to be bad. (see example I gave in Joshua where God had the family killed. )
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 18, 2007 16:39:26 GMT -4
I think your example confuses an essentially historical account with a moral guideline. No one is saying "go and do thou likewise" with regards to the story in Joshua.
Reading the story of the parting of the Red Sea, for instance, doesn't mean that we should follow Moses' example and try to cross any sea we encounter by parting it.
EDIT: Or we don't assume that the story of the fall of Jericho means that any city will collapse if we circle around it blowing our trumpets enough times.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 18, 2007 20:55:26 GMT -4
The problem here is that if there is an objective morality, we appear to have none but the subjective in determining the properties of that objective morality.
Notions of “subjective reality” and “objective reality” are rooted in our folk psychology—that is, the metaphors we use as explanatory devices in these types of philosophical discussions. We pretend that the world is divided into two realms: an inner realm, the “in here” that we call the subjective, and the “out there” that we call the objective. In this metaphor, knowledge is taken as the result of bringing the “out there” into the “in here” or making the “in here” somehow correspond to the “out there.” But as we see in this thread, people always find a means to argue that this is impossible for one reason or another. Whatever.
I find it helpful in discussions like these to set aside such folk psychology and metaphors and try to focus on what we actually do in our daily lives. There is just us acting in the world. Finding a grass seed that will grow in your yard or deciding if you should be honest are searches for techniques and strategies you have to employ to get through life. You rarely aim for or require perfection. The objective tends to be making the best of what is on hand or is available at the moment so that you can do something you couldn't do before, be it living peacefully with your neighbor or assembling a life-critical carbon dioxide filter from parts stowed in the spacecraft. Philosophers may bicker over whether the latter trick “corresponds” to some “objective truth,” while Lovell, Swigert, and Haise live to see and enjoy another day.
(And no, we don't have to draw all our morality lessons from Apollo...)
You say that “we appear to have none but the subjective in determining the properties of that objective morality.” If the intent here is to posit a gulf between us that the real world, then I don't think we have that luxury. If you are doing something wrong, Mother Nature, if you'll allow the metaphor, will come kicking in your door in the middle of the night to let you know about it. If you take prompt and suitable action, perhaps you too get to see and enjoy another day.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Oct 19, 2007 10:29:24 GMT -4
Joe, I think you might find my argument leads to very similar conclusions. I am essentially saying that if there is an objective morality, we have no way of determining what it is nor do we have any way of distinguishing whether or not it is a good set of moral rules. In that case, it doesn't matter if there is an objective morality or not.
As such, we can only rely on ourselves to create a world that is fair for all.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Oct 19, 2007 10:39:54 GMT -4
If the Bible had been laid out like a pamphlet with specific rules and conditions, that might be possible. But since it was not, and as its meaning requires interpretation by ordinary humans - it can't be tested in any fruitful way.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 19, 2007 10:55:43 GMT -4
There are palces in the Bible where obvious moral messages are being conveyed. "Thou shalt not murder", "Honor thy father and thy mother", "Love thy neighbor as thyself". These moral messages can be tested.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 19, 2007 11:09:30 GMT -4
I should note that this is a workable test to determine if a particular doctrine is good, not to prove that it actually came from God.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 19, 2007 15:32:19 GMT -4
I am essentially saying that if there is an objective morality, we have no way of determining what it is nor do we have any way of distinguishing whether or not it is a good set of moral rules.
If that were so, then that objective morality wouldn't matter, right? If there is no way to tell if it is good or not, then that means it has no significant observable effect on our lives. This is what concerns me. Morality matters. It has a real and observable effect on our lives. A morality that is impotent in the face of a group of numskulls who hijack planes and fly them into buildings is of little value to us.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Oct 19, 2007 15:36:44 GMT -4
And a morality that would allow innocent women to be burned at the stake for being witches isn't much good, either. I've said this before on another thread -- Christianity only seems tolerant when other forces keep it in check.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 19, 2007 16:41:45 GMT -4
The Old Testament (not Christianity per se) does not endorse burning innocent women at the stake, it endorses burning witches. As C.S. Lewis said (and I'm paraphrasing), if there really were people who had made a pact with the devil, cursing their neighbors and hating God, they really would be deserving of death. The reason we don't burn witches is because we don't often find these types of witches anymore. Real witches in the Biblical sense wouldn't be innocent. It was the mis-identification of people as real witches that was wrong.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 19, 2007 16:51:26 GMT -4
In any case, the famous scripture in Exodus "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" is translated as "Thou shalt not suffer a murderer to live" in the Joseph Smith Translation, so I wouldn't hold myself, as an LDS Christian, bound to burn even authentic witches at the stake anyway.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 19, 2007 16:58:19 GMT -4
"But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did — if we really thought that there were people going around who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbors or drive them mad or bring bad weather, surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did." C.S. Lewis from Mere Christianity
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Oct 19, 2007 19:05:05 GMT -4
Chesterton's warning would seem to be misplaced: isometimes belief in god appears to entrain belief in almost anything...
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 19, 2007 19:44:04 GMT -4
And a morality that would allow innocent women to be burned at the stake for being witches isn't much good, either. I've said this before on another thread -- Christianity only seems tolerant when other forces keep it in check.
Hence, it is counterproductive to argue that morality is subjective or is simply one's personal opinion. If there can be no rational basis for our actions or our laws, then we should celebrate a group witch burners fulfilling their subjective take on the matter. Heck, we might as well burn them too when they are done.
We need a leg to stand on, so to speak, to tell the witch burners, "This is NOT going to happen on our watch" and to justifiably restrain them. Or, perhaps more diplomatically: "Well, all right. We'll give you Britney, Paris, and Lindsay. Get it out of your system, but after that, the stakes are coming down.
|
|
reynoldbot
Jupiter
A paper-white mask of evil.
Posts: 790
|
Post by reynoldbot on Oct 20, 2007 23:06:46 GMT -4
Joe, I think you might find my argument leads to very similar conclusions. I am essentially saying that if there is an objective morality, we have no way of determining what it is nor do we have any way of distinguishing whether or not it is a good set of moral rules. In that case, it doesn't matter if there is an objective morality or not. As such, we can only rely on ourselves to create a world that is fair for all. That's kind of what I have been saying. Or, at the very least, I agree with it.
|
|