Knowledge of Good and Evil

[William]

Q: Without knowledge of good and evil, can we have morality?

[TRANSPONDER]

It's the same old problem and struggle of understanding that Theism has. Morality, as well as epistemology and the meaning of Life.

Is human knowledge valid or just human opinion? God would know absolutely what was true, and we could only guess. But that requires God to be real. If not, Human deductive reasoning is the best we have.

If a god somehow gave us a moral code or instinct, it could be better than anything we could make up. But if there is no God, then human morality is the best we have.

If a god is imposing a Plan, that is better than all the amusements and diversions we humans invent to fill an empty life.

But if there is no god, then what gives us a reason to get up in the morning (apart from a sleepy demand for coffee from the next pillow) is human aspirations and ideals, and it is darn liberating, let me tell you, to realise that you do not need to feel guilty if your main motivation in life is to beat that latest computer game - the meaning of life is for you what You say, nobody else. Sure, we live in society and should fairly contribute and help to make it work, for all our sakes. But nobody has the right to tell you what your life motivations should be.

This is what we call 'Freedom'. Which is a blunderbuss word if there ever was one, but let me argue to you, folks, I have deconverted from the claim of Christianity (even though I'm a lifetime atheist) and the feeling of release was stunning. It is of course what Believers feel when Godfaith released them from their guilt and fear, but Religion brings its' own guilt and fear. Humanist atheism releases you from from that. And we demands no Church attendance, adherence to any dogma or doctrine, nor any contributions or donations, and not even a demand that you vote a particular way or Dawkins will rend his garments.

Bottom line... the entire theist argument depends on a prori godfaith or NONE of the argument is valid. What humans can devise; the best we can do as we want it as well as need it, is valid as morality and even purpose. Even fear of death. Certainly fear of hell. It's just....gone. Threats of divine retribution just make us laugh as much as threats of being struck bt a meteorite or discombubulated by angry Martians with ray guns.
Like Theramin Trees said, it was like Santa or the Tooth fairy; it was a test to see whether we grew out of it. But it wasn't; adult humans still believe these fairy tales.

Like so much religious appeal, Authority and argument "the words of this wizard stand on their heads" as Tolkien has Gimli say. But he, like all the other believers, never realise that all their objections apply more to themselves. The accusations of Atheist religion; Dawkins as Atheist pope, Origin of species as our Bible, atheist meetings as our church, atheist use of the scientific database as evaluated evidence is Scientism or Darwinism.

They project their own flawed and false (faithbased) thinking onto us; we do not do it that way, but they cannot understand any other way than the way they do it.

And yet, half of us used to be believers, so human reasoning cannot be suppressed entirely. They can suppress and deny it like straw Vulcans suppress emotion (1) but the more they have to do it, the more the walls are like to implode (sorry ) and (Rachel Slick example) discussions with atheists will raise these doubts and questions. That is why the basic motive and mechanic of the religious debate between Theists and atheists has always been "Please shut up and go away". Shutting up and silencing atheists is the key to stopping the drain of brain from Theism, and always has been.

(1) One day there will be a Paper on Theist think in Startrek scripts.

[Difflugia]

God would know absolutely what was true, and we could only guess. But that requires God to be real.

And that's only if God is what the Christians (or whoever) claim that He is. Demonstrating (let alone merely claiming) that God is real doesn't also demonstrate that morality is baked into the universe.

[The Tanager]

It’s an objective standard, but you haven’t shown how that standard came to be. Anyone can say “X is objectively true,” but you need to show how it follows from the beliefs within a naturalistic worldview.

I don't have to prove that for the objective vs. subjective discussion and that was the point of using an example that I already said was oversimplified.

The conversation for which I have to prove that my objective standard is a good one is the same conversation where you prove that gods are real. We're not there, yet.

You’ve misunderstood. Anyone can say theism (or naturalism) leads to X being objectively true. I’m saying both of us need to say what our ‘mechanism’ is and how that logically gets us to morality being objective.

I’m saying God is my ‘mechanism’ and that the logical path is through (1) God creating us with a specific nature and (2)purpose from which we can logically get that (3) X is objectively good or bad. What is your naturalistic ‘mechanism’ and what is the logical path to (3)?

(2) Something creates humans with a specific nature and purpose?

Yes, if this occurred, then it would give us objective morality.

You're still equivocating between two meanings of "objective." If gods are real, then they could be an objective source for morality, but that doesn't get you an objective standard for morality. We're discussing the latter, not the former.

Help me to understand the difference you see between being an objective source and being an objective standard.

No. The shape of the Earth isn't an objective fact because a god decreed it. Both may simultaneously true, but the former isn't predicated on the latter.

I’m not saying that the Earth couldn’t have been objectively spherical if naturalism is true. Here I’m simply saying that if God exists and created the Earth so that it would have an objective shape, that God is the ground of the Earth’s objectivity, not because God looks at it and gets it right, but because God made it that way.

The "why" is a different argument,

No, it’s not a different argument. Why is that goal the goal we should be pursuing as humans? If the answer is because some of us prefer that, although others prefer something else and that’s all we’ve got, then we have subjectivity. But if there is an objective standard to judge the various preferences against, then we have objectivity.

but even so, if it's there, it's there whether a god put it there or not. If you can find some sort of evidence for that in "creation," then its existence is just as much a part of any naturalistic construction. If you don't have any evidence for it, then it's just made up.

The evidence I think is there is that (1) we have a specific nature and (2) we have a specific purpose. Those two things work together. God can give us both. Naturalism doesn’t give us (2) purpose, right? That’s a difference.

I'm not sure we should equate the two here. Paul seems to be saying that if someone thinks what they are doing is wrong or could be wrong, that they shouldn’t do it. She should err on the side of caution.

That's the "subjective" part of a subjective morality.

How is that subjective? It’s relative to the situation (i.e., not absolute morality), but not relative to the person. Subjective morality is relative to the person. Objective morality is not.

That's not what "objective" means in "objective morality." If what someone thinks is wrong is part of the calculus, then by definition it's not an objective morality. "It's wrong if your cultural milieu says it's wrong," isn't part of an objective morality even if the rule is "the same" for all cultures and all people.

But what someone thinks is not actually part of the calculus. I can understand the confusion, but the calculus is if one is in uncertainty, do X. Your confusion comes from putting something more specific into the first bit and then judging that specific moral issue. You've changed it from being about uncertainty to being about one's particular view on eating meat sacrificed to idols (or whatever) and then judged the second thing. That second thing (eating meat) isn't the first thing (uncertainty). You've completely changed the issue to claim subjectivity.

[TRANSPONDER]

God would know absolutely what was true, and we could only guess. But that requires God to be real.

And that's only if God is what the Christians (or whoever) claim that He is. Demonstrating (let alone merely claiming) that God is real doesn't also demonstrate that morality is baked into the universe.

That would only obtain if religious -based morality was considered what was god - given. Plainly that only works for theists who wag about their own religion and its' morality and dismiss all the others as human opinion, wrong, satanic or at best a misunderstanding of the cosmic morality given by a cosmic mind.

Which is where we get the Deist choice staring the Religious believer in the face (as happened to be in my teens) and they either go Deist./irreligious theist or they try to find some way of keeping the Book and religion relevant to what is very evidently a common human trait, whether god- given or evolved.

P.sd I looked though the above post and it'sd absolutely the same fallacy, not to say rhetorical (faithbased) trick - to demand an objective basis for morality or it irrelevant.

This is faithbased because it is rooted on godfaith (small 'g' deliberate) and they cannot and will not grasp that a subjective human procedure, whether or not based on evolved instinct (like art and dance, perhaps) 9s VALID, even of only of value to humans and therefp ore not Objective in the sense of being a cosmic law like speed of light or gravity, or given by some god or other.

Our Moderating pal is wallowing in this logical morass and cannot an will not see that it is neither logically nor evidentially valid.

[The Tanager]

P.sd I looked though the above post and it'sd absolutely the same fallacy, not to say rhetorical (faithbased) trick - to demand an objective basis for morality or it irrelevant.

I have never said naturalistic morality (which would be subjective) is irrelevant. I have not said anything about whether an objective morality or subjective morality is better.

This is faithbased because it is rooted on godfaith (small 'g' deliberate) and they cannot and will not grasp that a subjective human procedure, whether or not based on evolved instinct (like art and dance, perhaps) 9s VALID, even of only of value to humans and therefp ore not Objective in the sense of being a cosmic law like speed of light or gravity, or given by some god or other.

I don’t even think morality is a cosmic law. I’ve been talking about human morality, which only applies to humans as moral agents.

As to the question of valid and value, anyone can claim something, but you have not shown that subjective morality is valid or leads to something being more valuable than another view. Make a case, don't just state your conclusions on things.

[TRANSPONDER]

P.sd I looked though the above post and it'sd absolutely the same fallacy, not to say rhetorical (faithbased) trick - to demand an objective basis for morality or it irrelevant.

I have never said naturalistic morality (which would be subjective) is irrelevant. I have not said anything about whether an objective morality or subjective morality is better.

This is faithbased because it is rooted on godfaith (small 'g' deliberate) and they cannot and will not grasp that a subjective human procedure, whether or not based on evolved instinct (like art and dance, perhaps) 9s VALID, even of only of value to humans and therefp ore not Objective in the sense of being a cosmic law like speed of light or gravity, or given by some god or other.

I don’t even think morality is a cosmic law. I’ve been talking about human morality, which only applies to humans as moral agents.

As to the question of valid and value, anyone can claim something, but you have not shown that subjective morality is valid or leads to something being more valuable than another view. Make a case, don't just state your conclusions on things.

Please get with it or stop pulling tricks. I never said you did say that, I am setting out my argument - morality as a human construct does not have to a cosmic law (for example, like the speed of light) to be valid. I'm making the point as a flag in a progression of argument, and if you concur (as you seemed to) fine. If not say why not. This 'I did not say that' is either confusion on your part, or pulling a stunt.

And yet to seem to be backtracking. Morality is valid - just as art, music and literature is valid, because we accept universally, that it works. Even reasoning is something of a human game -play, but it works, and has a basis in reality just as mathematics has. We invented it but we all accept it and it works because if we do it wrong, it gives wrong answers. That is all the validity we need. We do not need the objectivity of a cosmic law. We do not need, in fact, for it to be god - given (which would be that god's subjective opinion, anyway) for morality, like art, music and logic to be valid.

Argument from morality (for a god, or even about the validity of human morality) is long since done and dusted. It is dead since the 80's.

[The Tanager]

P.sd I looked though the above post and it'sd absolutely the same fallacy, not to say rhetorical (faithbased) trick - to demand an objective basis for morality or it irrelevant.

I have never said naturalistic morality (which would be subjective) is irrelevant. I have not said anything about whether an objective morality or subjective morality is better.

Please get with it or stop pulling tricks. I never said you did say that,

I’m not pulling any tricks. If you didn’t mean that, I’m sorry for misunderstanding.

I am setting out my argument - morality as a human construct does not have to a cosmic law (for example, like the speed of light) to be valid.

What do you mean by “valid”?

And yet to seem to be backtracking. Morality is valid - just as art, music and literature is valid, because we accept universally, that it works.

What do you mean that it works?

[TRANSPONDER]

P.sd I looked though the above post and it'sd absolutely the same fallacy, not to say rhetorical (faithbased) trick - to demand an objective basis for morality or it irrelevant.

I have never said naturalistic morality (which would be subjective) is irrelevant. I have not said anything about whether an objective morality or subjective morality is better.

Please get with it or stop pulling tricks. I never said you did say that,

I’m not pulling any tricks. If you didn’t mean that, I’m sorry for misunderstanding.

I am setting out my argument - morality as a human construct does not have to a cosmic law (for example, like the speed of light) to be valid.

What do you mean by “valid”?

And yet to seem to be backtracking. Morality is valid - just as art, music and literature is valid, because we accept universally, that it works.

What do you mean that it works?

I think you are being tricky, evasive and disingenuous, here, not asking serious and honest questions. However, let me try to anwer these infantile 'wind - up 'Why?'' questions, and then address the points I made, don't just drift away as though you scraped a draw.

e.g "Please get with it or stop pulling tricks. I never said you did say that,[/quote]

I’m not pulling any tricks. If you didn’t mean that, I’m sorry for misunderstanding."
It is hard for me to see that as incomprehension on your part; it has to be deliberate obfuscation. Apart from an earlier fiddle (mistaken or unintentional) that you never actually said subjective or objective morality was 'better', but your argument by implication (which I - not you- set out) was that morality ought to have an objective basis or it isn't valid; it is only human opinion and has no empirical basis, like a law of physics.

Apart from that, as I say, I have of course argued that a human construct does not have to be a law of physics (never mind the diktat of a god) to be as valid as art, music or law.

Valid and 'it works' ought to be so obvious and your quibbling so transparently tricky that if i were otseng I would sling you off the board (and this is going after the argument not the person, so no threats of banning, please, you bullies - for- Jesus), we use the rule of law, the rules of logic, the rules of music, of grammar, of games, and you know as well as I or anyone that we rely on them as we rely on the laws of physics, every day, human constructs or not. Quibble about definitions all you like, that that is what works and is valid.

So stop your disgusting apologetics games and address the question or point; if human morality is perfectly valid even if subjective, why is the claim of a god - given morality even one worth making?

And have a lovely weekend, as you are one of our pals as in every conniving theist apologist is a rational humanist struggling to get out.

[The Tanager]

I think you are being tricky, evasive and disingenuous, here, not asking serious and honest questions.

Think what you want. I’m not going to play games.

Apart from that, as I say, I have of course argued that a human construct does not have to be a law of physics (never mind the diktat of a god) to be as valid as art, music or law.

I completely agree and haven’t said anything that implies otherwise.

Valid and 'it works' ought to be so obvious and your quibbling so transparently tricky that if i were otseng I would sling you off the board (and this is going after the argument not the person, so no threats of banning, please, you bullies - for- Jesus), we use the rule of law, the rules of logic, the rules of music, of grammar, of games, and you know as well as I or anyone that we rely on them as we rely on the laws of physics, every day, human constructs or not. Quibble about definitions all you like, that that is what works and is valid.

I completely agree that humans do this and societies work.

So stop your disgusting apologetics games and address the question or point; if human morality is perfectly valid even if subjective, why is the claim of a god - given morality even one worth making?

Because there is a question of validity that is different than your "perfectly valid" sense, that countless people throughout history have discussed and it is what was being discussed on this thread and others. And on that issue, naturalism fails to provide that kind of validity (which is different from the kind of validity you are talking about). Talking about a different sense of validity doesn't protect naturalism on that front.

[TRANSPONDER]

I think you are being tricky, evasive and disingenuous, here, not asking serious and honest questions.

Think what you want. I’m not going to play games.

Apart from that, as I say, I have of course argued that a human construct does not have to be a law of physics (never mind the diktat of a god) to be as valid as art, music or law.

I completely agree and haven’t said anything that implies otherwise.

Valid and 'it works' ought to be so obvious and your quibbling so transparently tricky that if i were otseng I would sling you off the board (and this is going after the argument not the person, so no threats of banning, please, you bullies - for- Jesus), we use the rule of law, the rules of logic, the rules of music, of grammar, of games, and you know as well as I or anyone that we rely on them as we rely on the laws of physics, every day, human constructs or not. Quibble about definitions all you like, that that is what works and is valid.

I completely agree that humans do this and societies work.

So stop your disgusting apologetics games and address the question or point; if human morality is perfectly valid even if subjective, why is the claim of a god - given morality even one worth making?

Because there is a question of validity that is different than your "perfectly valid" sense, that countless people throughout history have discussed and it is what was being discussed on this thread and others. And on that issue, naturalism fails to provide that kind of validity (which is different from the kind of validity you are talking about). Talking about a different sense of validity doesn't protect naturalism on that front.

naturalism does provide it, but not the sort that you demand - a cosmic law of morality (or human behavior) or a god - given diktat, name your own god.

You must see that it is perfectly valid for human social structures to be worthwhile and valid, even if it is not perfect and keeps changing. Historical knowledge and even science keeps changing. We cannot manage our affairs perfectly just as we don't know what happened in the past exactly, nor do we know everything by science.

But this b does not at all validate some claim that divine revelation, in the head or in an old book therefore has to be turned to as the better alternative, at it is not, quite apart from not being credible, on all evidence.

Bottom line: human morality, just as human knowledge and human reasoning is the best we got, and religious faith, apologetixcs and Dogma deserves nothing but censure when it seeks to belittle it in hopes to make the god - claims the only option.

cue: You did not say that. I know, I said it, and I stand by it.