[Potemkin]

Eastern religion has been a bit less susceptible to criticism because they don't make moral absolutism a matter of decree by an anthropomorphic being (God) but rather a fundamental part of how the universe works (karma). This is in many ways unfair since the bible is explicit that God isn't a human being, which means that you can't expect questioning his "absolutism" to be rational in the sense it might be for a human being, but this point is regularly ignored by western critics.

To rehash a conversation I once had with a friend, God isn't really a person, rather things would happen and they would be attributed to something that has human-like qualities (or at least may appear to when observed by a human).

Yes, I agree with this. As I recently said in another thread, the judgements of God are never arbitrary. God is not a human being, who can rationally or meaningfully be criticised as we would criticise another human being. Condemning God is like dropping a hammer on your toes and then shaking your fist in the air while yelling, "Curse you, gravity!" Gravity is not a human being, and it does not act arbitrarily. It is therefore irrational and pointless to curse it.

[fuser]

Genuine question, what does God creating humans in his own image means then? If we can never ever really try to understand him from human perspective.

[One Degree]

Genuine question, what does God creating humans in his own image means then? If we can never ever really try to understand him from human perspective.

I always interpreted this as we are capable of achieving God's understanding, as it is already resident within us, but we insist upon placing superficial hurdles in our way. We even vaguely understand we are doing this, but lack the will power to overcome it. Maybe that is what evil is? We all know we are basically lying at some level.
Or, maybe this is simply our chemically induced selves battling against a yet not understood part of our brain.

[Hong Wu]

Genuine question, what does God creating humans in his own image means then? If we can never ever really try to understand him from human perspective.

I don't think there is a specific answer to this in scripture, it is just an interesting thought. One response is that people can potentially become more like God through proper efforts because we are all little Gods.

As an analogy, let's say you have a big version of something and then you make a little version of it too. The little one looks similar to the big one but due to some fundamental differences, they aren't the same thing.

So if you have a large, real chair and a tiny statue of the chair, would you try to sit on the statue? Etc.

[fuser]

^ That analogy doesn't work. No one is saying both chairs are same thing or God = Human, but that by observing the model of big chair i.e. the small chair we can have a very good idea of workings of big chair.

I always interpreted this as we are capable of achieving God's understanding, as it is already resident within us, but we insist upon placing superficial hurdles in our way. We even vaguely understand we are doing this, but lack the will power to overcome it. Maybe that is what evil is? We all know we are basically lying at some level.

So basically Maya then.

[Albert]

One thing I've learned reading the bible is that it should not be taken literally. Otherwise you end up doing all sorts of weird things.

But then if you interpret it in bizarre way, you also end up doing weird things.

In the end it comes down to us to search for truth, God or the holy spirit if you may. Bible or any other such text become only a guide.

[Ben_No3]

...Then if that were true, that would mean it isn't objectively true that eating a "bad diet" is bad...Talk about oxymoron

I should have been more clear, I'm sorry. I meant there is a objective thruth to what a good or bad diet is, but there is no objective thruth to what good or bad in a moral sense is.

It's objectively measurable through logic and mathematics. In actuality morality isn't up for debate anymore than "2 + 2 = 4" is, but denialists will continue to deny, as it's more comfortable for some not to think about the bigger questions in life, and deny their own morality.

this is a pretty bold statement to make. If you say that morality is such a objective and provable (!) truth as 2+2=4 is, and you can prove that claim you are making, go ahead. But until then it's just a claim. And "just use (any emotion)" is not a valid proof... That's like saying that Bigfoot exists if you believe it.

I mean no offence, but to me it does not seem possible to measure morality in any way, let alone in a mathematical way. Please explain how you would do that.

And I do have very strong personal moral standards that I act by. But I realise that those standards only exist because I do accept that after all I am the creator of my moral standards, not some objective truth.

And trust me, I do think about the bigger questions of life. But "the philosophers of the world have only interpreted it in different ways. The point however is to change it"
-Karl Marx

Only as much as scientfic laws are, which technically are a 'construct' of the mind, as they're based on the limited observational capabilities of the human mind.

And our scientific laws are also not absolutely and unquestionably true. Constantly, they are questioned and maybe even corrected. The difference is that they are based on objective observation, and that certain aspects of it are unquestionable.

But common sense nevertheless says that someone who thinks the earth is flat has poorer observational skills than scientists do,

is not just about observational skills, it goes against a objective truth that can be proven and measured by all over and over again. Moral standards on the other hand do not do that.

likewise someone who thinks rape and murder are okay also has objectively poorer observational skills.

If I'm to be the devils advocate, I could argue that there is no objective truth to why murder or rape is wrong, and you would have a hard time proving it with anything outside of any form of beliefs. With ethics, theism, philosophy and the like there simply is no objective measurable truth.

"Better" at what? It's what the society is working towards that determines whether or not it is morally better or not, not it's "efficiency" at working towards immoral goals.

No, that is how YOU determine wether a society is good.

Just as gas chambers are 'more efficient' at genocide than swords, but of course if the goal is genocide, then the social goal itself is immoral.

But within Nazi philosophy (which I highly oppose, don't get me wrong), they were fin the right thing. From their point of view, it was the right thing to do. And while you and I heavily disagree with them, I dont see any way of prooving them that we are right outside of our own philosophy.

Sure there is, and even if a logical formula hasn't yet been devised and written down which covers every situation, that doesn't mean one could not be in the future.

Maybe that happens. But until then, it is wrong to say that it is so. True is only what can be proven. And Even if such a formula is developed, that does not mean that it is right now correct to say that morality can be measured.

If hundreds of years ago someone claimed the existence of bacteria before he had the means to prove it, he would have been wrong because he could not prove it, even if it was proven to be true later down the road. At the time, the existence of bacteria could not be proven, and therefore it would have been wrong to believe in it.

And until you can prove me an objective morality, I will not believe in it. And this is not a "anti science" standpoint, it is a highly scientific standpoint: I only accept something as a fact that you can prove to me, and that is how science works.

Just as the fact that there was no way to measure Newtonian physics in the stone age didn't mean that the universal physical laws themselves didn't exist.

No, but the humble human living in the Stone Age would have been wrong to believe it nethertheless, because he would have not been able to prove it.

The physical theory of relativity debunks "subjective morality" anyway, since it confirms that regardless of the point of view of the observer, the laws of nature never change (e.x. whether one's riding in a car, or observing it from the outside, if the physical speed is measured it's the same for everyone).

This is only true if you assume that morality is a law of nature, which I honestly can not see any proof for.

Meaning of course if the natural laws which govern moral truth were measured, then regardless of whether the perspective is from capitalists, or from socialists, the universal laws would still be the same for everyone.

So not only is it immoral, but it's also anti-science.

I already commented on that.

...then that statement isn't objectively true, so if I decide that there is objective truth to morality, this makes it true not just for me, but everyone else - or vice versa. Meaning it can be both objectively true for everyone, and subjectively true at the same time... or something.

What? Maybe I didn't understand what you meant... You can't just "make" something objectively true.

Damn, I can't believe people pretend to actually believe this rubbish. Everyone knows morality is objective and universal,

"Everyone knows morality is objective and universal" proof! It!

come on, the only people who deny it are those who fear the eternal consequences.

what eternal consequences? We will all die, and again lack of proof for an afterlife does not imply any form of eternal punishment for being immoral.

[quetzalcoatl]

The physical theory of relativity debunks "subjective morality" anyway, since it confirms that regardless of the point of view of the observer, the laws of nature never change (e.x. whether one's riding in a car, or observing it from the outside, if the physical speed is measured it's the same for everyone).

Meaning of course if the natural laws which govern moral truth were measured, then regardless of whether the perspective is from capitalists, or from socialists, the universal laws would still be the same for everyone.

A "law" of nature is fundamentally different than a law of God.

Laws of nature are not normative. They do not demand of the physical world certain behaviors, and punish the world when it fails to obey. They are descriptive in nature.

Morality can exist only when there is a choice to be made. Physical laws are deterministic. They extinguish choice, and by doing so, extinguish morality.

[Albert]

Morality is the same as law of nature. There are real cause and effects to morality as in any other laws in this world. Naturally morality is as flexible as nature. But even changes in nature are caused by laws of nature. Similarly how such changes happen in morality.

This is why when people say morality is ever changing from effect of time. Are really just fooling themselves because they can not see that even those changed are determined already by laws. Like current in the sea will change not because they simply change because of time, but because there are other numerous factors that change them.

This is why humanity has "holy men". It is simply people from virtue of their wisdom who were given ability to have greater perception into "nature" of things and it's laws. Aka morality as well.

[Potemkin]

This is why when people say morality is ever changing from effect of time. Are really just fooling themselves because they can not see that even those changed are determined already by laws. Like current in the sea will change not because they simply change because of time, but because there are other numerous factors that change them.

Indeed. And these laws of development by which human society and morality evolve over time were discovered by Karl Marx in the 19th century. We call it 'historical materialism', Albert.

[Hong Wu]

^ That analogy doesn't work. No one is saying both chairs are same thing or God = Human, but that by observing the model of big chair i.e. the small chair we can have a very good idea of workings of big chair.

What I am trying to say is, you might look at a small chair replica and not realize that it is used for sitting at all, if you didn't start out with knowledge of what a chair is. I'm not sure if a chair is the best possible metaphor for God but maybe you will see what I mean.

A chair might not be a horrible metaphor but let me use a musical instrument. Imagine that you saw a small replica of this and didn't realize that this is a musical instrument:


Without seeing the large scale one being played, you wouldn't realize that the small one is a replica of a musical instrument. Even if it was playable by tiny hands

[fuser]

No, I think you are tying deepthinking again.

[Albert]

Indeed. And these laws of development by which human society and morality evolve over time were discovered by Karl Marx in the 19th century. We call it 'historical materialism', Albert.

If you agree with what I have written, then logically you will also agree that Marx did not discover anything new. Hence communism is nothing special to that of any other ideology or conceptual organization as such. Therefore in the end it just becomes one way of looking at the same reality.

[Ben_No3]

can we please leave God out of this? We have no proof he exists, so I don't think we should use him as an argument in this debate

[Ben_No3]

If you agree with what I have written, then logically you will also agree that Marx did not discover anything new. Hence communism is nothing special to that of any other ideology or conceptual organization as such. Therefore in the end it just becomes one way of looking at the same reality.

What point are you trying to make? Aren't all philosophies in the end just different ways of looking at what we are and what should be done?

[Hong Wu]

I thought my analogy was double plus new deepthink good. Let me put this in terms you will understand

[fuser]

Don't know, don't care about this green frog. See, your deepthinking failed you again. Not everyone in his whole world is hyped on US elections meme, that I only heard of on PoFo.

[One Degree]

Well since this is about moral absolutism, what do you think about the idea we are just a housing for the genetic/chemistry of our brains? We simply react to chemical messages and actually have no free will at all.
Our only purpose is to protect our genetics to guarantee they are passed on. Every thought is controlled by pleasure/pain to insure we always decide to protect our genes.

[mikema63]

That belief would make people sad, it'll never catch on.

[Scheherazade]

Well since this is about moral absolutism, what do you think about the idea we are just a housing for the genetic/chemistry of our brains?

That statement makes no sense since "we" would be the brains, we can't be a housing for ourselves.

We simply react to chemical messages and actually have no free will at all.

...and what does that even mean in actual technical terms, rather than pseudo-intellectual jargon?

What does the difference between "having and not having free will" mean? If it means nothing relatable to our lives either way, then it's just a "who came first, the chicken or the egg debate"?

Our only purpose is to protect our genetics to guarantee they are passed on. Every thought is controlled by pleasure/pain to insure we always decide to protect our genes.

...but if a person decides not to fulfill that purpose, since reason apparently gives them the ability to override the lower instinct, then who's to say that's "wrong"?

Plus under the no free will argument, then that wouldn't be able to explain why some people decide to 'go against' the hardwired purpose, deciding not to reproduce and become a chaste monk for example.