Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So what does 'absolute morality' mean then, and what are its distinguishing features?

You see Vlad has a reputation for manufacturing things made of straw so it always pays to check when he uses terms, to quote one of Vlad's own nonsensical favourites, 'shamanically', what he actually means.
 

if you've ever stated that you or your moral position was 'better' than another and expected that to be meaningful then you are using an absolute scale where there is better and worse and that is what we mean by Absolute morality. Of course there is no use trying to claim then that the scale is infinite since that would effectively render any difference on the scale as meaningless so like an absolute zero, there has to be an absolute morality.


Alternatively if you claim to be better you are knowingly stating something which is really meaningless.


A former poster argued long and hard here that morality was merely an argumentum ad populum.

[Gordon]

if you've ever stated that you or your moral position was 'better' than another and expected that to be meaningful then you are using an absolute scale where there is better and worse and that is what we mean by Absolute morality.

Just as well I haven't said as much then.

Of course there is no use trying to claim then that the scale is infinite since that would effectively render any difference on the scale as meaningless so like an absolute zero, there has to be an absolute morality.

I haven't claimed morality is 'infinite' or seen it as something that can be measured, like temperature: your attempt here is a non sequitur.

Alternatively if you claim to be better you are knowingly stating something which is really meaningless.

I'm not claiming to be 'better'.

A former poster argued long and hard here that morality was merely an argumentum ad populum.

It may well be, although axiomatic might be a better term.

[Gordon]

No what I wanted to get across was that anyone supporting changes in the law cannot in all conscience then argue that it isn't fitting to support any change to the new law or the old formulation because it is the new law.

Then I agree with you - people should free to seek changes to laws even where there have been recent changes. In fact it is essential that they do in order to deal with general social changes and new knowledge.   

My intention was that IMHO you are arguing that peoples' wishes for the old law are invalidated by the fact that the new law is the law. Which contradicts your position of thinking your wishes for a change of law is valid.

I'm not arguing that at all, and never have: that current law has authority does not mean I need to agree with it and nor does it prevent me campaigning for future changes.

[Alan Burns]

Thank you for responding, AB, but I find your response entirely unsatisfactory, and here is why.

May I start by suggesting that you watch and listen to this short video by Neil De Grasse Tyson which reflects my considered feelings and arguments perfectly adequately about  meaning and purpose in the universe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pL5vzIMAhs

As you will no doubt have gathered if you watched this video, I too have never found there to be any particular meaning and purpose to life of the kind that you seem to embrace, and, although it is possible of course,  I find no particular justification for thinking that such meaning exists.

On the contrary, it seems to me that it is I who assign meaning to my life rather than simply perceive it. What gives meaning to my life might well not be the same as that of another person, although there seems to be certain recurring threads which suggest that evolutionary pressures give meaningful satisfaction in specific directions, such as a sense of belonging or a sense of the importance of family, In my case, I also find my interest in the broad width of nature and curiosity about the origins of humankind to be satisfactorily meaningful, just as my interest in certain types of music and dance give me pleasure and therefore meaning. It is also true for me that things which I find meaningful have changed as I progress through life. Another person will find their own meanings according to their own distinct personality.

I see no reason why the concept of meaning within a human being should be anything other than a natural phenomenon. I certainly don't see any evidence at all for any supernatural source and to simply assert your God(or any god) gives us the ability to assume is a statement, I suggest, without any foundation. The idea that 'it must have been God's intention for us to perceive meaning and purpose in our lives in this otherwise entirely deterministic material world.' falls miserably at the first hurdle, because it assumes the presence of said God, when there is no evidence that He exists, and no reason is given as to why the idea of meaning and purpose in life cannot be an extremely powerful survival  mechanism, in which case no god is needed.

Thanks for your reply.
I watched the video, but found that it offered little more than a personal opinion about how he considered that God (if He existed) would not do things this way.

There are many things I do not understand about how God works, and I can see why people who do not have faith would view things from the outside in a much different light.

But having embraced Christianity, I see things from a much different perspective, and the more I see of reality, the more my faith grows.  It is not a faith based on fear or rules or indoctrination, but on the reality of God's love.  I came to realise some time ago that a lifetime is not sufficient to come to know God and how He works, so I accept this and continue to grow learn from each precious day of my life on this earth.

[Enki]

Thanks for your reply.
I watched the video, but found that it offered little more than a personal opinion about how he considered that God (if He existed) would not do things this way.

There are many things I do not understand about how God works, and I can see why people who do not have faith would view things from the outside in a much different light.

But having embraced Christianity, I see things from a much different perspective, and the more I see of reality, the more my faith grows.  It is not a faith based on fear or rules or indoctrination, but on the reality of God's love.  I came to realise some time ago that a lifetime is not sufficient to come to know God and how He works, so I accept this and continue to grow learn from each precious day of my life on this earth.

It wasn't supposed to be any more than a personal opinion based upon the evidence as he sees it. I happen to agree with him for similar reasons. I would have hoped that it might have given you an insight into my own attitude towards meaning in the universe, that's all. obviously I would not have expected you to agree with it.

Your personal opinion is that there definitely is a God. That's fine. I don't happen to agree with you that's all. I'm sure you find your sense of purpose by embracing Christianity as you see it. Why should I have any quarrel with that? I only challenge you when you suggest that your opinions are any more than opinions, when you start asserting things as if they were facts, and when you suggest that other people may not have meaning and purpose in their lives without the necessary input from your God, or as you put it, 'from the supernatural'. I find no reason to accept your opinions on this matter at all as particularly valid as far as I am concerned. Certainly, they do not affect me in any significant way as I find plenty of meaning and purpose in my life without believing in any  god whatever, or seeing any reason why I should.

As I said, in reply 31081, I see no reason to assume  God. So far you have given me no reason to change my mind.

Have a pleasant evening. Where I am, the weather is beautiful.

[Alan Burns]

I didn't realise you were quite so extreme in your views Sword.

It is a very sad indictment on our modern society when views which stand up for traditional marriage and the right to life for the unborn child are classed as extreme - even from within faith groups.

[Shaker]

It is a very sad indictment on our modern society when views which stand up for traditional marriage and the right to life for the unborn child are classed as extreme - even from within faith groups.

And yet extreme is precisely what they are. You'll recall that five years ago the established state church (a joke in itself in 2013) tried to prevent same-sex couples from getting married. They didn't say: "Thanks but no thanks - it's not for us but as it's a civil matter it has nothing to do with us." That would have been on its face a fairly respectable viewpoint. No, even though the law applied to civil marriage - i.e. no business of the C of E anyway - they tried to prevent it.

"Standing up for traditional marriage" in actuality meant infringing the freedom of a group in society out of what looks like no more than spite. That's extreme.

What's an indictment of modern society is that it took until 2014 for gay couples to get married, no thanks - literally - to the C of E.

[torridon]

It is a very sad indictment on our modern society when views which stand up for traditional marriage and the right to life for the unborn child are classed as extreme - even from within faith groups.

Ah, so you're a social conservative in christian clothing.  I think Jesus had little regard for those in his day who elevated tradition above what actually matters.  The only things that mattered to Jesus were to love God and love your neighbour.  We should not be perpetuating hurt against minorities by the sly false equivalence of moral good with tradition.

[wigginhall]

The Catholic Church has been an extremist organizaton.   In different countries, it has carried out trafficking of babies, forced imprisonment of women, sexual and physical abuse of children, and then on top of all that, the hierarchy has protected the abusers, and moved them to another parish.   If this had been done by a non-religious organization, there would be outrage, and criminal convictions from top to bottom.  The idea of the right to life has a very hollow ring.

[Roses]

The Catholic Church has been an extremist organizaton.   In different countries, it has carried out trafficking of babies, forced imprisonment of women, sexual and physical abuse of children, and then on top of all that, the hierarchy has protected the abusers, and moved them to another parish.   If this had been done by a non-religious organization, there would be outrage, and criminal convictions from top to bottom.  The idea of the right to life has a very hollow ring.

I agree.

Its devout followers appear to be so brainwashed they cannot see the wood for the trees, otherwise they would have stuck up two fingers to the RCC and walked away.     

[ippy]

I agree.

Its devout followers appear to be so brainwashed they cannot see the wood for the trees, otherwise they would have stuck up two fingers to the RCC and walked away.   

Yes the indoctrination method is the catholic churches preferred choice, they've almost stopped doing the torture necessary to be able to brainwash its victims first before trying to substitute/implant their dogma into supposedly freshly washed brains.

Thank goodness at least we know, via the North Korean trial of brainwashing at the time of their last
war and its failure, we now know brainwashing doesn't work and no one tries to do it any more.

Regards ippy

[Alan Burns]

As evidenced in the last five posts, God's church has been under such constant attacks from all sides ever since its inception over two thousand years ago.  But it survives, and with God's help it will continue to survive and carry on its primary purpose of saving souls.  And critics tend to overlook the substantial humanitarian good done through the church throughout history in acts of charity and providing education.

[Roses]

Yes the indoctrination method is the catholic churches preferred choice, they've almost stopped doing the torture necessary to be able to brainwash its victims first before trying to substitute/implant their dogma into supposedly freshly washed brains.

Thank goodness at least we know, via the North Korean trial of brainwashing at the time of their last
war and its failure, we now know brainwashing doesn't work and no one tries to do it any more.

Regards ippy

If god exists and is a decent entity, unlike the one portrayed in the Bible, it can't be thrilled by the way the Catholic Church has conducted itself since its inception.

[Shaker]

As evidenced in the last five posts, God's church has been under such constant attacks from all sides ever since its inception over two thousand years ago.  But it survives, and with God's help it will continue to survive and carry on its primary purpose of saving souls.  And critics tend to overlook the substantial humanitarian good done through the church throughout history in acts of charity and providing education.

Bertrand Russell wrote a little story about a chicken to show how fallacious this line of thinking is; namely, assuming that what has existed for a long time in the past will necessarily exist in the future.

https://tinyurl.com/y7zag7ls

[Gordon]

As evidenced in the last five posts, God's church has been under such constant attacks from all sides ever since its inception over two thousand years ago.  But it survives, and with God's help it will continue to survive and carry on its primary purpose of saving souls.

So you aren't at all worried about the decline of organised Christianity in some areas, such as here in the UK? Perhaps you need to start worrying about apathy just as much as attacks, and also addressing those issues that are the cause of attacks: your own church being a case in point. If this decline is part of 'God's plan' for the church then, perhaps, its plan isn't a particularly good one.
 

And critics tend to overlook the substantial humanitarian good done through the church throughout history in acts of charity and providing education.

Perhaps they are: but then again perhaps they aren't also overlooking other aspects of the role of religion in general society throughout history that definitely don't engender warm and cozy feelings about religion. In addition, perhaps they also recognise that you don't need to be religious to be altruistic.

[ippy]

As evidenced in the last five posts, God's church has been under such constant attacks from all sides ever since its inception over two thousand years ago.  But it survives, and with God's help it will continue to survive and carry on its primary purpose of saving souls.  And critics tend to overlook the substantial humanitarian good done through the church throughout history in acts of charity and providing education.

Have a look at the discussion about 'Is the Catholic Church a Force for Good in the World' on YouTube Alan, you'll find a good assessment there, Stephen Fry was on one side of the debate.

Much needed commiserations Alan, ippy.
 

[Dicky Underpants]

As evidenced in the last five posts, God's church has been under such constant attacks from all sides ever since its inception over two thousand years ago.  But it survives, and with God's help it will continue to survive and carry on its primary purpose of saving souls.  And critics tend to overlook the substantial humanitarian good done through the church throughout history in acts of charity and providing education.

So God's Church is necessarily the Roman Catholic Church then (since that's the organisation to which you belong)? I seem to remember certain internal troubles, not just external attacks, and in the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church was very much the attacker, should any individuals dissent.
Wasn't there a Great Schism (1054)*? Did the Roman Church manage to hold on to the unsullied truth of Christianity, and the Orthodox Church assume the role of a nasty, heretical dissident?

*Let alone the Western Schism of 1378.

[Alan Burns]

So you aren't at all worried about the decline of organised Christianity in some areas, such as here in the UK? Perhaps you need to start worrying about apathy just as much as attacks, and also addressing those issues that are the cause of attacks: your own church being a case in point. If this decline is part of 'God's plan' for the church then, perhaps, its plan isn't a particularly good one.
 
Perhaps they are: but then again perhaps they aren't also overlooking other aspects of the role of religion in general society throughout history that definitely don't engender warm and cozy feelings about religion. In addition, perhaps they also recognise that you don't need to be religious to be altruistic.

Of course I am aware of the current decline in practising Christian devotees, and it is a worrying situation for the human population as a whole.  But my own faith is bolstered by the large number of fellow Christians with whom I share a deep and profound faith which promotes hope and trust in God.  Christian fellowship is a very important and rewarding aspect of my life, and one I wish many more people could share.  In saying this, I have to disagree with your conjecture that Christian faith promotes warm and cosy feelings.  It brings with it many challenges and often takes us to places and situations where we would not normally wish to go or be in.  But our faith gives us the strength and courage to do God's will, and ultimately brings rewards far beyond any expectation.

[Alan Burns]

So God's Church is necessarily the Roman Catholic Church then (since that's the organisation to which you belong)? I seem to remember certain internal troubles, not just external attacks, and in the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church was very much the attacker, should any individuals dissent.
Wasn't there a Great Schism (1054)*? Did the Roman Church manage to hold on to the unsullied truth of Christianity, and the Orthodox Church assume the role of a nasty, heretical dissident?

*Let alone the Western Schism of 1378.

The Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Church both have valid claims to a continuous succession of authority dating back to the time of Christ.  And I have worshipped and taken part in Orthodox services as well as Anglican and other Christian denominations.  The evil forces of this world have been successful in the aim of splitting up Christian communities and causing many divisions, but within each group there are genuine devotees who will continue to worship the one true God and to share and promote positive aspects of their faith with other communities.

[torridon]

The Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Church both have valid claims to a continuous succession of authority dating back to the time of Christ.  And I have worshipped and taken part in Orthodox services as well as Anglican and other Christian denominations.  The evil forces of this world have been successful in the aim of splitting up Christian communities and causing many divisions, but within each group there are genuine devotees who will continue to worship the one true God and to share and promote positive aspects of their faith with other communities.

Does that mean that Hindus and Muslims are following false Gods ?  I guess many of them would make mirror claims against christians and their exclusivist ideology.  That's the problem with faith, worshipping one narrowly defined god entails denying the other guy's god and we end up with division in place of unity and people blaming 'the forces of evil' for the fragmentation instead of looking to their own narrowness of mind.

[Gordon]

Of course I am aware of the current decline in practising Christian devotees, and it is a worrying situation for the human population as a whole.

Clearly not where we both live, else Christianity here in the UK wouldn't be in decline: therefore, it can't be all that worrying to the population as a whole since the majority aren't getting actively involved with Christianity.
 

But my own faith is bolstered by the large number of fellow Christians with whom I share a deep and profound faith which promotes hope and trust in God.  Christian fellowship is a very important and rewarding aspect of my life, and one I wish many more people could share.

Super: but confirmation bias nonetheless.
 

In saying this, I have to disagree with your conjecture that Christian faith promotes warm and cosy feelings.  It brings with it many challenges and often takes us to places and situations where we would not normally wish to go or be in.  But our faith gives us the strength and courage to do God's will, and ultimately brings rewards far beyond any expectation.

Sentiments that sound very much like warm and cosy feelings.

[Alan Burns]

Does that mean that Hindus and Muslims are following false Gods ?

They are sincerely following a human attempt to reach God, rather than following God's own revelation to humanity.

I guess many of them would make mirror claims against christians and their exclusivist ideology. 

and ?

That's the problem with faith, worshipping one narrowly defined god entails denying the other guy's god and we end up with division in place of unity and people blaming 'the forces of evil' for the fragmentation instead of looking to their own narrowness of mind.

The fact that I believe in one God does not imply narrow mindedness.  There can only be one truth.

[torridon]

They are sincerely following a human attempt to reach God, rather than following God's own revelation to humanity.and ?The fact that I believe in one God does not imply narrow mindedness.  There can only be one truth.

Think you just shot yourself in the foot there. The last sentence is typical narrowmindedness.  There are many truths and none of us can claim some sort of superiority over everyone else in finding the 'one truth'. We are all human and our paths are diverse, our opinions varied.

[Alan Burns]

Think you just shot yourself in the foot there. The last sentence is typical narrowmindedness.  There are many truths and none of us can claim some sort of superiority over everyone else in finding the 'one truth'. We are all human and our paths are diverse, our opinions varied.

But there is only one reality outside human perception.  Opinions are not truth.  The truth is out there to be discovered.

[torridon]

But there is only one reality outside human perception.  Opinions are not truth.  The truth is out there to be discovered.

But we all have opinions as to what that truth might be. All humans have limited knowledge and limited intellectual resource.  Opinions, therefore, are all anyone can have.  We are human, not divine.