What is scholarly about discussing any aspect of religion?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Some,

And, by a staggering coincidence, nobody has included any gods in moral philosophy without laying themselves open to the charge of doing so arbitrarily for suspect reasons.

It's even worse than that. Trollboy not only just assumes "God" ( the reification fallacy), he also assumes only his choice of a god as in some way authoring "proper" morality. Folks across societies and across the millennia though have prayed in aid countess gods as wing men for their moralities - essentially they map the moral positions they like onto the god they've picked or with which they're most culturally familiar: "I think murder is wrong, and I know that's morally correct because my god says so" etc.

Apart from its intellectual vapidity as a rationale for moral positions it comes at a high cost too - if this same god's thoughts are accurately recorded in a book, how then should the believer ignore "His" moral injunctions about, say, homosexuality, killing your child for cheekiness, sabbath kindling gathering etc?       

"Moral philosophers" eh? I hope you are not seriously claiming that all moral philosophers agree?

How about you ditch the argument from (unnamed) authority fallacy and make the case yourself? No doubt you will find it easy as you are so familiar with the works of all these moral philosophers, of which you speak...

He doesn't have one. The idea that morality is what we intuit and decide it to be is anathema to him - the uncertainty is too much, so he retro-fits the odd notion that the only real morality must be the universally ordained and true type - and guess who he picks for that job?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

.. which conveniently overlooks the fact that not every moral philosopher thinks that morality is absolute or objective.

WellIm glad we've moved from Universally ordained morality not being part of moral philosophy to it being so.

And I have never denied that not every moral philosopher thinks that morality is absolute or objective. Indeed just as one can't go far in moral philosophy without coming across God one can't go far without coming across subjective morality.........but ultimately, what is that but arse pull?

[Brownie]

Goodness this thread has progressed, I wanted to reply to something ippy said but it is way back now.  Only that, yes, I like philosophy and I like Greek mythology very much.  I've forgotten now how we got onto that  .

'O' level Religious Studies (I think it was called), was quite easy.  I'd read all the bits I was questioned on which may sound obvious but there were other exams where I was less well prepared and had to waffle.  Having said that, 'O' level study is not at a very high level so hard to fail!

The teachers weren't supposed to look at our completed papers - but they did.  My RE teacher said my work was like watery soup compared to thick stew!  Flipping cheek.

[Shaker]

An entertaining take-down of WLC's Awful Eight: https://goo.gl/z6xbSw

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

And I have never denied that not every moral philosopher thinks that morality is absolute or objective. Indeed just as one can't go far in moral philosophy without coming across God one can't go far without coming across subjective morality.........but ultimately, what is that but arse pull?

Why such a downer on something because it is subjective?

If it could be proven today that there was no such thing as objective morality (not saying I can prove it, just indulging in a thought experiment), would you start going around murdering and raping and stealing (I assume you don't do those things by the way). If not why not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

An entertaining take-down of WLC's Awful Eight: https://goo.gl/z6xbSw

I'm sure what you call a take down is so one merely putting an alternative view rather than a knock down argument.

That's not to say that this great thinker doesn't have off days.

[Shaker]

I'm sure what you call a take down is so one merely putting an alternative view rather than a knock down argument.

Read it and see for yourself.

That's not to say that this great thinker doesn't have off days.

I'm sure Coel Hellier does indeed have the occasional off day - he's only human.

[Stranger]

And I have never denied that not every moral philosopher thinks that morality is absolute or objective. Indeed just as one can't go far in moral philosophy without coming across God one can't go far without coming across subjective morality.........but ultimately, what is that but arse pull?

Still not willing to make the argument for yourself, I see.

There is, of course, a major problem with all this god-given morality malarkey in that there is no universal acceptance of which version of god(s) we should take notice of and, even if we could decide that, what it (or they) have actually said. Hence, instead of subjective morality, we end up with subjective opinions of what the right "god given morality" is.

And that's before we get into the knotty territory of asking if god is morally good or is something morally good just because it's what god says.

In the absence of a clear, unambiguous statement from an obviously existent god, we are stuck with moral subjectivity anyway.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Still not willing to make the argument for yourself, I see.

There is, of course, a major problem with all this god-given morality malarkey in that there is no universal acceptance of which version of god(s) we should take notice of and, even if we could decide that, what it (or they) have actually said. Hence, instead of subjective morality, we end up with subjective opinions of what the right "god given morality" is.

And that's before we get into the knotty territory of asking if god is morally good or is something morally good just because it's what god says.

In the absence of a clear, unambiguous statement from an obviously existent god, we are stuck with moral subjectivity anyway.

The argument for oneself is that one recognises that one has done wrong and that is absolute and that one has the temptation to wrong but sometimes does the right thing and that is absolute. Any attempt to justify the wrong or to cast it as a non absolute is to deprive it of being a moral action and renders it merely a behaviour.

And that is my take. In other words relative or subjective morality is ultimately only pulled out of ones arse.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

In the absence of a clear, unambiguous statement from an obviously existent god, we are stuck with moral subjectivity anyway.

Even then we wouldn't know that it was telling us the truth.

So I'm with you best to work on the assumption that we need to base our morality on reasoned arguments rather than revelation.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

The argument for oneself is that one recognises that one has done wrong and that is absolute and that one has the temptation to wrong but sometimes does the right thing and that is absolute. Any attempt to justify the wrong or to cast it as a non absolute is to deprive it of being a moral action and renders it merely a behaviour.

And that is my take. In other words relative or subjective morality is ultimately only pulled out of ones arse.

We, as humans, exhibit behaviours. We classify some of those behaviours as acceptable or unacceptable. That is what morality is.

And it's not just humans who do this either.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Read it and see for yourself.
I'm sure Coel Hellier does indeed have the occasional off day - he's only human.

Coel Wholier ?

[Brownie]

Astrophysicist.  Name sounds like an illness.  Actually that isn't a very nice thing to say, we don't name ourselves.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We, as humans, exhibit behaviours. We classify some of those behaviours as acceptable or unacceptable. That is what morality is.

And it's not just humans who do this either.

So you agree then with the idea that morality is effectively what you pull out of your rectum.

If you thus take that line why not just be honest and behave like you want rather than ...what you .......(are now labelling as a phoney).......ought.

[Stranger]

The argument for oneself is that one recognises that one has done wrong and that is absolute and that one has the temptation to wrong but sometimes does the right thing and that is absolute. Any attempt to justify the wrong or to cast it as a non absolute is to deprive it of being a moral action and renders it merely a behaviour.

But it quite obviously isn't objective because different people find different things morally acceptable. It might be that you or I find something or other absolutely wrong by our own moral judgement whereas somebody else will disagree. In fact, even one individual may change their moral stance on something over the course of their lives.

Obviously there is a degree of consensus (because we are all humans) but there is no objectivity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But it quite obviously isn't objective because different people find different things morally acceptable. It might be that you or I find something or other absolutely wrong by our own moral judgement whereas somebody else will disagree. In fact, even one individual may change their moral stance on something over the course of their lives.

Obviously there is a degree of consensus (because we are all humans) but there is no objectivity.

See reply#113

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

So you agree then with the idea that morality is effectively what you pull out of your rectum.

No because that implies no consideration of arguments to what we label good and bad behaviours.

If you thus take that line why not just be honest and behave like you want rather than ...what you .......(are now labelling as a phoney).......ought.

Well I don't commit murder, rape and theft at the moment. You seem to be suggesting that because I don't think that there is an objective morality that I should start? Can you think of any reason why I don't do those things?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Astrophysicist.  Name sounds like an illness.  Actually that isn't a very nice thing to say, we don't name ourselves.

Had a look at his blog. Says he's a defender of scientism so ploughed on with his definitions. Sounds like a dogmatic agnostic. Knew I'd find one.

[Shaker]

There is, of course, a major problem with all this god-given morality malarkey in that there is no universal acceptance of which version of god(s) we should take notice of and, even if we could decide that, what it (or they) have actually said. Hence, instead of subjective morality, we end up with subjective opinions of what the right "god given morality" is.

And that's before we get into the knotty territory of asking if god is morally good or is something morally good just because it's what god says.

In the absence of a clear, unambiguous statement from an obviously existent god, we are stuck with moral subjectivity anyway.

Quite apart from the Euthyphro dilemma to which you quite rightly draw attention, there's the more fundamental point that even if by some means or another we could come to know God as the ground of morality, why we should regard this as a sufficient justification for adhering to that morality in any way that doesn't have the shadow of the argumentum ad baculum hanging over it.

[Rhiannon]

Quite apart from the Euthyphro dilemma to which you quite rightly draw attention, there's the more fundamental point that even if by some means or another we could come to know God as the ground of morality, why we should regard this as a sufficient justification for adhering to that morality in any way that doesn't have the shadow of the argumentum ad baculum hanging over it.

I think in part that would depend on whether God is wholly loving and accepting or is a god of judgement and jealousy. And God is supposed to be unknowable. In order for any of this to be knowledge God would need to be revealed so absolutely that there is no room for subjectivity.

Sounds grim to me, but it's what heaven is supposed to be like - seeing God revealed and spending eternity is perpetual praise.

[Hope]

The etymology of the word is irrelevant to its usage in modern English.

The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion

Is it?  English remains one of the few languages that officially has no male-gender marked pronouns.  The fact that most people aren't aware of that, and use him/his/he as male-marked terms, it doesn't mean that the official position doesn't still stand.  The same holds for other etymological issues.

Where?

A number of threads over the last 5 or so years.  The fact that you have missed them is regretable, but then the same could be said of many arguments on the other side of the debate that have been lost as a result of the necessary culling of the board's threads.

How many times are you going to repeat this, despite having been told that people will accept any objective evidence or methodology regardless of whether it's "naturalistic"?

As many times as necessary until such people begin to accept objective evidence 'regardless of whether it's "naturalistic"'.

This continued assertion of yours is blatant dishonesty.

You mean, like the dishonesty shown by those who claim that they will 'accept any objective evidence or methodology regardless of whether it's "naturalistic";, but then ignore it whenit's produced?

So why is there no hint of a shred of objective evidence and no suggestion of any reasoned arguments to support the notion of this god?

Simply because, as all on your side of the debate have said over the years, none of it fits their naturalistically restricted thinking.

I find it very telling that, rather than present any evidence or arguments for your position, you try to drag science down to the level of religion.

Well, having provided plenty of evidence and arguments which are almost always dismissed by those whose opinions and ideas differ from mine, I decided that it would be just as worthwhile to point out the flaws that science exhibits - flaws that even scientists admit to.

Science is clear. It has conjecture, hypotheses and theories - the big bang theory is clear and accepted by the vast majority of scientists. It covers the origin of the observable universe in a hot, dense state approximately 13.5 billion years ago.

Is that why there are a number of different interpretations of details and timings, etc.

Now, back to that evidence you claim you've presented - where is it?

Probably on threads that you prefer not to read or remember reading.   

[Stranger]

But it quite obviously isn't objective because different people find different things morally acceptable. It might be that you or I find something or other absolutely wrong by our own moral judgement whereas somebody else will disagree. In fact, even one individual may change their moral stance on something over the course of their lives.

Obviously there is a degree of consensus (because we are all humans) but there is no objectivity.

See reply#113

Okay...

So you agree then with the idea that morality is effectively what you pull out of your rectum.

If you thus take that line why not just be honest and behave like you want rather than ...what you .......(are now labelling as a phoney).......ought.

Too right! If it's not objective, it must be phony. Just like art, literature, beauty, music, love, friendship, happiness and so on; all that phony crap, eh?

[Rhiannon]

Hope, Stephen Taylor came to this forum specifically to ask you for your evidence. There's a lovely shiny thread there just for you to give us all the evidence you want. Then all this arguing will cease as we'll all know where to go.

Why didn't you?

[Stranger]

Is it?  English remains one of the few languages that officially has no male-gender marked pronouns.  The fact that most people aren't aware of that, and use him/his/he as male-marked terms, it doesn't mean that the official position doesn't still stand.  The same holds for other etymological issues.

Yes. What "official position" would that be? Language changes, etymology is of academic interest but of little practical relevance.

him
Used as the object of a verb or preposition to refer to a male person or animal previously mentioned or easily identified

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/him

A number of threads over the last 5 or so years.  The fact that you have missed them is regretable, but then the same could be said of many arguments on the other side of the debate that have been lost as a result of the necessary culling of the board's threads.

Why don't you reproduce them - enough people have been asking you?

As many times as necessary until such people begin to accept objective evidence 'regardless of whether it's "naturalistic"'.

How do you know they won't when you keep on refusing to produce it, claiming it's somewhere else or gone?

You mean, like the dishonesty shown by those who claim that they will 'accept any objective evidence or methodology regardless of whether it's "naturalistic";, but then ignore it whenit's produced?

See above.

Simply because, as all on your side of the debate have said over the years, none of it fits their naturalistically restricted thinking.

See above, again. Put up or shut up, as they say.

Well, having provided plenty of evidence and arguments which are almost always dismissed by those whose opinions and ideas differ from mine, I decided that it would be just as worthwhile to point out the flaws that science exhibits - flaws that even scientists admit to.

What flaws?

You don't seem to understand the scientific process at all. You confuse tested theories (for which there is considerable evidence) with areas of uncertainty, conjecture and hypothesis. You also seem unable to identify pre-science ideas.

Is that why there are a number of different interpretations of details and timings, etc.

Because there are some areas of uncertainty where there isn't sufficient evidence. Science has a method to identify areas that are well supported by evidence and can attempt to find evidence for hypotheses that aren't - in exactly the same way religion hasn't and can't.

[ippy]

If this irrefutable evidence was found proving the existence this he she or it figure, commonly referred to as god, no matter how it's referred to, it's remotely possible  the whole of the world's media might, just about, have taken some  interest in this sort of story?

It's also possible that the said irrefutable evidence that hasn't turned up yet; if this evidence were to make it's self known I can't think for one moment that any one of the individual religious zealots would ever stop telling us all about it ad nauseam yuk; mind you I don't think it's very likely, it'll be bordering on a zero likelihood of that  ever happening.

So in short, to make it easier for Hope to misquote me, again, no large scale media event there's no viable evidence to be had, from any source, including the elusive and mysterious missing evidence from we all know where.

ippy