Question for NotReady

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
whenever anyone says meaning or purpose ... and you insist on ultimateness even when that's not what was meant.

Even your use of knowledge in the post I quoted. When you claim to know something in that way you're not using the word knowledge in the way most people do - that alone makes you look arrogant.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
These are good examples. Him hand-waving over my post earlier because of the word "creation" is a good one too. I get the feeling he knows we know he knows he is doing this, so why continue?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a very fine question.

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the idea behind this presumption is linked with the notion that humans are the pinnacle of creation

[/ QUOTE ]
Its all ego. Center of the universe, important to some almighty god etc

Also the idea that there's some grand scheme with eternal existence of souls yet somehow its this infinitesimal slice of life we happen to be in now that matters so much and decides our eternal fate. Stunning egoism.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]
Well put. Kind of hard to expect a rational person to set this aside. I was hoping for some theist responses on this topic because it is really my core objection to religion(s).

[/ QUOTE ]
I did respond though it's apparently not clear whether I'm a theist, atheist or agnostic. Nonetheless, I call myself both Christian and religious.

I dont think this egocentric approach is necessary to christianity (and certainly not to religion more broadly). I do not believe in God because of what's in it for me. I also dont happen to find my life particularly more important now that I believe in a God who cares about me. It's true that a number of my views are probably unchristian as americans understand the term, so perhaps the importance of humans is central to "official" christianity (whatever that is). Nonetheless, it is not true to say it is a central, essential quality of religion in general.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]

My position is that you can't derive an absolute from a relative. But when I state God as an absolute premise I'm not deriving an absolute from a relative - I'm stating that it's a premise that God is absolute and that without an absolute morality is relative.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the necessity of absolute morality. Even in a religious based ethics, morality is ultimately dependent upon the nature of man qua man, and his relation to a fundamental aspect of existence (in this case God). In other words, to follow a religious moral code, you must *first* determine that it is "good" in some sense for man to obey God's will.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm simply offering the logical argument for the necessity of an absolute morality - something which can't be done apart from God. And if morality isn't absolute there can be no ought.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary, a religious based morality ultimately renders an absolute, object theory of ethics impossible. It is a proverbial house built of cards. The incoherent, unintelligible concept of "God's will" can (and quite often is) be interpreted to mean literally anything.

It's a similar reason as to why theories constructed by scientists using the scientific method are much more accurate, consistent, and predictive of the workings of the universe than, say, the revelations put forth by would be prophets, or the dogma defended by devout believers.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

In other words, to follow a religious moral code, you must *first* determine that it is "good" in some sense for man to obey God's will.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you first determine what is good apart from God then God isn't God.

[ QUOTE ]

On the contrary, a religious based morality ultimately renders an absolute, object theory of ethics impossible.


[/ QUOTE ]

A morality that is based on an absolute must, by definition, be based on God.

[ QUOTE ]

The incoherent, unintelligible concept of "God's will" can (and quite often is) be interpreted to mean literally anything.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you are free to state anything you please. Basing your morality on finite man doesn't cure that.

[ QUOTE ]

It's a similar reason as to why theories constructed by scientists using the scientific method are much more accurate, consistent, and predictive of the workings of the universe than, say, the revelations put forth by would be prophets, or the dogma defended by devout believers.


[/ QUOTE ]

What can science ever have to say about morality?

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In other words, to follow a religious moral code, you must *first* determine that it is "good" in some sense for man to obey God's will.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you first determine what is good apart from God then God isn't God.

[ QUOTE ]

On the contrary, a religious based morality ultimately renders an absolute, object theory of ethics impossible.


[/ QUOTE ]

A morality that is based on an absolute must, by definition, be based on God.

[ QUOTE ]

The incoherent, unintelligible concept of "God's will" can (and quite often is) be interpreted to mean literally anything.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you are free to state anything you please. Basing your morality on finite man doesn't cure that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't need to respond directly to your statements because they beautifully demonstrate the points I made.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's a similar reason as to why theories constructed by scientists using the scientific method are much more accurate, consistent, and predictive of the workings of the universe than, say, the revelations put forth by would be prophets, or the dogma defended by devout believers.


[/ QUOTE ]

What can science ever have to say about morality?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing. You completely missed my point.