Journal The Masked Fruitcake's Journal: Freedom *of* religion, continued 7
Yes, under such an argument morals would be relative. I wasn't arguing for the existance of absolute morals, I was arguing for the existance of a majority consensus of morality. And in the world today there is, indeed, a general agreement of what's moral and what's not. Killing is bad. Stealing is bad. Hurting people is bad. Things like that.
Ah! Thank you for clarifying, and my apologies for misunderstanding you. Now I know where we stand, and I can discuss relativism with you.
So if a majority can define morality, what defines a majority? Suppose I go find myself an unoccupied island that nobody cares about in the Caribbean, I take it over, and declare the island to be the sovereign nation of Mattopia. And furthermore, I declare that on Mattopia, it is perfectly acceptable to beat one's slaves on the head with coconuts, just for no reason in particular. Does this make me right? After all, the definition of "majority" depends entirely upon the size of the subset you're examining. If I say that slaves have no authority in the matter, only my own self-appointed "Congress of Mattopia", and I carry a majority in my Congress, then am I morally right?
To take a real-world example, when the majority of the world thought it was okay to carry out Roman slavery, were they morally right? What about when the majority of ancient cultures thought it was okay to sacrifice their children to false gods? Were they morally right? Now I know they no longer exist, but that doesn't matter. My question is, were they morally justified *at that time* just because they were in the majority? You cannot deny that there have been such cultures in the past. So when they were burning children alive, were they morally right or morally wrong?
My point here is that under your model, you have no authority to judge those cultures for what they did. You must admit that they were morally justified, because they had the majority of the population approving of those actions. That is why relativism is a heinous idea, and it cannot be true. We *can* say that those cultures were morally wrong, and what they did was utterly reprehensible, because we have a set of absolute standards, given by God, that govern right and wrong.
That society is flourishing shows to me that we're not doing too badly, and perhaps even getting better. At least in the part of the world I'm from, we don't persecute people much. People aren't nailed on crosses or burnt at the stake for being witches. And, in my own experience, the majority of people I've met are very very nice people indeed.
Interesting. Why do Islamic Middle Eastern countries flourish, then? They execute people for having discussions like we are now. But they're still selling plenty of oil. They seem to be doing fine, but the majority of them are not very nice people.
[...two examples of nice people...] So yep, I believe people are really very very nice. Most of the people I know either don't believe in God, or are undecided upon the subject. And yet they're exceedingly nice people. I even like to think I'm not too bad a person myself.
That doesn't explain the presence of all the crime that goes on in any given country. If humanity is naturally good, why do people commit murders? I believe that the reason your acquiantances are nice is called "common grace." Man is naturally sinful, but God grants all men a certain measure of "common grace" that restrains us from constantly committing the worst sins we could possibly think of. This is different from saving grace, whereby we become righteous before God. Not all men are given saving grace, but all men are granted a measure of common grace. Common grace does not prevent some men from committing terrible crimes, but it does prevent us from *all* committing those terrible crimes.
If it's an inherent rule of the Universe, then arguing how it can possibly be enforced or understood is the same as arguing how gravity pulls me down to earth despite my best efforts to outwit it.
You're right! It is the same! Gravity is governed by God too!
Man has managed to create artificial environments with absolute morals. In the Quake "Universe", one is rewarded for killing. The computer isn't intelligent, it just enforces a set of rules.
You make a critical assumption here--namely, that the morals in man's artificial environments *are* absolute. You are wrong. Man set those rules into place. If one man can set rules into place, another man can set rules that contradict the first man's. No absolutism here.
Arguing the mechanism behind these rules is irrelevent.
No it isn't. Depending upon the mechanism behind these rules, they may or may not be worth following. That depends on what mechanism is enforcing the rules. One can cheat in Quake, and not be any worse off, in terms of the game's "absolute morals".
Some things are there just because they are there. Subatomic particles sometimes disappear from one place and reappear somewhere else (quantum tunneling, and so forth). Why? Just because that's the way the Universe is made.
See? Right here you admit that these things happen "because that's the way the Universe is made." I agree with you. God made the universe a certain way, with rules that must be followed. That's why these things happen. God has given us ample evidence in the Bible that this is true. From the passage I quoted earlier, man is "without excuse" when it comes to recognizing "His eternal power and Godhead" (Romans 1).
If morals are subjective, then by definition the only morals that matter to me are my own. I don't particularly want to murder anyone. In fact I don't believe it's right for the life of anyone to be taken away. Intellectually, I may rationalise it, but generally, it's just something I find morally wrong. In other words, it matters to me, and what else is there to know? If I think killing is inherently wrong, then why would the opinion of God or anyone else matter to my morality?
Allow me to take on your view of relativism for a moment. In this case, the reason you should care about anyone else's morality is that that "anyone else" may be able to enforce their differing morality upon you. Your morality carries only as much weight as you can enforce it with. Assume for a moment that we have only two people on the entire planet--Joe and Bob. Joe believes that murder is wrong. Bob believes that murder is right. One of these individuals has to be incorrect in his beliefs--they cannot both be right, because they believe in totally opposite things. The question of murder being "right" or "wrong" is a binary issue, and you must get a boolean answer out of it. It's a yes or no question. So which one is right, and which one is wrong? Relativism doesn't make any sense, because relativism dictates that at any given point in history, either one of these people could be right. Maybe in 200 B.C., Joe is right, whereas in A.D. 3000, Bob is right. But this doesn't make any sense!
See, Joe and Bob are on equal ground. Both of them are just men. Both of them are 35-year-old software engineers. Both of them drive Toyota Camrys. What makes one's opinion better than the other? They cannot both be right. But without God, neither of them has any authority to base his opinions on. One can appeal to "nature", one can appeal to "my pet hamster", but neither of them has any valid cause to assert his belief over the other's. This is why moral relativism simply does not work. You can say that "majority rules", but what happens when there is no majority? When both sides hold to mutually exclusive views, someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong.
Well, what I actually meant was how do you define meaning, not what was the meaning. "Meaning" is a wonderfully vague term.
Ah. Webster's definition is as good as any for now: Meaning: n. That which is meant or intended; intent; purpose; aim; object; as, a mischievous meaning was apparent. Or if you've had philosophy classes, I think (IIRC) it was referred to in the single one that I took as the "summum bonum" or something like that. Ties in with teleology--what is the purpose of man? What is the highest (or chief) end?
As an aside, if the entire Universe was created to glorify God, what does that say about the Creators ego? And why give us free will at all, if that's the case? Remarkably charitably of him, I'm sure, but what if glorifying him isn't in my schedule?
If glorifying Him isn't in your schedule, then He will still be glorified by demonstrating His justice by condemning you to hell for eternity. God will be ultimately glorified, either through your salvation or through your damnation. In both cases, his attributes are being displayed--in the former, his grace and mercy, and in the latter, his ultimate justice. God gave us free will because He loved us. He will be glorified no matter how we use it; it's only a question of which of His attributes will be glorified by any given person.
I mean, if I created an artificial intelligence at one point of human interlect, I wouldn't be too miffed if it decided not to glorify me.
That's a broken analogy. Mankind is no "artificial intelligence". The two are not analogous. God created us in His image. That is vastly and materially different from us building a computer. I don't think we can comprehend God's point of view, because we are not God. We do not have the power to even come close to emulating what He did in the creation. We cannot create an "artificial intelligence" in our image, as God created us in His.
And, if you'll excuse me here, but I really must be honest, it seems morally wrong to punish my creation for eternity if it decides not to glorify me of it's own accord. Especially if I haven't bothered to talk to it directly and point this fact out.
Unfortunately for unbelieving mankind, God *has* "bothered" to talk to us directly and point the fact out. It's called the Bible. I've briefly quoted from it. The Bible is God's Word. It is His direct revelation to man, and it tells us all that we need to know about Him and His plan for our redemption. God has also revealed His presence in His very creation. The evidence is all around us.
I skipped the next part discussing meaning, because now I'm not sure we were both on the same page. Revisit it, if you wish, with my definition of meaning, and make your arguments in that light. Though it sounds like you ought to read the book of Ecclesiastes. It's not too long, and it comes at your notion of finding "subjective meaning" as being vain. Why labor and toil, if all comes to nothing?
Now this is something I've always thought was a little unfair. In the atheists minds, God doesn't exist, so they're not deberately slapping Him in the face.
I've already pointed you to the Scripture that indicates that there is no excuse for them "not knowing" that God exists. And I've already pointed out that Scripture is the Word of God, given to us so that we might know. There is no excuse. The analogy holds.
You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me like this?" Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?
What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? (Romans 9:19-24)
This passage is actually in the context of divine election--that is, God chooses those whom He will save, and those whom He will damn. But I think it is very appropriate here. The atheist, if he continues in his rebellious beliefs, is an example of a "vessel of wrath", designed by God so that He might make known His glorious grace and mercy upon His followers.
The main problem is, that if someone doesn't believe in my existance, they're not necessarily doing it to spite me. An atheist doesn't go, "Hey, God put me here, so ha ha, I'm going to disbelieve in him."
Unfortunately for them, that's exactly what they're doing. They are spurning all the evidence that God has placed before them. There is no excuse for them. That much should be clear after reading this far.
Of course, if a chance is taken to repent, then really that makes it all good. When I die, and if God exists, he can say "Hey," and reveal to me Himself in all His glory. I'll nod and reconsider my views on the subject, and say, "Hmm, well, I rather think you do exist, and was quite wrong not to believe my soul reason for being was to glorify you." Of course, if I have to repent whilst I'm still alive, then God's being a teensy bit unfair on the matter.
What is this "unfairness" that you're talking about? "...who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'Why have you made me like this?'" Your only chance for salvation is repentance and belief in Jesus Christ, while you're alive here. Those who die unregenerate will indeed confess that Christ is Lord, but it will be a confession in fear and trembling, on their way to eternal torment in hell.
For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written: "As I live, says the LORD, every knee shall bow to Me, and every tongue shall confess to God." So then each of us shall give account of himself to God. (Romans 14:11-12)
So I keep an open mind on Christainity, but I'm not a Christian any more than I am a Buddhist or a Jew.
The only place that open mind will get you is condemned by all the religions you sample from. That is what is so sad about people who form a sort of "conglomerate" belief out of a bunch of different religions--most if not all of those religions would condemn such people anyway. You're not gaining anything by straddling any fences. The fact of the matter is, you really *aren't* straddling any fences. There's only one "fence", and by refusing to acknowledge Christ as your Lord and Savior, you've chosen which side of the fence you're going to stand on.
Matt
Re: Whatever :) (Score:2)
Sorry for taking a little while to reply. There's no way I know of on the /.
comment system to "watch" a thread for new activity. So I didn't notice this
post for a while, and, of course, there was the mess about /. archiving discussions.
My point here is that under your model, you have no authority to judge those cultures for what they did. You must admit that they were morally justified, because they had the majority of the population approving of those actions. That is why relativism is a heinous ide
Re: Whatever :) (Score:1)
You're missing the point about subjectivity.
No, I got the point. And I'm saying it's stupid.
I can look at some historical practises and say, yep, they look immoral to me. I don't ca
Re: Whatever :) (Score:2)
There's a lot of very interesting points in this discussion. But I have intentionally dropped a few lines just for the sake of keeping this length reasonable. If you want to revisit a point I've dropped, then by all means please bring it to my attention again.
Don't worry, I feel the same way. If we answered every point we'd just end up with something getting longer and longer and longer.
No, I got the point. And I'm saying it's stupid. :)
If you get my point, why do you continue to act like you d
Re: Whatever :) (Score:1)
I am trying to point out the folly of your viewpoint. I'm beginning to think that it's you who doesn't understand your viewpoint. I may not be the most articulate person to walk the earth, but I certainly get your point. "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the hearts." (Proverbs 21:2). The first part neatly sums up your position, and the second one neatly sums up my response.
Re: Whatever :) (Score:2)
So your system will not work anytime there is not a clear majority. It breaks down in the example we started with, where we have only two people.
If there were two people with radically different ideas about morality, then yes. If two people are stuck on an island, with one person thinking murder is right, and the other taking the more traditional view that murder is wrong, then there's obviously going to be problems.
What about Joe? Poor Joe! He just thinks he's doing the right thing, and all of a sud
Re: Whatever :) (Score:1)
Re: Whatever :) (Score:2)
I have very little more to say about moral subjectivity. I congratulate you; before this conversation I had not yet met anyone who was willing to follow out moral relativism to its utter ends and say that all that matters is the views of the individual, under any circumstances. I still marvel that you are willing to do so, but you have proven yourself consistent. You believe that man cannot commit sin, because whatever man does is an outworking of his moral views, and whatever his moral views are, he is ri