The inferior "objective" morality of faith

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby Arminius » Thu Apr 07, 2016 7:19 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:Today, people don't kill adulterers ....

This is true for Christians but not for Moslems.

In islamic societies killing adulterers has been increasing.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Thu Apr 07, 2016 7:47 pm

phyllo wrote:
If a morality was objective and pure, and one has received the "holy spirit" as is "gifted" to us from "God" to guide us in our actions nad understanding through subsequent generations after Jesus' visit, then there ought not be any change to this morality of "God's".
Objective does not mean unchangeable. Since the world changes continuously, objective means being in synch with these changes.
That is demonstrated by evolution ... changes in the environment determine which animals and plants survive, which produces changes in the characteristics of the animals.


How would an objective perfect morality require change from a Christian POV?
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby Uccisore » Thu Apr 07, 2016 7:49 pm

phyllo wrote:Your complaint, in that case, is that they use God as the justification rather than explaining it in terms of their own values.
:-k Seems much more efficient to use God because the explanation in terms of values will be long and drawn out. And maybe they are not good with words but they feel what they do is right.


Which means, at root, it is a complaint about how (his charactiture of) religious people act, and not an actual criticism of any value system. No surprise there. There's not going to be any actual discussion of ethical systems in this thread, just a criticism of a stereotype of religious people, combined with an insistence that the stereotype applies enough to be relevant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby phyllo » Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:14 pm

How would an objective perfect morality require change from a Christian POV?
As civilization matures, judgements change because a mature mind can understand more complex reasoning. The morality adapts to the educational level and ability of the people. Jesus spoke in parables because that's what his audience would understand.

As well, certain problems did not arise does to the limitations of the time. Therefore, Jesus said nothing about abortion or cloning. Now we have to think about new problems.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11902
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby Uccisore » Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:18 pm

phyllo wrote:
How would an objective perfect morality require change from a Christian POV?
As civilization matures, judgements change because a mature mind can understand more complex reasoning. The morality adapts to the educational level and ability of the people. Jesus spoke in parables because that's what his audience would understand.

As well, certain problems did not arise does to the limitations of the time. Therefore, Jesus said nothing about abortion or cloning. Now we have to think about new problems.


Also, Christianity =/ Evangelical Protestantism. Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox Church can and do change because the core of their faith is a living tradition, not a static text. If you take those two groups together, they are by far the majority of Christendom. This idea that Christians have ever and can ever believe things explicitly stated in a particular translation of the Bible comes from atheists who are only familiar with the American Midwest expression of Christianity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby phyllo » Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:22 pm

It's odd because WW3_angry said that he had a Catholic education, yet there is a distinct bitterness towards what most resembles Evangelical Protestantism.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11902
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:32 pm

phyllo wrote:
How would an objective perfect morality require change from a Christian POV?
As civilization matures, judgements change because a mature mind can understand more complex reasoning. The morality adapts to the educational level and ability of the people. Jesus spoke in parables because that's what his audience would understand.

As well, certain problems did not arise does to the limitations of the time. Therefore, Jesus said nothing about abortion or cloning. Now we have to think about new problems.



How does "God" change his judgment? You're saying judgments change, but yes, that's of the people. But they already received the "word of God' and that "doesn't change".
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby phyllo » Thu Apr 07, 2016 8:40 pm

How does "God" change his judgment?
So you think that God would judge a child in the same way that He would judge an adult? Or judge a mentally ill person the same as a mentally healthy one?
But they already received the "word of God' and that "doesn't change".
The word is interpreted by men and women and they have changed.

Atheists are always complaining that the Bible is full of contradictory statements. And that's true. A mature mind is better able to understand these contradictions and produce a better interpretation of "the word".
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11902
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:28 pm

phyllo wrote:
How does "God" change his judgment?
So you think that God would judge a child in the same way that He would judge an adult? Or judge a mentally ill person the same as a mentally healthy one?
But they already received the "word of God' and that "doesn't change".
The word is interpreted by men and women and they have changed.

Atheists are always complaining that the Bible is full of contradictory statements. And that's true. A mature mind is better able to understand these contradictions and produce a better interpretation of "the word".


I agree, the word is interpreted by men and women and they have changed. I don't know of any theology that allows for god changing judgment for society for the 2,000 years since Jesus. You're probably getting into some cult like religions that may try to justify some new morality. Perhaps the "God hates fags" group can rationalize their stance that way too. But what it all comes down to, is "interpretation". But there's not much room for interpretation difference on many things that change, nonetheless.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby phyllo » Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:45 pm

But there's not much room for interpretation difference on many things that change, nonetheless.
Such as?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11902
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby Uccisore » Thu Apr 07, 2016 9:51 pm

phyllo wrote:It's odd because WW3_angry said that he had a Catholic education, yet there is a distinct bitterness towards what most resembles Evangelical Protestantism.



It's weird. He studied Christian theology for 20 years, and yet he's asking you to explain to him the basics of God's speaking through Scripture and the Church. If he spent that whole 20 years 'studying theology' as a member of a Baptist Church I could perhaps understand it.

It does make you wonder why an alleged experienced Catholic is equating sola scriptura with basic Christianity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Thu Apr 07, 2016 10:10 pm

phyllo wrote:
But there's not much room for interpretation difference on many things that change, nonetheless.
Such as?


Keep holy the Sabbath, for one. Is it ok to interpret it as not keeping holy the sabbath? To not do work on Sunday?
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby phyllo » Thu Apr 07, 2016 10:21 pm

Keep holy the Sabbath, for one. Is it ok to interpret it as not keeping holy the sabbath? To not do work on Sunday?
Well, clearly you could interpret the meaning of the word 'work'. And you could say that picking up sticks in your garden is not work.

And you could say that some work is acceptable since other moral considerations are more important. Therefore, emergency and medical work is justified.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11902
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby Uccisore » Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:02 pm

Jesus was criticized for working on the Sabbath.

Great example of a passage that's not open to interpretation, there. #-o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8mPuckq ... ure=vmdshb

http://deepfreeze.it/ Curious about corrupt practices in video game journalism? Look no further.
User avatar
Uccisore
The Legitimatizer
 
Posts: 13279
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2002 8:14 pm
Location: Deep in the forests of Maine

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:04 pm

phyllo wrote:
Keep holy the Sabbath, for one. Is it ok to interpret it as not keeping holy the sabbath? To not do work on Sunday?
Well, clearly you could interpret the meaning of the word 'work'. And you could say that picking up sticks in your garden is not work.

And you could say that some work is acceptable since other moral considerations are more important. Therefore, emergency and medical work is justified.


Whatever, picking up sticks was a trivial example. Work in general. Picking up sticks is work for some, an a jolly good ole time for others, I'm sure. Might be even erotic for a select few.
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby peitho » Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:06 pm

What method do you all use to decide what is more likely fact and what is most likely fable?
How do you all qualify your beliefs and call them to knowledge?

Step - by - step
peitho
 
Posts: 438
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:22 pm

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Thu Apr 07, 2016 11:54 pm

peitho wrote:What method do you all use to decide what is more likely fact and what is most likely fable?
How do you all qualify your beliefs and call them to knowledge?

Step - by - step


Well perhaps you should read this first, actually. :)

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=190004&start=150#p2594764
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Fri Apr 08, 2016 4:36 pm

All human morality and ethics is based upon bullshit along with not diddly squat. The end.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby iambiguous » Fri Apr 08, 2016 5:28 pm

WW_III_ANGRY wrote: So you find your values in this political framework, if you will, as I see it?


Yes, but, more crucially, I believe this:

That the particular political framework that any of us might come to embody in our interactions with others from day to day is largely an existential fabrication/contraption rooted inter-subjectively in history, culture and personal experience. In other words, rather than in [as some argue] a narrative/agenda said to reflect [philosophically, epistemologically] the most rational/virtuous manner in which one can come to think, to feel to behave with or around others.

Also, that political frameworks come to clash "for all practical purposes" around conflicting goods. That's the second part of my own personal dilemma here. Even if I can determine in essence Who I Am in moral/political conflicts with others, my arguments are no less based on the assumptions that I make about issues like abortion. Just as their own are. And my premises don't make their premises go away anymore than their premises make mine go away.

iambiguous wrote:But then he is a flagrant, doctrinaire objectivist -- both politically and religiously. So, from my perspective, how deeply can we ever expect his thinking here to actually go?

And, regarding my own daughter, I made it abundantly clear to her that my own moral and political values were largely existential fabrications/contraptions. And that there does not appear to way a way in which to "reason" morality into existence.

Although, sure, there actually may well be. I can only be persuaded or not persuaded of this.


WW_III_ANGRY wrote: Sure, aren't they all existential fabrications? It is merely just a judgment of good and bad...


Yes, but in a world sans God, few folks grapple with the implications of that as I do. Most embrace one or another rendition of "humanism". They come to believe that mere mortals have the capacity to reason their way toward "natural rights"; and toward "enlightened" moral and political philosophies.

For myself however any capacity to accomplish this is then confronted with the profoundly ambiguous and inherently problematic nature of dasein and conflicting goods. There are no moral obligations that one can ascertain as a "serious philosopher", only particular prejudices that come and go over the years.

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:However if people believe in God, then there's no reason to discuss values.


iambiguous wrote:Or, perhaps, any discussion here will revolve by and large around convincing others that their own God reflects the highest values. Though even here that will often revolve around a subjective interpretation of what is said to be the one and only rational [or spiritually correct] manner in which to construe God's agenda in the Bible.

Just think how ludicrous it is that, while Jews, Christians and Moslems all speak of a God's, the God's, my God's authority in different ways, they are all speaking of the same God!

They will then even go on "crusades" or "jihads" in order to impose their own understanding of this God and the "Good" on the "infidels".

But: What they won't do [at least not with me] is to discuss the existential relationship between their moral values on this side of the grave and their imagined fate on the other side.


WW_III_ANGRY wrote: I wouldn't necessarily think they are speaking of the same god. Rather, every single person has an individual god, which is their own personal idea of what god is.


From my frame of mind though this is no less rooted in historical and cultural contexts; and in the individual experiences that we have. And even to the extent God is deemed "personal", one still comes into conflict with others, such that the manner in which they construe this personal God becomes a part of their moral and political agenda; such that, in turn, the manner in which they choose to behave on this side of the grave becomes the embodiment of what they imagine their fate to be on the other side of it.

Yet it is when I seek to probe this utterly crucial relationship existentially that many here will back off. In my view, they wish to keep this solely on a philosophical plane. As though with respect to moral conflicts, immortality and salvation -- the relationship between them -- they can just make the world that we live in -- that we clash mightily in -- go away.

And I'm just trying to prod them into expounding on these things existentially so that [perhaps] the rather glum [grim] conclusions that I have come to can begin to crumble in turn.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 36134
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby WW_III_ANGRY » Fri Apr 08, 2016 7:00 pm

I visited the state capitol building and went to their library, fairly interesting. They had a nice collection of some very old books, one of which showed some laws for the colonies pre U.S.A.

One can see the conveyance of Christian morality inherent within the laws, which are often a reflection of "morality" or a general moral consensus, of some sort of the people.


Image

Image

Image
User avatar
WW_III_ANGRY
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3485
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:52 am

Re: The inferior "objective" morality of faith

Postby Mictlantecuhtli » Sat Apr 09, 2016 10:57 pm

Christianity the ultimate religious hypocrisy.
Civilization is a ship of fools headed to a one way destination of catastrophe and annihilation, its many captains populated by asshole-idiots that all agree it is unsinkable.

Image
User avatar
Mictlantecuhtli
Nihilistic Mystic And Hermit
 
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 1:31 am
Location: Concrete Wilderness.

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users