Wet Dream Forum

OK you are closer to the Catholic doctrine of "justification through faith and virtue". This means that part of your salvation is dependent on God's unending love for humanity and also partly based on how you lead your life. In this model, "sin" is that which keeps us from God and "Hell" is a separation from the Father.

Why did God instill in humans free-will to disobey His morality and commit Evil?

How do you know that God has not abandoned his creation?

You can draw ethics from nature:
You can adopt a survival of the fittest mentality and therefore it is 'right' to abort abnormal foetuses, not treat the sick or euthanise.
Perhaps you can adopt a morality based on human selfishness and everything is 'right' if it serves your interest. This way it's 'right' for me to rob or steal from others.
Hedonism has already been discussed which of course means it is 'right' to obey sexual urges.

Why are any of these ethical systems unsuitable? Why did you choose to become a Christian?

Yo Youup!

On with the interview:

"Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will though it makes evil
possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or
joy worth having. A world of automata-of creatures that worked like
machines-would hardly be worth creating. The happiness which God designs for
His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to
Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which
the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk
and water. And for that they must be free.
Of course God knew what would happen if they used their freedom the
wrong way: apparently He thought it worth the risk" (C.S.Lewis, "Mere Christianity")

----------
One of the strongest inductive proofs for theism is the observation of the Moral Law--the majority of peoples around the globe feel (and think) as if they ought to act a certain way. If you, like me, believe this 'influence' comes from God, then it's pretty obvious God hasn't left us.

----------

All the nature-drawn ethics you mentioned are still subjective if they're not coming from the Mind whom we are all derived from. Must I clarify this position further?

-----------

As I said in my first post (which I have re-posted), the decision of being a theist over an atheist in fundamentally that--a decision; for both views could be justified. But I MUCH rather choose the theistic worldview--one where an objective morality exists, one where Reason is a tool to seek truth, one where something much greater and deeper exists than just the material universe--over the atheistic worldview (where I can't even say Hitler was wrong). But it's a choice. Then comes an examination of the different religions, seeing which one 'fits the evidence' best--which is Christianity, IMO.

----------

So....HOW ABOUT YOU???

cheers

_________________
"The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection." -C.S. Lewis

But he didn't. He just said that his view is not unique in the slightest, that it's as much a consequence of the culture he grew up in, as is the mystical view of the world by the Zen Buddhists of East Asia. That doesn't mean it's wrong, just that it (Lewis' epistemological system) is subjective, like theirs. That it has as much divine revelation and objectivity as theirs.



I myself failed to understand how your quote was related to the differences between moral systems. I'd imagine that a lot of other people did too. Care to explain in your own words, plain-spoken?



Personally, I don't care. I think that all humans are naturally tribalistic and thus hold their beliefs, and those who share them, above the rest of humanity. After all, if they didn't, how could they hold anything in value? The guy who you responded to did say that he thought that Lewis was a colonialist based on the fact that he completely ignores native African religions, something I might agree to, if I didn't myself hold certain contempt towards them.



And that makes it all the more dangerous. You know who have (had) absolute, morally objective values? It's the people who who did the London 2005 bombings, or the Tokyo sarin attacks. People who are absolutely convinced that they are in the right, that they have absolute moral backing, are far more dangerous than the ones that think that morality is subjective. After all, when people admit they may have radically different views on morality, the only consensus they can agree on the matter of society and general morality is "do no harm". Something which secular western nations have (mostly) grasped.

But I disagree with you, objective morality can exist in a materialistic world-view. After, as biology advances and explains more and more about human emotional systems and the moral systems that are based on them, wouldn't that be what you might call an objective view on morality? View of what the moral systems actually are, in (probabilistic; scientific) truth? I wouldn't also find it at all surprising if certain moral behavioural patterns can be established, the basis of what people see as good and evil. Who knows, if god permits, we might actually work out a societal agreement that would fit with most people.

I was waiting on that argument for free-will - it is a beautiful concept.

As shining has said, a moral system based on natural phenomena like selfishness or survival of the fittest is not a subjective morality - it is objective because it is based on unchanging nature. Humans don't decide to be selfish - they inherently are selfish and are taught otherwise.

The "inductive proof" of God from Moral law is weak and preys upon people's emotions. The fact that the majority of people feel and think they ought to do something is proof only that humans are capable of developing moral thoughts, nothing more. Typically this "inductive proof" is used as a last resort - a Christian protagonist will ask emotionally-charged questions such as, "Raise your hand here if you think killing people is wrong." or "Raise your hand if you think hospitals should be closed." and the audience will mostly respond by raising their hands. The protagonist then says that this shared morality is a sign that a single source - God - has influenced every human being. Rather, the truth is that humans think moral thoughts and the audience frames their moral thoughts by their shared cultural context - God had nothing to do with it.

You could always alter the scenario and say that two people from different cultures would tend to agree to the same morality and how could this be because they don't share the same cultural context? As long as both subjects are human, they will most likely live in human societies that have developed their cultural and moral framework around facing the human condition - humans are social, societal, useful, die, etc. If every society has it as its priority to ensure its survivability, then it isn't surprising that all humans living in society think that certain actions that work against this aim e.g. not caring for the sick, indiscriminate killing, theft, selfishness against its members etc. are immoral.

Some people make decisions on their faith for the wrong reasons. shining gives the example of moral absolutists who commited the London bombings implying it was an atrocity. A homosexual might refuse Christianity because it states the God forbids sodomy. Refusing to believe in supernatural moral absolutism because you disagree with the morality is wrong because within that system of morality, it is not the human subject who decides, it is God. Denying this moral absolutism, like denying the landmass of North America, doesn't affect whether is it exists or not.

Somebody quoted something from here to... Somewhere. Also, somebody stole my post there (shining) and copypasted it here, so I'm obliged to ask and troll.

There I asked the reasoning behind the argument "morality proves that (a) god exists". I got no answer, surprisingly. Seeing that this thread which I perused through very quickly harbours many believers, I would like to ask that question here. What is the reasoning behind that argument? How does one move from

A: There is a sense of morality in all humans (and most other pack primates, I would like to add)
to
B: God exists

And to connect this point to Christianity, how does that sense prove that it is the Christian God that exists?

gotryfag, you can refer to the middle paragraphs of my last post for the counter-argument. I'll re-iterate the main points here now.

That humans share a capacity for moral thoughts and supposedly most humans think the same way morally, then humans must share a common source for this morality. That common source is labelled as God, not as I argue, sharing a similar social or cultural context based on the human condition.

Once they have given evidence for God in this way, the Christian evangelists usually run the line that they have "evidence-based faith". This means that the existence of God is undeniable through the above "proof" and that based on other evidence, e.g. historical records of the resurrection of the Christ, they say that this God that exists must be the Christian God because Christianity makes most sense of the evidence at hand.

Hey all! Nice to see more people in here.

Sorry I didn't reply yesterday, I was gone in a church camp. If you guys don't mind, I will try to address only the issues which I deem most important.

1) This is to Youup.

I completely agree that societies with moral citizens will survive better than ones with immoral citizens, and thus via natural selection people will be moral. Now that explains why we are moral, but it does not provide a morality (or an "ought-ness") on its own. Here's why:

"From propositions about fact alone no 'practical' conclusion can ever be drawn. 'This will preserve society' cannot lead to 'do this' except by the mediation of 'society ought to be preserved'. 'This will cost you your life' cannot lead directly to 'do not do this': it can lead to it only through a felt desire or an acknowledged duty of self-preservation. [You] are trying to get a conclusion in the imperative mood out of premises in the indicative mood: and though [you] [continue] trying to all eternity [you] cannot succeed, for the thing is impossible" (C.S. Lewis, from "Abolition of Man").

2) This is to shining

I appreciate the fact that you're trying to give Thor the benefit of the doubt. It's true he never explicitly said he disagrees with the quote, and perhaps I was bashing down a straw man. Sorry if this is the case. I however, could not help but feel he was trying to bash Lewis down considering all the spiteful comments he made about Lewis before; ones such as "Lewis should have stuck to writing fiction for children instead of defending fiction for adults."

Also, if you wanna play the game of pointing fingers by talking about radical bombers, I could just as easily talk about atheist Stalin. Based on my numerous apologetic debates, this game never leads to anywhere--trust me on this one.

3) This is to Gotryfag

God is the source of objective morality, by definition.

------------

Try to keep your replies compact!

_________________
"The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection." -C.S. Lewis

//I completely agree that societies with moral citizens will survive better than ones with immoral citizens, and thus via natural selection people will be moral. Now that explains why we are moral, but it does not provide a morality (or an "ought-ness") on its own.//

If you read further you will find that I said morality develops from society's facing the human condition and laws of nature.

//"From propositions about fact alone no 'practical' conclusion can ever be drawn. 'This will preserve society' cannot lead to 'do this' except by the mediation of 'society ought to be preserved'. 'This will cost you your life' cannot lead directly to 'do not do this': it can lead to it only through a felt desire or an acknowledged duty of self-preservation. [You] are trying to get a conclusion in the imperative mood out of premises in the indicative mood: and though [you] [continue] trying to all eternity [you] cannot succeed, for the thing is impossible" (C.S. Lewis, from "Abolition of Man").//

Referencing this quote further shows your confusion over the development of a morality from the human condition. C.S. Lewis is right: you need the moral thought of "society ought be preserved" or self-preservation to decide to "do this". But you don't need a God as the source of this "oughtness". Self-preservation is a instinct of all animals including humans - it is simply another feature developed through survival of the fitest. Other drives or instincts are similarly the basis for humans' thoughts and actions. The development of moral thought within the human psyche was just an evolution to reconcile these primal instincts with the additional benefits of living socially.

Sadly, this type of psychological insight only started to be widely recognised after Lewis' career. It is no surprise he drew these conclusions - he probably knew very little about the nature and evolution of the human and furthermore primate psyche and additionally thought humans were distinct from animals. The idea that an individual acts according to some outside force such as God and not to their instincts or personal desires is quite medieval but continued to exist through the Elizabethan Renaissance. Lewis is drawing more on this tradition. Today we know better because of scientific enquiry in the fields of biology, psychology, etc. and draw different conclusions.

On the contrary, Lewis knew exactly what you're trying to say. In fact, he debunks your position twice, in two separate books.

1) From "Mere Christianity"

For example, some people wrote to me saying, "Isn't what you call the
Moral Law simply our herd instinct and hasn't it been developed just like
all our other instincts?" Now I do not deny that we may have a herd
instinct: but that is not what I mean by the Moral Law. We all know what it
feels like to be prompted by instinct-by mother love, or sexual instinct, or
the instinct for food. It means that you feel a strong want or desire to act
in a certain way. And, of course, we sometimes do feel just that sort of
desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to the herd
instinct. But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that
you ought to help whether you want to or not. Supposing you hear a cry for
help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires-one a desire
to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of
danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside
you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that
you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run
away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which
should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say
that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note
on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard.
The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely
the keys.
Another way of seeing that the Moral Law is not simply one of our
instincts is this. If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in
a creature's mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of the
two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral
Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two
impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the
man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same.
And surely it often tells us to try to make the right impulse stronger than
it naturally is? I mean, we often feel it our duty to stimulate the herd
instinct, by waking up our imaginations and arousing our pity and so on, so
as to get up enough steam for doing the right thing. But clearly we are not
acting from instinct when we set about making an instinct stronger than it
is. The thing that says to you, "Your herd instinct is asleep. Wake it up,"
cannot itself be the herd instinct. The thing that tells you which note on
the piano needs to be played louder cannot itself be that note.
Here is a third way of seeing it If the Moral Law was one of our
instincts, we ought to be able to point to some one impulse inside us which
was always what we call "good," always in agreement with the rule of right
behaviour. But you cannot. There is none of our impulses which the Moral Law
may not sometimes tell us to suppress, and none which it may not sometimes
tell us to encourage. It is a mistake to think that some of our impulses-
say mother love or patriotism-are good, and others, like sex or the fighting
instinct, are bad. All we mean is that the occasions on which the fighting
instinct or the sexual desire need to be restrained are rather more frequent
than those for restraining mother love or patriotism. But there are
situations in which it is the duty of a married man to encourage his sexual
impulse and of a soldier to encourage the fighting instinct. There are also
occasions on which a mother's love for her own children or a man's love for
his own country have to be suppressed or they will lead to unfairness
towards other people's children or countries. Strictly speaking, there are
no such things as good and bad impulses. Think once again of a piano. It has
not got two kinds of notes on it, the "right" notes and the "wrong" ones.
Every single note is right at one time and wrong at another. The Moral Law
is not any one instinct or any set of instincts: it is something which makes
a kind of tune (the tune we call goodness or right conduct) by directing the
instincts.
By the way, this point is of great practical consequence. The most
dangerous thing you can do is to take any one impulse of your own nature and
set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all costs. There is not one of
them which will not make us into devils if we set it up as an absolute
guide. You might think love of humanity in general was safe, but it is not.
If you leave out justice you will find yourself breaking agreements and
faking evidence in trials "for the sake of humanity," and become in the end
a cruel and treacherous man.


2) From "The Abolition of Man"

But why ought we to obey Instinct? Is there another instinct of a higher order directing us to do so, and a third of a still higher order directing us to obey it?—an infinite regress of instincts? This is presumably impossible, but nothing else will serve. From the statement about psychological fact 'I have an impulse to do so and so' we cannot by any ingenuity derive the practical principle 'I ought to obey this impulse'. Even if it were true that men had a spontaneous, unreflective impulse to sacrifice their own lives for the preservation of their fellows, it remains a quite separate question whether this is an impulse they should control or one they should indulge. For even the Innovator admits that many impulses (those which conflict with the preservation of the species) have to be controlled. And this admission surely introduces us to a yet more fundamental difficulty.

Telling us to obey Instinct is like telling us to obey 'people'. People say different things: so do instincts. Our instincts are at war. If it is held that the instinct for preserving the species should always be obeyed at the expense of other instincts, whence do we derive this rule of precedence? To listen to that instinct speaking in its own cause and deciding it in its own favour would be rather simple-minded. Each instinct, if you listen to it, will claim to be gratified at the expense of all the rest. By the very act of listening to one rather than to others we have already prejudged the case. If we did not bring to the examination of our instincts a knowledge of their comparative dignity we could never learn it from them. And that knowledge cannot itself be instinctive: the judge cannot be one of the parties judged; or, if he is, the decision is worthless and there is no ground for placing the preservation of the species above self-preservation or sexual appetite.

The idea that, without appealing to any court higher than the instincts themselves, we can yet find grounds for preferring one instinct above its fellows dies very hard. We grasp at useless words: we call it the 'basic', or 'fundamental', or 'primal', or 'deepest' instinct. It is of no avail. Either these words conceal a value judgement passed upon the instinct and therefore not derivable from it, or else they merely record its felt intensity, the frequency of its operation and its wide distribution. If the former, the whole attempt to base value upon instinct has been abandoned: if the latter, these observations about the quantitative aspects of a psychological event lead to no practical conclusion. It is the old dilemma. Either the premisses already concealed an imperative or the conclusion remains merely in the indicative.

-----------------

_________________
"The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection." -C.S. Lewis

You and Lewis fail to realise the point that moral thought is a feature developed, as I said, to resolve animal instincts with social behaviour. In the first text you referenced, Lewis discusses the herd mentality vs self-preservation, supressing sexual desire and violence and patriotism all as they relate to one individual interacting socially with others. The only reason there is conflict is because the individual is in a social position where their actions will have consequences on beings other than themselves, and this is why moral thought evolved. If there was no man needing to be saved, no wife to copulate with, no war to be fought - no engagement with another human, the individual would obey there own instincts.

The same treatment applies to the second text. Lewis speaks of controlling instincts because instincts only speak "do this" not "you ought do this". Lewis is right: the instincts do compete with each other. When trying to chose an action from two contradictory motivations, the individual will consider other influences e.g. consequences for individuals other than themselves, and "morality" is just this process. Because humans are social, mimick others in learning and have theory of mind so they can learn vicariously, it is no surprise that when faced with the psychologically arresting task of choosing actions based on conflicting interests, humans simply choose the conventional way as others before them did. The individual thinks subconciously, "I don't have time to resolve my competing instincts so I'll just do as I'm told. Surely, whoever said we ought to do it that way had taken the time to think about it." Humans got lazy and then wanted a blanket approach to morality - Natural Law ie. absolute morality laid down by God. God was just invented to save people from thinking for themselves.

But why? Why label that source as "God"? That's what I asked earlier, you see. Why? What's the logical deduction that goes from the premise of a moral sense to the existence of a god?

Also, I didn't bother asking earlier, but how come you think that humans are inherently selfish? Or that moral behaviour is something that is only taught, not natural to humans?


I wouldn't know about that, "Thor"'s posts were copypasted on another thread somewhere (as were mine there copypasted here) along with yours, and I responded only based on what was written there. My points still remain. The feeling of objective morality is not proof of objective morality, and that there are many, many different people who say that their "objective" view of the world is the right one, both epistemologically and morally. That doesn't mean that they're wrong, but it does mean that if someone truly aims to prove that his view is the objective one (as opposed to subjective), then some quite extraordinary evidence is required. Much, much more than other moral absolutists have provided, that is.

Also, I was serious about not understanding the Lewis quote.


Oh I know that, lots of empty drama in that. My point was however, that an objective view on morality does not guarantee that your actions will appear good to anyone but yourself alone. People with objective (absolute) views on morality are just as capable of hurting and killing people than those with subjective ones. Belief in a god does not guarantee that a person won't be a horrible person, just like a subjective morality won't guarantee that someone will be one.

I never really got the reasoning behind the idea that moral subjectivists are all horrible people. I'm not one, but whatever.


And a ball is by definition round. That doesn't mean that all the things we call balls (heh) are round, or in fact have anything to do with the mathematical definition of a round geometrical shape.

Also, why? I outlined that an objective view on morality could be achieved (approached, as per the eternal dilemma of scientific knowledge) by observing and finding out the biological mechanisms that underline moral behaviour in humans and many other pack mammals, why couldn't that be an objective (impartial) view on morality? Why does objective morality need a god as justification? Like I said earlier, what is the logical deduction?

1) To Youup

Alright, so you agree that 1) our instincts compete against each other, and that 2) 'morality' is what helps us choose the 'right' instinct. But we disagree on where this 'morality' comes from. I believe it comes from a supra-rational Moral Law, while you believe it comes from natural processes. Am I okay so far?

Obviously, this 'morality' can't be just another instinct (as Lewis has shown). So then what is it? But more importantly, "Where does morality come from?", "How does a person decide between one instinct and another?" You defined morality to be "individual[s]...consider[ing] other influences e.g. consequences for individuals other than themselves". So to put the question in your own words, "How does one decide between one 'consequence' and another?"

2) To Gotryfag

The reason why--in my worldview--God is the only source of objective morality, is because there can be no other possible source. You mentioned that objective morality comes from observing animals??? (or, in your words, by "observing...pack mammals") How so??? How does one go from a statement such as "we tend to preserve harmony" to "we ought to preserve harmony"?

And, also, can you give me the link to the thread that copied our discussion? I'm just curious.

Thanks,
bon

_________________
"The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection." -C.S. Lewis

And, as I've numerously repeated, you fail to say why your god must be the only possible source for objective morality, that no other source can exist for objective morality. After all, the definition of objectivity, of impartiality (that does not denote the existence of a god), is simply that it remains the same regardless of the person looking at the matter (the guy who doesn't believe in gravity will still fall from the edge of a cliff).

Why, simply observing the various biological and neurological phenomena that underlie different kinds of (moral and other) behaviour! Neuroimaging technology is advancing with giant leaps every decade, and I have no doubt that eventually we'll be able to unlock the mysteries of (human and other) brains and general intelligence. But that's beside the point, I'm not trying to prove anything about that. Fact is that morality can be approached with objectivity from other directions besides the god one.

Hey, you tell me! I never said anything like that.

If you're asking what kind of practical moral code can be deduced from natural sciences, then you're in for a disappointment, because none can (be deduced). Science doesn't deal in what ought to happen, only in what does. Science can explain how moral behaviour works, how it got here (how it evolved), but it can't explain what we should do next. That decision is left for individuals and the societies they form.

I take my values primarily (in theory) from western secular philosophical traditions, such as Voltaire and Kropotkin (liberty, equality and community among other things). Of course in practice my moral beliefs are a consequence of the fantastic upbringing my parents gave me, and I have only later found philosophers that suited those beliefs that were instilled in my as a child. I have no doubt that if I had been brought up in a pious catholic family, I would find the teachings of Thomas of Aquinas and other apologists to be much more to my liking. But what do I think should be done next? Good question, hm. Transhumanism? A collective consciousness of individuals? I've got lots of ideas and little time to pursue them all...

Nope.

Also, just tell me if you're not going to address my (other) points so I'll know to leave and not bother myself further with futility.

//Hey, you tell me! I never said anything like that.//

But isn't that exactly the idea you're promoting by saying we could obtain objective morality by "simply observing the various biological and neurological phenomena that underlie different kinds of (moral and other) behaviour"?

"we tend to preserve harmony" --------> observation of "biological phenomena"

"we ought to preserve harmony"--------> supposed deduction of moral law

********************

And this should edify the C.S. Lewis quote which I posted in my debate with Thor:

"Now any concrete train of reasoning involves three elements: 'Firstly', there is the reception of facts to reason about. These facts are either received from our own senses, or from the report of other minds; that is, either experience or authority supplies us with our material. But each man's experience is so limited that the second source is the ore usual; of every hundred facts upon which to reason, ninety-nine depend on authority. 'Secondly', there is the direct, simple act of the mind perceiving self-evident truth, as when we see that if A and B both equal C, then they equal each other. This act I call intuition. 'Thirdly', there is an art or skill of arranging the facts so as to yield a series of such intuitions which linked together produce a proof of the truth or falsehood of the proposition we are considering. Thus in a geometrical proof each step is seen by intuition, and to fail to see it is to be not a bad geometrician but an idiot. The skill comes in arranging the material into a series of intuitable 'steps'. Failure to do this does not mean idiocy, but only lack of ingenuity or invention. Failure to follow it need not mean idiocy, but either inattention or a defect of memory which forbids us to hold all the intuitions together.
"Now all correction of errors in reasoning is really correction of the first or the third element. The second, the intuitional element, cannot be corrected if it is wrong, nor supplied if it is lacking. You can give the man new facts. You can invent a simpler proof, that is, a simpler concatenation of intuitable truths. But when you come to an absolute inability to see any one of the self-evident steps out of which the proof is built, then you can do nothing. No doubt this absolute inability is much rarer than we suppose. Every teacher knows that some people are constantly protesting that they 'can't see' some self-evident interference, but the supposed inability is usually a refusal to see, resulting either from some passion which 'wants' not to see the truth in question or else from sloth which does not want to think at all. But when the inability is real, argument is at an end. You cannot produce rational intuition by argument, because argument depends upon rational intuition. Proof rests upon the unprovable which has to be just 'seen.' Hence faulty intuition is incorrigible. It does not follow that it cannot be trained by practice in attention and in the mortification of disturbing passions, or corrupted by the opposite habits. But it is not amenable to correction by argument.
"Before leaving the subject of Reason, I must point out that authority not only combines with experience to produce the raw material, the 'facts,' but also has to be frequently used instead of reasoning itself as a method of getting conclusions. For example, few of us have followed the reasoning on which even ten percent of the truths we believe are based. We accept them on authority from the experts and are wise to do so, for thought we are thereby sometimes deceived, yet we should have to live like savages if we did not.
"Now all three elements are found also in conscience. The facts, as before, come from experience and authority. I do not mean "moral facts" but those facts about actions without holding which we could not raise moral questions at all--for we should not even be discussing Pacifism if we did not know what war and killing meant, not Chastity, if we had not yet learned what schoolmasters used to call 'the facts of life.' Secondly, there are the pure intuitions of utterly simple good and evil as such. Third, there is the process of argument by which you arrange the intuitions so as to convince a man that a particular act is wrong or right. And finally, there is authority as a substitute for argument, telling a man of some wrong or right which he would not otherwise have discovered, and rightly accepted if the man has good reason to believe the authority wiser and better than himself. The main difference between Reason and Conscience is an alarming one. It is thus: that while the unarguable intuitions on which all depend are liable to be corrupted by passion when we are considering truth or falsehood, they are much more liable, they are almost certain to be corrupted when we are considering good and evil. For then we are concerned with some action to be here and now done or left undone by ourselves. And we should not be considering that action at all unless we had some wish either to do or not to do it, so that in this sphere we are bribed from the very beginning."
--C.S. Lewis, excerpt from "Why I am not a Pacifist"

*****************

Note that what i called 'moral systems' and 'merely rational systems' in my debate with Thor, Lewis calls 'Conscience' and 'Reason' respectively.

_________________
"The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection." -C.S. Lewis

Nope! Read it again.

When did I say anything about any harmony or its supposed "preservation"?

Again, what harmony? What do you mean? When did I say anything about any moral law?

Now stop putting words in my mouth, you silly beans.

Also, using quotes in debate without explaining their relevance is bad manners and proves nothing. Argue with your own words and with your own mind, do not hide behind the thoughts of others. For all I know you could be just dumping that in an effort to confuse me, without even an understanding of what it means. I don't want to explain how philosophical debates go, but attack my words and my arguments, don't just ignore them and spout rhetoric. It'll make you a better person, promise.

To bon,

//Obviously, this 'morality' can't be just another instinct (as Lewis has shown). So then what is it? But more importantly, "Where does morality come from?", "How does a person decide between one instinct and another?" You defined morality to be "individual[s]...consider[ing] other influences e.g. consequences for individuals other than themselves". So to put the question in your own words, "How does one decide between one 'consequence' and another?"//

"So then what is it?", "Where does morality come from?"
I think that you still fail to understand the nature of morality as a psychological process that evolved to aid humans in resolving their competing instincts with the added benefit of living in society.

"How does one decide between one 'consequence' and another?"
Your use of quotation marks around consequence further suggests that you haven't clearly recognised the forces at work here, ie. morality, instincts, consequences, etc. which are all distinct from each other.
I'll point you back to my previous post on the matter concerning "humans are lazy".

Your problem here is the same that you pointed out in your atheist counterparts - because your own beliefs encompass an absolute morality, you expect that any alternative explanation should justify an absolute morality. You need to be conscious of how your own pre-conceptions are framing your intepretation of other people's theories. You have yet to convince a number of readers here of the existence of an objective morality from God so you cannot use it as a test against other people's theories.

Thankfully, your theology allows for the simple answer to your question of "How does one decide between one 'consequence and another?". - free-will. Remember that your Jewish cousins are situationalist not naturalist. It isn't necessary for there to be an absolute morality - people will make their own individual choice between these 'consequences' and these choices will differ between individuals which is what we observe between real human societies. Again, because these choices tend to co-incide with one another within a population is explained by those individuals sharing the same cultural context which makes decisions for them because, again, "humans are lazy". I hope that you, bon, are not lazy, and that your belief in God is not based on the Moral Law argument because you cannot decide for yourself how to resolve your own instincts with the needs of others around you so you just desire a God to make the decisions for you.

In reference to your quote from "Why I am Not a Pacifist", Lewis the processess within reason and conscience are the same and center on intuition and authority. Yet Lewis fails to realise that there is no need for a distinction between reason and conscience and if there is one it is only that reason is conscious and conscience is sub-conscious. The authority in conscience he implies is God but as I have argued this is just as likely to be the whole history and culture of a human society. At the same time, because authority tends to play a part in reason and conscience does not mean that it is required; simply that it is preferable because "humans are lazy". So authority, ie. God, is not required in thoughts of the conscience.

To gotryfag,

I'm laughing at the "Nope." after bon asked to see the website you were copying from.

The source of absolute morality being God is simply a defintion. That is not to say, 'The source of absolute morality is the Christian God." If you are a supernaturalist you have a big problem: you believe that God is the source of absolute morality but how do you communicate with this God to learn what the tenents of this absolute morality are? This is where "evidence-based" faith kicks in and people chose a faith based on the "evidence" for it. So if you believe in Christianity then you believe in one God which means that He is the source of morality because the definition says so and then, according to Christianity, you believe that God imparts his moral absolutism through the conscience and through the Bible.

bonbon's use of endless quotes from C.S. Lewis is simply because he has used Lewis as his "authority" in reason. Why has he done this? Because "[he] is lazy". Don't be upset, he is just doing as humans do - rely on others to think for them so they don't have to. Which is why bonbon is pre-disposed to believing in an absolute morality - believing otherwise would be too psychologically traumatic for them.

1) To Gotryfag

Okay, we've got to get this whole thing straightened out; it seems like there has been some miscommunication.

Do you believe that we can derive an objective moral law via observing humans and higher-leveled animals?
If your answer is 'no', then correct me.

And did you even read the quote I provided? If you don't think it's relevant, then you my friend are an idiot (and I say this word with factuality and honesty, not with the spitefulness which the previous atheists threw it at me). I'm not going to explain it in my own words because it is not necessary to the discussion. In fact, I believe Lewis phrases these concepts in ways much clearer than I ever could.
This is a very modest refusal compared to Youup's refusal to disclose his own philosophical position.


2) To Youup

A) //How does one decide between one 'consequence and another?". - free-will. //

Freewill just means one is capable of deciding: it does not explain 'how' one is capable of deciding.

B) As Lewis has explained, most of what we believe in is based on 'authority'. Your implicit claim of having acquired all your knowledge by 'thinking for yourself' is not based on truth but by sheer conceit. Have you derived from scratch Maxwell's Equations and conducted beta-decay experiments to detect neutrinos? I think not. But you gladly believe your science teacher when he gives you information regarding the properties of electricity and dark matter.

C) You just keep repeating over and over again that the Moral Law comes via evolution and requires no Mind behind the universe whatsoever. This demonstrates clearly that you do not understand the concept of 'oughtness'. If I claim that we 'ought' to behave a certain way, it's synonymous to claiming that we are 'intended' to behave a certain way, which is synonymous to saying that there is a Mind 'purposing' us to behave a certain way. If there is no Mind behind the universe, and the basis of all is randomness, then there is no sense to say we are 'purposed' to behave in a certain way.

I'm not saying all this just because I'm a Christian. This is a concept which the most advanced of atheists, like Nietzsche, believe in.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspectivism>

_________________
"The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection." -C.S. Lewis

p.s. I'm not a 25 year old virgin, I'm a 20 year old virgin.

_________________
"The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection." -C.S. Lewis

//B) As Lewis has explained, most of what we believe in is based on 'authority'. Your implicit claim of having acquired all your knowledge by 'thinking for yourself' is not based on truth but by sheer conceit. Have you derived from scratch Maxwell's Equations and conducted beta-decay experiments to detect neutrinos? I think not. But you gladly believe your science teacher when he gives you information regarding the properties of electricity and dark matter. //

I never made such a personal claim, as you describe, of "acquiring all [my] knowledge by 'thinking for [myself]'" - on the contrary, I have been arguing that humans more than not acknowledge authorities and follow conventional morals because "humans are lazy". Futhermore, I stated in my last post that because humans tend to accept authorities, does not mean that one is required.

//C) You just keep repeating over and over again that the Moral Law comes via evolution and requires no Mind behind the universe whatsoever. This demonstrates clearly that you do not understand the concept of 'oughtness'. If I claim that we 'ought' to behave a certain way, it's synonymous to claiming that we are 'intended' to behave a certain way, which is synonymous to saying that there is a Mind 'purposing' us to behave a certain way. If there is no Mind behind the universe, and the basis of all is randomness, then there is no sense to say we are 'purposed' to behave in a certain way.//

I agree with your definition of oughtness. Where we disagree is in your last phrase "which is synonymous to saying there is a Mind 'purposing' us to behave a certain way." There is no misunderstanding on my part; what you have failed to do as I have said before is put aside your belief in moral absolutism as evidence for God's existence and find other means by which humans draw their morality. "Oughtness" is not synonymous with the existence of some greater being intending for humans to act in certain ways. If a human being is subject to certain instincts then that is part of the human condition, they have been 'intended', 'purposed' to entertain those instincts. The evolutionary advantage of forming social groups in humans is the basis for the 'intention', the 'purpose', the 'design' for humans to withdraw from entertaining their instincts and to act for the greater good of the community.

The problem is, is that you liken oughtness to intention and then desire to say that 'someone' ie. God has that intent. When someone asks, "Why do birds have hollow bones?" one might answer, "- because they need them to fly." or "nature intended them to have hollow bones to allow them to fly." You might interpret this statement to mean that 'someone' ie. God designed birds with hollow bones to enable them to fly. Most people understand that these statements are metaphorical - because birds with dense bones died out, only birds with hollow bones were left because the hollow bones gave them an evolutionary advantage. It isn't meant that because birds desired to fly, they grew hollow bones; rather, because birds have hollow bones it allows them to fly. Likewise, one might ask, "Why do humans sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the community?" and you might say, "because humans ought to." or "Nature intended that we take care of others as social animals." Really, what is meant by this is, is that in societies where this happened, the sacrifice led to those societies out-living other selfish societies so this morality was passed on to further generations. Similarly, there was no "intention" for humans to sacrifice themselves for one another, but in doing so this allowed society to live on.

Nope! But can deduce how morality works, how do our brains allow for moral thought to exist. Evolutionary biology can also explain how this sense evolved in the first place (or a rough stab at it, seeing that we're talking about hundreds of millions of years). Of course, this would be catastrophic to you, as your perception of morality requires that, at one point there was some divine hocus pocus that gave us (and not other animals) a sense of morality. Ever heard of the phrase "god of the gaps"?

Like I said very clearly, morality (content, form and reason) is left for individuals and the societies they form to decide upon. People might come with various reasons for holding certain moral thoughts, but none of that needs a god to exist. You know, crazy humans, right?

But I would like to ask you, do you think that morality requires a (philosophical) moral law?

I tried, but I couldn't understand the idea or how it related to the discussion at hand.

You're not my friend, but do think you're an idiot too, yes. So I guess we're (somewhat) even, eh? Feel better now?

Okay, then I guess our discussion is fast nearing its end and I will once again have to walk away without any concise answers. If you don't think your ideas are worth saying (typing), then certainly they're not worth for others to hear then, eh?

No matter how much you might like Lewis and think he is a divine oracle and masterfully articulated genius, others might (do) not think so. So when you grow up, you might realize that your precious ideas may have been often ignored because you failed to communicate them.

Two wrongs make a right, eh? But that's okay, it's suitably american way of seeing things anyway; "I think that guy over there was a cunt towards me, so I'm going to go ahead and be a cunt towards this guy here".

Oh, and by the way

Is it synonymous? Why?

Again, why? I don't see the connection between any of these, and even if I did, they would just be word-play, not logical deduction. Which mean that these supposed synonymies have jack shit to do with more than language and its misuse. It doesn't say anything about reality, it only says something about language.

No it's not. It's not known why the universe behaves as it does, and without finding it out or someone descending from heaven to tell everyone that "you are so wrong (teeheehee)", any claims about its nature is bullshit.

Yes, who are to question Nietzsche, us puny humans? The guy was a cunt and a post-modernist.

1) To Youup

So the birds cannot say "we are intended to have hollow bones"; they can only say "we just happen to have hollow bones due to natural selection", right?


2) To Gotryfag

A) //how it related to the discussion at hand//

Well, It is not DIRECTLY related to the discussion at hand. The initial quote was from a discussion I had with Thor, not with you. But you wanted so badly to understand it (even threatening to leave the forum) that I provided the previous quote to aid you in understanding it.

B) //If you don't think your ideas are worth saying (typing), then certainly they're not worth for others to hear then, eh?//

They are not my ideas per se: I did not invent them. And as such I still don't see the need to elaborate them in my own words. Your obstinacy in not trying to understand the quote demonstrates that you have no desire for truth whatsoever, only for debunking. At least tell me which parts/ section of the quote is confusing, and I'll try to help you from there.

C) 'God in gaps' is a method which some theists (wrongly) use to eliminate SCIENTIFIC inquiry. Note that science is the study of the MATERIAL universe. This is why 'God is the gaps' hampered the discovery of things like Heliocentrism and Evolution. Questions such as "Is the universe intended to behave a certain way?" is not left for science to answer.

_________________
"The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection." -C.S. Lewis

I didn't say that. I said that those two statements, "birds were intended to have hollow bones" and "birds have hollow bones through natural selection" are used interchangeably but the first statement is metaphorical for the second. Then I used that as an analogy to show how your "oughtness" synonymous with "intention" is similarly metaphorical to describe human morality as a consequence of natural selection.

As gotryfag says, you are confusing the language and its meaning. Think carefully on the phrase "as Nature intended". While we're on the subject of modern philosophers, perhaps yiu should familiarise yourself with post-structuralism, particularly deconstruction and semiotics.

Exactly, the first statement is metaphorical for the second, which means that the first one is not real in a literal sense. Right?

_________________
"The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection." -C.S. Lewis

I was going to elaborate a decent answer, but after that I can't care enough. If a person actually believes that someone died, and then somehow resurrected, then well, I sincerely don't expect a logical discussion can happen, even if you think it can. Even if you can mantain a logical discussion, the core of you believes in such stuff, so im afraid the whole thing would eventually turn into a waste of time.

To add some laughs here, latest in Christian Propaganda:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkLLOH7qXPg

Loving the hype build-up with scary Pulp Fiction typography style. Hilarious.

Everyone, I present to you: the psychiatrist who thinks more than 50% of the world's population can't hold a logical discussion. Richm...you either must really hate, or really love your job.

_________________
"The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection." -C.S. Lewis

I think you understood my point. Yes, you can hold a logical discussion, but still, the core of you believes in ilogical stuff, such as people returning from death, flying up to the skies, etc.

Knowing that even if (as most CS Lewis followers) you seem pretty rational, I can't help but feel weird about it. At some point your belief "in the impossible" may show up (if not intentionally, at a subconscientious level) triggered by whatever argument made by me or other person here, turning this whole discussion into a waste of time for both of us. I have no problem neither care about what your beliefs are when dealing with anything else of less relevancy, but when talking about such philosophical matters I expect the other person to at least not bypass certain laws to allow certain myths to be real, so this particular religion can function properly. Probably this is a reason of why some people here has ceased to continue replying.

Yes, I love what I do, its really interesting and entertaining for me. Quite hilarious sometimes I might say.

I understand how you feel. It's true God does not make Himself easy to find, as Lewis himself expressed in 'Till We Have Faces' with the question: "Why must holy places be dark places?" Yet it's a curious thing you keep coming back to this forum, Richm; it shows that your desire to seek God has not completely been snuffed. And I'll tell you (if it is any encouragement), that if you continue to seek Him, you will find Him (Matt.7:7).

_________________
"The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection." -C.S. Lewis

Well, maybe you didn't understood what I was trying to say at all.

That definitely sounded like a pretty brainwash-ish typical Christian response. "It shows your desire to seek God" ... "im right because I already found Him" ...

Dissapointed.

That sort of reply would fit inside the belief "in the impossible" thing I explained, turning this whole discussion into a waste of time for both of us.

I came back here to see how the discussion evolved, but somehow you, with your Christian righteousness of someone who has found Him, asumed that im some sort of half-Christian seeking "God" or some shenanigans along the lines. That was basically your reply for my question regarding resurrection.

Please stick to the point and be precise with your replies, im not the first one here to say this. Probably avoiding quoting CS Lewis for everything you think should help.

Well of course you can't say the Resurrection NEVER happened, since you didn't live in 30 AD. So I took your post not so much as a philosophical argument, but more as a complaint against how hard it is to digest Christianity.

_________________
"The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection." -C.S. Lewis

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." - Buddha

we shouldn't boast eachother espicially if we don't share the same beliefs

_________________
“No one succeeds without effort... Those who succeed owe their success to perseverance.” - Ramana Maharishi