It’s just a silly apologetic. Humanity is the frame of reference.
Throwing in “blind chance” to cover up the role of selection is just a rhetorical trick. Humans are not just randomly thrown-together chemicals. There has been a long and complex process of evolution to get this far, and that includes aspects of our minds as well as our physical bodies. No, evolution is not just “blind chance”. If it was we wouldn’t exist.
quote:Percy did make my point with what I meant by this statement and I stand by it. If there is no universal sense of morality that exists outside of human thought then I hold to that statement that there is no frame of reference for our sense of morality. Maybe the 9/11 bombers actually got it right and you and I have got it wrong.
And as I said it is obviously wrong that there is no frame of reference. There is no provably correct frame of reference, but that is true anyway. You can’t prove the 9/11 bombers wrong either.
quote:We either believe that there is a god that represents a universal morality or we believe that such an entity does not exist. Both views are subjective.
Which puts your views uncomfortably close to that of the 9/11 bombers. Their self-justification relied on the idea that their actions would be approved by God.
quote:Again, I completely agree. I am simply saying that if there is a moral intelligence that is responsible for our existence then there can be an absolute morality, but we can't know it for a fact. Again, it is belief and faith.
Interesting that you agree that your point is “obviously wrong”.
quote:They made their choice and it must be what they believed. However, atheists that have a strong sense of nationalism can do the same thing, so it can be as uncomfortably close on the other side of the table as well.
You miss the point. The God idea is not only not essential, it is actively dangerous as a basis for morality. That is not to say that other bases can’t be equally bad. In your own ideas the good comes from love, not the assumption that there is a God.
quote:....if there is an absolute morality then there is a moral source for it
I don’t think that follows at all. If there was a truly absolute morality I don’t see that it needs a source. It’s not even clear that it could have a source. And if it did have a source why should it be something capable of being moral ?
Certainly morality existing is logically prior to being moral, so being moral can’t be a requirement to be the source.
I note that you later claim that the Golden Rule is an absolute moral rule but if it is, is it because it is some external rule or is it because it is fundamental to the idea of morality? I would say that to the extent it is, the latter is the case, which again needs no external source.
quote:I'm simply saying that if there is a morality that exists outside of human existence then there needs to be a source for that.
Are you saying that you aren’t talking about an absolute morality? Because if you aren’t it’s just another relative morality so what’s the significance?
quote:I'm sorry but I don't understand your point with this statement. If morality has to exist prior to being moral then doesn't it follow that the pre-existing morality would be consistent. If it is consistent then it follows that it is outside of human experience than then there must be a source for that.
The point is that being moral can’t be a requirement of the source, because being the source must logically precede being moral. So, how do you get that the source must be moral?
quote:Mankind has always understood the Golden Rule and it has been in all societies going back at least to Buddha and in the book of Leviticus. Sure, we have seldom lived up to it but it has been the standard of how we should conduct ourselves as humans pretty much through recorded history.
That completely misses the point, if the Golden Rule is simply a basic feature of human morality it doesn’t have to be “absolute” in the sense of being external to human nature. Indeed it seems to be based on the basic idea of fairness which fits well with an evolutionary origin.
quote:I disagree. Lewis’ point was not about comparing good and evil to each other. In either case he is saying that if you just compare them to each other then how can you label them good and evil. He is saying that in order to call something good or evil that has to something to compare either one to.
Nope. Lewis’ claim is that you must have an objective standard which is untrue. If Lewis was making the claim you say, then there would be nothing to it. We have our ideas of good and evil and that’s all that is needed.
quote:Take you example of a ruler. Sure you can compare 2 different lengths. However, if you just say something is long then you have to ask in comparison to what. If you just say something is morally good or evil then it must be in comparison to something agreed upon standard.
I.e. the standard must be intersubjective. That’s fine but it doesn’t get you to objectivity.
quote:That's fine if we were all going to choose good all the time. Unfortunately we don't. Also, we don't know objectively how we come to the moral decisions that we do.
First, whether we choose good all the time or not doesn’t matter. Second, our lack of access to the basis of our moral decisions only strengthens the case for subjectivity.
quote:We are subject to a myriad of cultural memes but it is my subjective belief that in that mixture of influences is a God meme that also influences us towards a morality that exists whether people exist or not.
And you try to cover up the glaring error in Lewis’ argument to support that opinion. Which is not a good thing to do.
quote:We all have our subjective beliefs on this. There is no proof of whether we are influenced by an external morality or not.
Which does nothing to counter my claim. Intersubjectivity is a shared standard, and that is all we need. Therefore the idea that we need an objective standard for agreement - which we don’t have anyway - is incorrect.
quote:Of course I deny this flatly, and I ask that you please supply ONE example of a fact that I'm fighting in order to save my belief.
The observed order of the fossil record is an easy one. The fact that the geological sequences associated with transgression and regression would not be produced by a year-long flood is another. The reliability of radiometric dating is another. The fact that a Genesis says nothing relevant to providing services to gay weddings is another. The fact that the Islamic doctrine of taqiyya only applies to avoiding persecution is another... We can go on and on.
quote:Those are all interpretations, or selective irrelevancies, not facts.
No. They are all facts - so that is another example.
quote:And Tangle was talking about Christian belief
Your Young Earth beliefs and your belief in Noah’s Flood are clearly part of your religion. Your attempt to justify the refusal to provide services to gay weddings is also supposed to be (but it isn’t really). That leaves only your attempts to stir up suspicion and hate against Muslims and people you want to accuse of being secretly Muslim....
quote:No I'm not kidding. What you think are facts I don't think are facts. There's our problem.
Which amounts to simply repeating your denial of the facts.
But OK, in the name of fairness you get a chance to make your point. Explain to me why the observed order of the fossil record is not a fact. And no, just calling it an interpretation is not an explanation.