What we must accept if we accept materialism

What makes it prudent? That is, why adopt any code at all, or, what is the basis on which you adopt a code. What's the PURPOSE of adopting a code.Seems to me that once nihilism is embraced as the only rational position, having a moral code at all is also not rational.

But this just begs the question ultimately because you still have to answer how a society arrives at its code of sanctions. If not a divine source, then what? What is your authority for this moral principle though? What is it based on? The God who made the universe ought to know what moral principles run it. But since the many religions all contradict one another, there can only be one religion that gives the true God's moral principles perfectly anyway. (Or none at all, assuming God didn't communicate his will to any of us.) A truly objective moral philosophy would be universal it seems to me. A variety of moralities merely raises ultimate questions.I'm not sure what you ended up saying here. Are you saying that there IS a "reason to choose one action or way of life over another?" What's that reason if so? You've shown that there are a number of choices. How does one choose among them?Comment on your signature: All this means is that you don't believe there is an invisible world. If you did, you'd agree it's mysterious.

OK, but if you're really a nihilist you must recognize that none of these has any rational basis. Interesting. Yes, the default moral code as it were. What the Bible says people were doing in the time of the Judges. The Bible doesn't answer how people come up with their standards, but it's interesting that everyone has such standards.

quote:

---

Deu 12:8 Ye shall not do after all [the things] that we do here this day, every man whatsoever [is] right in his own eyes.

​

Jdg 17:6 In those days [there was] no king in Israel, [but] every man did [that which was] right in his own eyes.

​

Jdg 21:25 In those days [there was] no king in Israel: every man did [that which was] right in his own eyes.

​

Pro 21:2 Every way of a man [is] right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.

---

How do you know? That is, if the code itself has no rational basis, how do you know the fault is with you and not with the code? Why though? I would assume you are basing your code on something other than your mere feelings about things. OR, to put it another way, your feelings are based on something. What?

Yes, actually, without God's revelation this is in fact what we have. But if God did reveal his will then what I said is correct. And that is the case. We do find overlap. The questions come up in relation to the controversial areas. If God directly revealed His will, however, then whichever system is privy to His will, knows the true moral law in these areas as well.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-10-2006 11:47 AM

OK. But can a person really live on a mere subjective morality though? Don't you *really* have to believe that your principles ARE the best, and that everyone else *should* have the same principles you have?How do you live in a world where you believe in intellectual honor for instance, but somebody else doesn't?Or do you really think that somebody else doesn't? Maybe they do but are simply sinners like everybody else and violate their own moral principle.Does intellectual honor come down in the end to the principle of lying versus telling the truth?I know I'm getting off topic, but see I think there is an objective morality, and that everybody intuits it in a very fuzzy way, and that it ultimately derives from God, but that it is only spelled out clearly in his word, the Bible, and that none of this could possibly exist in a purely material universe.IN keeping with this, I believe that everybody *really* believes their own morality ought to be held by everybody else too -- unless they are simply very aware of their own inability to solve some moral problems -- but in that case they nevertheless believe there IS an objective moral standard even if they don't have it personally.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-10-2006 11:54 AM

I didn't answer you very well.Yes, if nihilism is true then subjective morality is all that's possible. So far so good.But nihilism really eliminates the grounds for all morality, so shouldn't intellectual integrity demand the abandonment of all morality? Logically speaking I mean.How do you embrace nihilism on a rational objective basis, but accept a morality on a subjective irrational basis? Isn't that psychologically difficult?Psychologically speaking I don't think anybody really believes that morality is subjective, only give lip service to the idea.But I grant that logically speaking, it would have to be subjective and irrational if you accept nihilism as the only rational position.

The "religion" doesn't need to "understand perfectly" if the omniscient God protected His word, which He certainly can (and did) do. And the Christian scriptures have not changed over the millennia. Sorry. You can come to my theology class next Wednesday and hear why. That's going to be the subject. Or I'll send you a tape if you like. The whole series is interesting. I don't get this about God sharing His laws bit though. He's never withheld them. Everyone is welcome to them. It's just that flawed human nature manages to garble them up because we don't like obeying them. So anyway, my statement IS correct because with these corrections all that is true. Except the gender of God. Actually God is neither male nor female.

I don't even think the scriptures of OTHER religions have changed, if you are talking about the transmission of manuscripts, although they may feel free to add new teachings to them, as Christians don't.Do you think all ancient manuscripts have failed to survive the processes of copying and translation? What about the writings of the Greek philosophers that survived, or Homer's writings, or the ancient historians? Have they been tampered with or what?I suppose this got discussed somewhere before, but I don't remember it.Anyway, just had this thought to add here.

Please explain.

I guess I'm not familiar with the problem you are presenting. But my answer would be similar to the above, in that God's moral law can't be anything other than a perfect expression of his own character, and He is good.

What can I say. God disagrees. There is no standard independent of God.

Sorry to have left your post lonely for so long. Unfortunately the topic is also cold in my mind, but let's see.I think I'll just give you that you can come up with practical ethical and legal social sanctions because I've lost track of my train of thought. If I recapture it, you never know, there may be more to come. True enough, they apply to SENTIENT beings. Also to the angels in other words. However, they do seem to have an affect on the physical world, but again, I don't remember what point I was making. Maybe you should remind me of this post again some time. But the Biblical revelation explains why we don't: the Fall, which distorted the human moral sense. Yes I suppose that is a plausible enough alternative to the explanation of the Fall. You don't recognize an inborn conscience then? That is, a sense of guilt for wrongdoing that is at least somewhat independent of what you have been taught? However, the Biblical laws of the OT have served as a pretty solid foundation for law in the West. But if you are looking only at human thought, of course, it can't be perfect: again, the Fall. But also differing circumstances from time to time and place to place call for legal refinements.Sorry, perhaps I should have put off answering this even farther, since I hardly remember the discussion or what I was pursuing at the time.