I am looking for something other than “because I say so”.
Yes, but we were talking about subjective experience. In that case your “I say so” is enough.
Nothing is more cultural than religion. So called “transcendent points of reference” are too subjective to provide anything which can be called objective – that is a reality of the human condition. Most of those instincts are fine tuned to aid us in survival and that provides far more objectivity and necessity than the whims of some guy who thinks he is inspired by God or believes God talked to him. Yeah I believe there really is a God, but the only proof is in the pudding so to speak – in the results which make for a better world – and that is measurable and identifiable with demonstrable reasons why some things are better than others.
Again it goes back to that fundamental question of whether things are good because God commands them or God commands them because they are good. Expounding upon the pitfalls of morality derived only from social convention in order to push this “because daddy says so” authoritarian morality doesn’t help in the slightest. It only replaces it with a morality relative to the particular “daddy” (and alleged commands) being pushed by a culture or religion.
Wow! That sounds exactly like the history of Christianity. Just substitute “Christians” for “Nazis” in what you say above.
WRONG. Like the Aztecs and the Mayans, the Nazis DID have an external transcendent standards (i.e. god) which they might have claimed was “absolute and objective” but it wasn’t anything of the sort because they are just using the words without any connection to their actually meaning. There is no objectivity or absoluteness inherent in a religious or theistic perspective – that is just empty rhetoric. Science provides objectivity in procedures which give the same result no matter what you believe and this can be the basis of something which is not simply relative to culture or religion you love so much. Saying they Aztecs and Nazis had every right to construct their moral system cannot change the negative impacts that what they did had on their own society and economy – things which are measurable. Now to be sure this kind of thing doesn’t only happen with theism and religion, the ideology of the communists did just fine in destroying their society and economy without any gods or religion and the lip service they paid to science didn’t help in the least.
Nor am I claiming that science is the answer to all our problems – not hardly. I am just saying that science has a better handle on the objective and absolute than anything found in religion. I believe in religion (i.e. Christianity) for precisely the opposite reason, because I don’t think that objectivity is all we need. Life requires subjective participation and the objective observation of science cannot provide that for us. Not only is what want and believe important, but it is also crucial that we do want and believe something. Without that life just isn’t going to work.
But what we want and believe cannot get around the fact that these are things we choose to have faith in and not something which is forced upon us by anything objective or absolute. That is the fundamental subjectivity of life itself. It is all about choices. The only objectivity is found in the fact that not all choices are equal. To be sure we mostly learn that by experience, but science can even measure some of those differences.
2 Likes
It’s not enough for me. We are talking about an objective claim, whether human consciousness is a result of neurochemistry.
LOL… it is only made an objective claim by redefining the terms to make it something which is subject to measurement.
1 Like
Ani,
Regarding “non-physical reality” you may be interested in reading this post:
So what isn’t?
OK, I’ll bite. God’s existence is not an objective reality?
That is right. Our experience of God is very subjective. He cannot be put under a microscope and studied objectively. Unlike the mathematical laws of nature He not only cares what you want and believe but His infinite nature in conjunction with our finite nature means we never see His totality as it is. What we see of Him will always depend on our own state of consciousness, awareness, and ability… as well as what we want and believe.
Many confuse objective with authentic or something like that. They are not the same thing. Personal experiences are practically the definition of subjective reality and cannot be called objective. But this does not mean they are not authentic reality or that they impart no authentic knowledge of things to us. It just means that such experiences cannot provide a reasonable expectation that others should agree with you.
Consider Carl Sagan’s dragon in the garage. The dragon was described as empirically and demonstrably untouchable, i.e. inaccessible to the methods of science, because no physical test would work on the dragon. In that case, one can answer Sagan’s question of what difference the existence of the dragon makes, by saying that the dragon can still bite you if it chooses to do so (making itself corporeal enough to take a chunk out of you). Just because the dragon cannot be observed objectively doesn’t mean it is not real because reality isn’t necessarily limited to the objective alone.
But we can take Carl Sagan’s thought experiment one step further and suggest that there is this entity which you could never see, touch, experience, nor have any causal connection to it in any way directly or indirectly. Does it mean anything to say that such a being is real? What possible difference could it make to say that such a being is real? At the very least we can say that the question of its existence never will have any meaning or relevance to us – none whatsoever. But this latter being certainly doesn’t describe the God of Christianity or of other religions for that matter.
1 Like
is it an objective reality that his nature is infinite? or just your subjective experience?
If someone else’s subjective experience was that God’s nature was not infinite, would that be true for them?
Those are not experiences. Those are beliefs. You cannot experience that kind of thing. But yes I am pretty sure those beliefs will effect their experience of God. After all, our beliefs affect our experience of most things. Our immediate experience of reality is subjective. The objective is an abstraction.
But you know… all of this is really missing the point. Whether you see God as an objective reality or not, this doesn’t change the fact that there is no objectivity or absoluteness inherent in a religious or theistic perspective. There is no objectivity because there is no basis for a reasonable expectation for others to agree with anything you say about God let alone what you claim God says. There is nothing absolute because the things people say about God or about what God says varies from person to person as well as from one religion to another. So this is at least as subjective and relative as anything coming from social convention.
1 Like
Well then, I am confused. If memory serves, it certainly seems that there have many times that you have claimed I have incorrect views about the nature of God, no?
What we see of God as personal self does depend on what you have stated. However in an enlightenment experience, which is by Grace, the personal self is gone before the state of Union. This experience is the foundation of true belief as it is founded on direct evidence.
The question of its existence is absolutely relevant and in all religions. What prophet’s words are valid without the existence of God?
Well, I am confused. I just got through explaining that objective doesn’t equal authentic or true, and now you are trying to make an equivalence between these in something vaguely remembered. If you want to talk about something I said then find an actual quote. Could be I made mistake, my concession in such cases are a matter of record. But this doesn’t sound like one to me.
Since I just got through saying this doesn’t describe the God of any religions then why are talking as if I said otherwise?
There is only One God.
Wouldn’t need to do that, I imagine we could clarify the concept or terms easily enough right here:
I am a traditional Calvinist, and my subjective experience tells me that God is immutable.
Is my subjective experience wrong?
That is certainly not the type of statement (declaration of belief) I am likely to say is incorrect – just give my own view on the issue for comparison.
I am not a tiny bit Calvinist (rejecting all 5 of TULIP). But I disagree with a considerable portion of Arminianism as well. And what I read of God in the Bible doesn’t sound immutable (in the usual common language sense of the word) to me… which is not to say there isn’t some sense of the word which I would agree applies to God. Constant in His purpose, to be sure, unchanging in His love and integrity as well. But what I see described in the Bible is God who still has regrets and can change His mind about things. Back in the time of Calvin there was still this notion of absolute time which science has since abandoned. As a result there is no longer this black and white choice between being subject to time as we are and being without any kind of time at all. God can employ time all His own as He chooses.
I am reminded of a discussion on this forum not so long ago, in which this idea of God being simple was explained in a way that I agreed to, even though before this I as adamant in my refutation of that description.
That description of divine simplicity which I agreed with was “there is nothing which is not God which makes God be God.” But then… I would say this about God not being composite rather than being simple.
As it agrees with rationality, not in this case.
Does Morality come from God, Evolution, or bth?
I would say that the best answer to that question is both, but you must first define what you mean by morality. and evolution.
Most people think they know what morality is, the 10 Commandments, right? However for Christians the Decalogue does not define our morality. That is the OT legalistic morality the Jesus and Paul overthrew. Christian morality is based on the two Great commandments, Love God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength, and love others as you love yourself. This is our God given morality, which is not absolute, because it is based on Love which is relational.
The morality of evolution as understood by Darwin and Dawkins is Survival of the Fittest. It is self interest in the struggle for existence. For them that is the way of the world. “Enlightened” self interest may be a step forward, but it is still selfishness. That is why, along with its scientific failure, Darwinian natural selection is wrong.
On the other hand symbiosis or ecological selection us not based on struggle and conflict between members of a species. It is based on the ability to adapt to the environment so that all might receive the maximum benefit. It is based on mutual interdependence, mu evolution as the Kingdom of God is.
I would say that the God aspect of morality is Love, while the evolutionary part, which is created by God, is the context or environment in which we live and love and must play an important part in how we best relate to one another.
Both Dawkins and you are mistaken. Someone asked me what evidence is there that the universe is not indifferent to life. The answer: We are here. There is no way humans could exist if the universe were indifferent of our existence. There is every evidence that our universe is designed for humans and other current forms of life.
1 Peter 4:8 (NIV2011)
8 Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins.
“Love covers up a multitude of sins.”
Jesus is the Logos of morality and ecology.
There is doubt as to whether this was written by St Peter. First Epistle of Peter - Wikipedia. It could have been written by Paul.
It sounds sus to me. " Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins." Who is each other? Does that mean love all and sundries? Love the inhumane and thus it covers over their sins or more like horrible transgressions? This does not sound like morality to me. One should love those who are humane and stand against and expose the enemy, those who are inhumane and against Justice/ Righteousness.