God’s absolute objective morality is that we love Him by loving one another on His behalf.
Those are the good questions. We all (secular and religious alike) do a pretty good job living as if we can know the answers to those questions - and it would seem we all agree that’s a good thing.
I’m glad you think Nietzsche is “full of it” - as I do too - perhaps for a slightly different (but maybe heavily overlapping) set of reasons. Indeed, I suspect he would denounce you as little more than a “secret Christian”, and on that particular score I think Nietzsche may have a rare good point. (not about you in particular necessarily but more generally of “you all” who seek (unsuccessfully he would say) to have a truly secular basis.
Good thoughts. And this too can be a “kicking the can down the road kind of thing.” We now might arbitrarily look to the constitution as a great moral basis for a lot of things, but as the framers themselves would be quick to point out: that document was far from an arbitrary edict. They sweated, argued, and staked political fortunes on shaping it in certain ways and after certain patterns. In short there were (and most probably are) a great many ways in which such a great document can “be wrong” or lead in bad directions. Our nation has survived so far going on several centuries (or roughly one dynasty of Chinese history). A pretty good run so far for such a document, but the jury may “still be out” on significant portions of it. So the question is worth asking … what sorts of principles were its framers attempting to align with and where did those come from?
I think the grander moral vision comes into clearest focus the higher our vision is drawn above our individual moralistic selves. For my own daily morals, it may well be that I can rest content to abide by the social mores of my surrounding culture and never give it any more thought than that. But if I start to think of community and wider political units of city, state, etc. beyond just myself, there quickly comes the prophetically practiced need to “speak truth to power”. I.e. there are such things as “unjust laws” and “systemic injustice”. Cultural norms are no longer an adequate adjudicator to drive those questions since it may be those very cultural norms that need to be called into question. Here is where a simple “evolutionary basis” of morality begins to show its first signs of weakness. It gives no tools or footholds for any such “speaking of truth to power”. You may respond that many (without religion) have risen up to throw off some oppressor - which is no doubt true enough. But that is not necessarily “speaking truth to power” or exercising any moral high ground. It may well be just one form of power seeking to finally supplant another (which is nothing more than yet another nod to our despised Nietzsche). And I think vision can be drawn higher still beyond a simple attempt to hold power structures accountable toward an appeal to something transcendent (find any name for it other than God if you want … whatever helps make it more palatable for you.) But the important point is, it is something located not just outside yourself (secularists are happy to acknowledge a transcendent community) - but also even outside our collective culture; even something transcendent beyond humanity (perhaps the ‘higher power’ of alcoholics anonymous?) Whatever it is, though, it provides strengthened vision not just for an individual to aspire toward, but for them to cultivate in their offspring and in their culture. If it is easy (as it has been! - you are absolutely right about that) for religious people to ignore or defy the pronouncements of their deities, then how much easier yet for people to ignore any derived or well-thought out moral sensibilities you may have when the only basis you can offer them is: “because I think so.” You may have great reasons for thinking so, but they may or may not share those premises with you according to their own cultural whims.
I hope it’s becoming more widely recognized now that the “trappings of religion” in terms of rites and traditions are not merely bogus baggage that some secularists have long supposed. And you are right to recognize the value of social structures that are not automatically persistent and not easily maintained over generations. Whatever we all may think of various religions (and all of us here have many religions we are either ignorant of, or else reject in favor of something else), but the one thing most religions do well (for better or worse depending on that religion’s actual moral content) is to lift an individual’s vision up above themselves and even beyond their own family or tribe (if the religion is anything worth its salt). There are times when Christianity, such as it has been culturally, has miserably failed in that regard - no doubt being a low bar easily out-performed by a great many other religions. And there are times (for those who will see them), when Christianity too has risen into its own as a good cultural force.
So let me jump in and ask, if I may, the obvious question, then. What do you mean, specifically, by “immoral”? They violated whose morality? Yours? That of your culture? By that token, future generations have every right to decide that your condemnation of previous generations as immoral was, itself, immoral.
What, specifically, do you mean by “immoral”? It was a violation of whose moral standard? One that a certain culture or people invented? A certain instinct that arose from our evolution?
Those answers are usually based on the wants and needs of humans which makes it a subjective morality.
If only there were a Futurama episode with a Nietzsche head in a jar that we could debate these topics with. 
As stated above, the foundational concepts the framers were using were the wants and needs of humans and how government interacted with them. That is a subjective morality.
Also, subjective doesn’t mean arbitrary. There are very consistent threads that run through human society, such as not wanting our stuff to be taken from us, self determination, and loving our family members, just to name a few. We often call these basic human rights, and they are firmly grounded in the subjective human experience. In fact, nothing in moral philosophy makes sense outside of the human experience.
Personally, I am not a fan of the ultra-Darwinian style of pan-adaptionism. It may very well be that our views on morality were not selected for and are simply an offshoot of some other characteristic that was selected for, or morality is a neutral characteristic. The only way in which I think the two interact is that morality is the result of a brain that evolved.
Perhaps this will lead some people to an existential nihilism, and they will search out meaning in different social constructs like religion. However, that doesn’t seem necessary in my eyes. I am able to find meaning in life even though I don’t see any intrinsic meaning in the universe. To use an analogy, I don’t fret about the lack and meaning and purpose in a roller coaster because I am enjoying the ride. Does the roller coaster move along a set path without caring about how I feel or even if I live? Sure. Does the roller coaster end up right where it started? Yeah. Am I screaming with glee like a 10 year old along the entire route? Yep.
To me, those are just platitudes. No offense.
It is more powerful when it is “we think so”.
Part of the human experience is seeking out other humans, seeking out meaning and purpose, and participating in a human society. Far be it from me to tell others how to go about their lives as long as I am able to do the same.
3 Likes
And all you said is good and fine, though you must remember that another Nazi system would also have the right to overthrow the regime that overthrew the former Nazi system. And they would be just as justified, just as “moral” as any other for so doing. And so it would continue.
And you would acknowledge, of course, that each society had every right to practice whatever they did, there being no overarching standard to judge one’s morality as superior to any other.
Finally,you seem to believe there is a challenge to my moral system by asking, “If God commanded the Nazis to kill all the Jewis, would that have made it moral?” We can talk about that, but first, I must point out what your own viewpoint requires:
If the Nazis decided to kill all the Jews, that would have made it moral, since every society has every right to determine their own subjective morality.
Why must he remember?
Posterity will decide. (And maybe already is.)
And beyond that, if we Christians are right about anything, God will have the final word after that yet too.
If they claimed they were following an objective morality they received from a deity you would approve of their actions.
Others can judge for themselves if their actions were moral. I judge their actions to be immoral.
I see you have added a dash of Pascal’s Wager to my pot of Euthyphro’s Dilemma.
But Reason is God given.
and they would presumably judge their actions to be moral and your judgment against them to be immoral. and neither of you would be any more right or wrong than the other.
and, respectfully, for what it is worth, this is simply so wrong and logically vacuous it does not deserve a rebuttal.
How? . . . . .
That’s why we have migration and conflicts. Ultimately, the people speak.
1 Like
Why is it wrong and why is it logically vacuous? If you claim that morality only makes sense if it comes from God which is an objective source, then why wouldn’t it be moral if God commanded that a group of people be killed? God did just that in the Old Testament.
1 Like
If you honestly believe that from my belief in absolute or objective morality, it flows that I logically would therefore approve of any and all actions of anyone who claimed that they were following an objective morality they received from a deity, there is nothing further to discuss. If you truly and honestly cannot see the patently obvious logical fallacy and non sequitur involved there, I fear it would be a useless endeavor to try to explain it further.
I do believe that you would use your own subjective sense of morality to judge the actions of others. That’s the whole point. This is why the idea of an objective morality makes no sense because we would reject that morality the moment it went against or own subjective sense of morality.
Do you think rhetorical questions are a logical fallacy?
2 Likes
What is right and wrong comes from the Creator, the Almighty God, according to His nature and will. The final government and society will be that of God and His people. All those who rebelled against Him will be cast out of His Kingdom and the Society of His People. The one moral obligation that is above all others is, Love the Lord your God, with all your heart, with all your mind and all your strength. This moral obligation comes from the fact of who God is. He is our Creator, The Giver of Life, He is Life, The Sovereign Ruler Over All, Our Salvation And Our Hope, The Lord God Almighty Our Redeemer, He IS God Over All.
He has decreed that His son Jesus is LORD and all will be brought to absolute subjection to Him. All judgment has been given to Him and it is our moral obligation to submit to Him. Those who honor Jesus, honor the Father. Those who submitted to THE MORAL OBLIGATION to “Love the Lord your God”, will receive a welcome into His Kingdom, those who are immoral will be thrown out of His Kingdom.
Rev 19:11 I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and makes war. 12 His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. 13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. 14 The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.
Rev 22:12 "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. 14 "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. 16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”
THE LORD OUR GOD REIGNS!
Where does reason come from?
Everything, we are told, came into being from nothing or so people like physicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss and his mate Sean Carroll tell us. Something from nothing… errr but the nothing had energy that exploded. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46sKeycH3bE but I don’t think we can argue that reason came from energy or matter and yet…
Next we have the notion that well… we are supposedly machines, evolved from fish last I read. Now when Krauss and Dawkins get together it can be even more interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0mljE9K-gY
Here Dawkins very imaginative tells us:
40:47 there are trillions of those cells in your brain, your body, all conspiring together to produce a working machine which can walk, and run, and eat, and have sex, and think, reflect, understand–
And then at:
41:12 understand the magnificent fact that it could all have come from nothing,
I’m sorry but I don’t buy it. If there was not an intelligent source to begin with AND an intelligent source ongoing behind creation or simulation if that suits better, then there is no way that we can reason.
But there is another problem here too.
If we supposedly evolved to think and reason and understand etc., then surely there would not be any real consensus. In reasoning we are all able to see the sense of an argument. If we all had just evolved as machines then why would each brain have the exactly the same capacity? We have enormous variations in all aspects of the body, why would a supposed “program” in the brain for reasoning be uniform throughout creation. Or even if you want say within a cultural species.
The only way that everything came from nothing is if God upheld the information in the Divine Consciousness that brought the physical into being. And the only way there can be reason is if God created knowing conscious beings that could call up information existing in The Mind and in their knowingness use it to reason.
Love God how?