more about Science and Religion

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

I find theology as useless as science in determining moral convictions.

So what DO you think IS useful for determining moral convictions? Convictions which I assume you think are more important that science?

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

So what DO you think IS useful for determining moral convictions? Convictions which I assume you think are more important that science?

Moral Philosophy helps us to understand what our moral principles are, but I don't believe there is a universal set of "right" principles to be determined.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

Moral Philosophy helps us to understand what our moral principles are, but I don't believe there is a universal set of "right" principles to be determined.

But you do believe ther are physical laws to tthe universe? that science is about finding these laws out?

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

But you do believe ther are physical laws to tthe universe? that science is about finding these laws out?

In the sense that there is a pattern to nature that can be qualified and quantified by relationships called physical laws, yes.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

In the sense that there is a pattern to nature that can be qualified and quantified by relationships called physical laws, yes.

so there is no universal set of "right" principles to be determined but there are physical laws to nature?

Given principles have no underlying laws and nature does:
Which system is therefore "better" at finding underlying laws?

The system of moral principles or the sytem of finding patterns in nature?

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

Moral Philosophy helps us to understand what our moral principles are, but I don't believe there is a universal set of "right" principles to be determined.

Ill have to take you up on the relativist premise.

Do you believe it is always wrong for an adult in (their thrities say and of sound mind) to have sexual relations with a six year old child who has no signs of being sexually mature?

Do you believe this is

1. A principle that should always be followed
2. Something which is not universal and could be "right" under some circumstances?

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

In the sense that there is a pattern to nature that can be qualified and quantified by relationships called physical laws, yes.

How is it you can believe in absolute laws to nature and the universe but
there are not absolute laws to human moraity?

You don't seem to have a problem with the concept of absolute objective laws so why do you think they are impossible in one domain and essential in the other?

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

How is it you can believe in absolute laws to nature and the universe but
there are not absolute laws to human moraity?

You don't seem to have a problem with the concept of absolute objective laws so why do you think they are impossible in one domain and essential in the other?

Moral laws are human constructs. They are objective only in the same sense that a car or a bridge, or set theory is objective.

Ill have to take you up on the relativist premise.

It's not moral relativism. It's moral nihilism.

Do you believe it is always wrong for an adult in (their thrities say and of sound mind) to have sexual relations with a six year old child who has no signs of being sexually mature?

Do you believe this is

1. A principle that should always be followed
2. Something which is not universal and could be "right" under some circumstances?

Neither 1 nor 2. I believe it is something that I would never define as "right" under any circumstance, and I would oppose the behavior in any culture. But I would not justify my opposition by enshrining it as a principle of the universe.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

How is it you can believe in absolute laws to nature and the universe but
there are not absolute laws to human moraity?

You don't seem to have a problem with the concept of absolute objective laws so why do you think they are impossible in one domain and essential in the other?

Do you believe that there is an objective standard, independent to any subjective opinion or assessment by a humans, as to whether a piece of art is beautiful?

If you don't then not having an objective notion of morality should not be difficult to understand.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you believe that there is an objective standard, independent to any subjective opinion or assessment by a humans, as to whether a piece of art is beautiful?

If all art is beautiful then - yes.

If you begin by defining "art" as a subjective construct yu have stitched up the question in advance!

If you don't then not having an objective notion of morality should not be difficult to understand.

I dont mis understand the concept I am just trying to figure how it fits with other objective standards.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

If all art is beautiful then - yes.

If you begin by defining "art" as a subjective construct yu have stitched up the question in advance!

That is what I'm asking you. Is all art objectively beautiful. If I look at a piece of art and find it disgusting am I "wrong" based on the objective standard of is art and what is beauty?

Or do these concepts have no meaning other than in the context of opinion. Is something art because it is art or because people say it is? Is something beautiful because it is beautiful or because people say it is?

ISAW wrote: »

I dont mis understand the concept I am just trying to figure how it fits with other objective standards.

Why assume it is an objective standard in the first place?

Who ever said morality was objective, other than religion who had nothing to back this claim up with other than a misunderstanding of the evolution of human instinct for particular behavior (ie an appeal to us all knowing something is "wrong")?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

That is what I'm asking you. Is all art objectively beautiful.

Not if you define "beauty" as subjective!

If you define "beauty" objectively then the property of beauty associated with art is onjective and that element of the art is objective.

If I look at a piece of art and find it disgusting am I "wrong" based on the objective standard of is art and what is beauty?

If the objective standard is that it is beautifull then yes you are wrong. If you are going to say no onjective standard exists for beauty in the first place then you are stitching up the argument into a circular one by definition.

Or do these concepts have no meaning other than in the context of opinion. Is something art because it is art or because people say it is? Is something beautiful because it is beautiful or because people say it is?

If you say they are subjective then yes.

Why assume it is an objective standard in the first place?

i didnt! I asked Morbert how he can assume knowledge is objective but morality is socially constructed?

Who ever said morality was objective,

Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel.

other than religion

oops sorry:
Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel.

who had nothing to back this claim up with other than a misunderstanding of the evolution of human instinct for particular behavior (ie an appeal to us all knowing something is "wrong")?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Secular+Natural+Law

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x2243x34h7627364/

http://www.eou.edu/~jjohnson/Secular%20Natural%20Law%200915.pdf


And we a re back to - how about science saying about things that they can't measure? How about wormholes and parallel universes? Or biologists' - instinct for particular behavior?

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Not if you define "beauty" as subjective!

I'm not defining anything, I'm asking you.

ISAW wrote: »

i didnt! I asked Morbert how he can assume knowledge is objective but morality is socially constructed?

I would imagine the same way someone can assume beauty is subjective.

Do you define beauty as subjective or objective?

It if it is subjective you should have little trouble understanding how someone can consider morality subjective as well, and why this doesn't undermine the notion of morality any more than it undermines the notion of beauty.

ISAW wrote: »

oops sorry:
Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel.

Didn't they come before an understanding of evolutionary instincts?

The question I'm asking is why do you assume morality is objective, especially given what we know about evolution?

ISAW wrote: »

And we a re back to - how about science saying about things that they can't measure? How about wormholes and parallel universes? Or biologists' - instinct for particular behavior?

We aren't back to that. We are discussing the justification for the notion that morality is objective. This does not seem to be the case, the arguments for an objective morality seem outdated in the context of evolutionary biology (such as the notion that we all know some things are wrong, how can this be without objective morality. Quite easily actually since we are all hardwired to believe these things by evolution)

So there should be no trouble with Morbet not viewing morality as objective since that notion is rather out of date.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

I didnt! I asked Morbert how he can assume knowledge is objective but morality is socially constructed?

I don't remember being asked this, but anyway: I can assume it the same way I can assume anything.

If God exists then it makes sense to define moral principles as part of God's will, and therefore true and universal statements. But I don't believe in God, so I don't believe moral laws can be defined as universal principles that are true. I also, for the same reason, don't believe theology can contribute to moral philosophy.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

I also, for the same reason, don't believe theology can contribute to moral philosophy.

On the 10.10.2010 there was a global call to prayer amongst Christians. The organisers hoped that they could galvanise 100 million Christians to pray for justice in the nations, specifically to help end poverty. Even if you believe there is no God, I don't see how you can say that Christian theology contributes nothing to moral philosophy. Millions prayed that day, and hopefully millions were inspired to do something because they believe that God has certain qualities that underpin what is right and what is wrong.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

On the 10.10.2010 there was a global call to prayer amongst Christians. The organisers hoped that they could galvanise 100 million Christians to pray for justice in the nations, specifically to help end poverty. Even if you believe there is no God, I don't see how you can say that Christian theology contributes nothing to moral philosophy. Millions prayed that day, and hopefully millions were inspired to do something because they believe that God has certain qualities that underpin what is right and what is wrong.

Faith can inspire people to take action. But if God doesn't exist, then how does theology contribute to our understanding of what moral principles are, and where they come from? How would it contribute to atheists' moral principles?

lmaopml

Morbert wrote: »

Faith can inspire people to take action. But if God doesn't exist, then how does theology contribute to our understanding of what moral principles are, and where they come from? How would it contribute to atheists' moral principles?

Atheism can inspire people to take action. But if God exists, then how does subjective morals contribute to our understanding of what moral principles are, and where they come from? How would it contribute to Christians moral principles?

Morbert

lmaopml wrote: »

Atheism can inspire people to take action. But if God exists, then how does subjective morals contribute to our understanding of what moral principles are, and where they come from? How would it contribute to Christians moral principles?

It wouldn't contribute.

lmaopml

Morbert wrote: »

It wouldn't contribute.

Yep!

Morbert

lmaopml wrote: »

Yep!

Ok, but is this in any way related to my exchange with ISAW or Fanny?

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Atheism can inspire people to take action. But if God exists, then how does subjective morals contribute to our understanding of what moral principles are, and where they come from? How would it contribute to Christians moral principles?

You missed the "I don't believe in God" bit I assume

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

On the 10.10.2010 there was a global call to prayer amongst Christians. The organisers hoped that they could galvanise 100 million Christians to pray for justice in the nations, specifically to help end poverty. Even if you believe there is no God, I don't see how you can say that Christian theology contributes nothing to moral philosophy. Millions prayed that day, and hopefully millions were inspired to do something because they believe that God has certain qualities that underpin what is right and what is wrong.

But without God existing theology doesn't explain this.

In fact it probably gives the wrong answer (which is worse than no answer at all) since it would probably say something like that these people had God's grace in them and that is what inspired them, which if God doesn't exist wasn't true.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

Faith can inspire people to take action. But if God doesn't exist, then how does theology contribute to our understanding of what moral principles are, and where they come from? How would it contribute to atheists' moral principles?

If there is no God then there are no absolute moral principles. Instead, what we have is a collective and personal sense of morality that shifts over time. So if we are to look for "understand of what moral principles are" then what we are actually doing is no more than understanding what we want them to be. In this regard, your morality is not better than one built on Christian theology. Indeed, it should be pointed out that some of the foundations of your morality - with all it's European sensibilities - might well be grounded in Christian theology.

Furthermore, in admitting that faith inspires people to take action against some injustice you have undermined your assertion that theology can't contribute to moral philosophy. If 100 million people are inspired to fight against poverty (I realise that is a very round figure) then what is that if not part of a moral philosophy?

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

But without God existing theology doesn't explain this.

In fact it probably gives the wrong answer (which is worse than no answer at all) since it would probably say something like that these people had God's grace in them and that is what inspired them, which if God doesn't exist wasn't true.

All that is neither here nor there. I'm not here to argue with atheists about the existence of God. I am here to challenge the notion that theology can't contribute to morality.

It seems obvious to me that Christianity, morality and theology are inseparable - they all feed into each other. That Mobert or yourself think it all built on error, mendacious intent, delusion or whatever is quite a separate issue.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If there is no God then there are no absolute moral principles. Instead, what we have is a collective and personal sense of morality that shifts over time.

We have that anyway.

You pick your religion based on whether it makes sense to you. That is the same as if evolution gave the sense of our morality instead of God.

If there is worth exploring moral philosophy with God then there is worth exploring moral philosophy without God. The only thing that changes is the source of our morality.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

We have that anyway.

You pick your religion based on whether it makes sense to you. That is the same as if evolution gave the sense of our morality instead of God.

If there is worth exploring moral philosophy with God then there is worth exploring moral philosophy without God. The only thing that changes is the source of our morality.

Again, that is neither here nor there. If you want to explore moral philosophy without God then knock yourself out. No doubt we will agree on much. However, I was replying to a specific point made by Mobert. The fact that you agree that morality exists with God rather undoes Mobert's statement.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Again, that is neither here nor there.

Ok? If it is here nor there why did you bring it up?

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The fact that you agree that morality exists with God rather undoes Mobert's statement.

It does?

Anyway, I'm replying to the specific point made by Mobert, that without God theology offers nothing for moral philosophy since theology is based on a false assumption and a false source for morality, thus explanations for why we are moral, why somethings are moral and others aren't, will be false if based on theology.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

If there is no God then there are no absolute moral principles. Instead, what we have is a collective and personal sense of morality that shifts over time. So if we are to look for "understand of what moral principles are" then what we are actually doing is no more than understanding what we want them to be. In this regard, your morality is not better than one built on Christian theology.

I have not said my morality is better than Christian morality (in that regard at least). I said I don't believe theology can contribute to moral philosophy. I also explicitly said this is due to not believing in God. An atheist can't turn to a divine will to decide whether or not something is morally right or wrong.

Indeed, it should be pointed out that some of the foundations of your morality - with all it's European sensibilities - might well be grounded in Christian theology.

I have heard this claimed many times, but have never seen a convincing thesis. My morality falls in line with (contemporary) Christian morality in many ways, but it also diverges in many ways. I believe in the oppression of suffering. I believe in fairness, and the virtue of sacrifice to help others. But I also believe sex outside of marriage, or between people of the same sex, is fine.

I also disagree with C.S. Lewis's book 1 in "Mere Christianity" (Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe), so I can't say my morality is grounded in Christian theology.

Furthermore, in admitting that faith inspires people to take action against some injustice you have undermined your assertion that theology can't contribute to moral philosophy. If 100 million people are inspired to fight against poverty (I realise that is a very round figure) then what is that if not part of a moral philosophy?

I believe that, if everyone was an atheist, then we would be less charitable in many instances. Faith is a great motivator. But Moral Philosophy is the study of moral principles. And as much as I commend anyone who took action against poverty, I don't accept their reasoning or their understanding of why they took action.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

I have not said my morality is better than Christian morality. I said I don't believe theology can contribute to moral philosophy. I also explicitly said this is due to not believing in God. An atheist can't turn to a divine will to decide whether or not something is morally right or wrong.

Just because you personally don't believe does not mean that argument objectively applies for the universe and that therefore theology can contribute to moral philosophy because you dont believe in God.

But I also believe sex outside of marriage, or between people of the same sex, is fine.

Just because you believe society is better without commitment to single partners and sex with whomsoever one wants as an alternative to this does not prove that the elements (of say the churches teachings) you do agree with are invalidated as coming from god or some other objective morality.

I also disagree with C.S. Lewis's book 1 in "Mere Christianity" (Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe), so I can't say my morality is grounded in Christian theology.

One can say atheistic Marxism is grounded in Christian theology.

I believe that, if everyone was an atheist, then we would be less charitable in many instances.

Indeed atheistic societies contributed little or nothing to civilization but wholesale death and the murder regimes they instigated didn't last for long.

And as much as I commend anyone who took action against poverty, I don't accept their reasoning or their understanding of why they took action.

so byt and large you argument is

Atheists are pretty crap people when it comes to charity
Religious people are good people but they are being good for reasons I don't agree with.

And in spite of the whole of history you still would prefer if it was the atheists who had done more and the believers done all the bad stuff? And while you admit their belief or lack of it was a primary influence on their contribution to society you don't thing that this is in any way significant?

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

Just because you personally don't believe does not mean that argument objectively applies for the universe and that therefore theology can contribute to moral philosophy because you dont believe in God.

I did not say theology can contribute to moral philosophy because I don't believe in God.

Just because you believe society is better without commitment to single partners and sex with whomsoever one wants as an alternative to this does not prove that the elements (of say the churches teachings) you do agree with are invalidated as coming from god or some other objective morality.

I did not say society is better without commitment to single partners. I did not say elements are invalidated as coming from god or some other objective morality.

One can say atheistic Marxism is grounded in Christian theology.

How?

Indeed atheistic societies contributed little or nothing to civilization but wholesale death and the murder regimes they instigated didn't last for long.

This is a horribly naive interpretation of history. On par with J C's posts on Evolution. Any further assertions similar to this will be summarily ignored.

so by and large you argument is

Atheists are pretty crap people when it comes to charity
Religious people are good people but they are being good for reasons I don't agree with.

And in spite of the whole of history you still would prefer if it was the atheists who had done more and the believers done all the bad stuff? And while you admit their belief or lack of it was a primary influence on their contribution to society you don't thing that this is in any way significant?

I did not say this.

ISAW, I am going to have to unfortunately ignore posts like these in the future. After reading the discourse between you and wicknight, I have no interest in entering a discussion where I have to constantly correct your interpretation of what I am saying. From now on, I will only respond to segments of your post that are actually relevant to what I am saying.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Just because you believe society is better without commitment to single partners and sex with whomsoever one wants as an alternative to this does not prove that the elements (of say the churches teachings) you do agree with are invalidated as coming from god or some other objective morality.

I'm shocked this even has to be pointed out to you but

Sex outside marriage does not mean no commitment to a single partner and marriage does not mean a commitment to one sexual partner.

Non-married people have committed relationships and married people swing.

Back to the actual point, can you explain how theology contributes to moral philosophy if God doesn't exist?

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

I have not said my morality is better than Christian morality (in that regard at least). I said I don't believe theology can contribute to moral philosophy. I also explicitly said this is due to not believing in God.

I've not claimed you said such a thing. I said you can't claim such a thing - at least not in any objective sense. The difference is subtle but real.

As for the rest, please help me understand why theology (of any flavour) can not contribute to moral philosophy. I am of the opinion that by its very nature theology informs moral philosophy, the moral philosophy of billions throughout the ages. But if theology can't contribute to a moral philosophy what then is there to reject? It rather leaves your rejection of a moral precept (the stance of orthodox Christianity on sex outside marriage) out in the cold.

Morbert wrote: »

An atheist can't turn to a divine will to decide whether or not something is morally right or wrong.

Isn't that stating the obvious? Atheists may be convinced that they can not turn to a God they don't believe exists; however, that doesn't stop them from being able to concur and even adopt a particular religious teaching. Indeed, this is the whole point of an ideology like Christian atheism. I know of avowed atheists who look at the teachings of Jesus or Allah or whoever and say "Ill take this bit about loving your neighbour and leave out the stuff about the wickedness of the heart".

Morbert wrote: »

I have heard this claimed many times, but have never seen a convincing thesis. My morality falls in line with (contemporary) Christian morality in many ways, but it also diverges in many ways. I believe in the oppression of suffering. I believe in fairness, and the virtue of sacrifice to help others. But I also believe sex outside of marriage, or between people of the same sex, is fine.

Fine. I have no problem with you rejecting the notion that Christianity has had influence on your own morality. Though I wonder what knowledge you are privy to that allows you to know this. While I think it is at least a plausible hypothesis, it was never central to any point I was making regarding your point about theology and moral philosophy. Hence the "perhaps" clause.

Morbert wrote: »

I believe that, if everyone was an atheist, then we would be less charitable in many instances. Faith is a great motivator. But Moral Philosophy is the study of moral principles. And as much as I commend anyone who took action against poverty, I don't accept their reasoning or their understanding of why they took action.

Your Wiki link about moral philosophy actually contains a sub-link to Christian ethics (often called moral theology in the RC). If Christian ethics isn't based on theology than nothing is.

As I said from the outset, it really doesn't matter if you "accept their [Christian's] reasoning or their understanding of why they took action" or not. The point is that they do take action - they are motivated, if you like - and they take it because their theology guides their morality.

You said that theology contributes nothing towards a moral philosophy - yet I believe I have provided a number of examples where it expressly does.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I've not claimed you said such a thing. I said you can't claim such a thing - at least not in any objective sense. The difference is subtle but real.

As for the rest, please help me understand why theology (of any flavour) can not contribute to moral philosophy. I am of the opinion that by its very nature theology informs moral philosophy, the moral philosophy of billions throughout the ages. But if theology can't contribute to a moral philosophy what then is there to reject? It rather leaves your rejection of a moral precept (the stance of orthodox Christianity on sex outside marriage) out in the cold.

It has informed people's moral code throughout history. And I don't dispute that. What I reject is the idea that theology is a valid framework for exploring moral principles. The point was raised to counter ISAW implying that theology is "better" knowledge than science because it is knowledge about moral principles.

Isn't that stating the obvious? Atheists may be convinced that they can not turn to a God they don't believe exists; however, that doesn't stop them from being able to concur and even adopt a particular religious teaching. Indeed, this is the whole point of an ideology like Christian atheism. I know of avowed atheists who look at the teachings of Jesus or Allah or whoever and say "Ill take this bit about loving your neighbour and leave out the stuff about the wickedness of the heart".

That's fine, but ask yourself how they decide what bits to take and what bits to leave out. How do they explore the teachings of Jesus or Allah?

Fine. I have no problem with you rejecting the notion that Christianity has had influence on your own morality. Though I wonder what knowledge you are privy to that allows you to know this. While I think it is at least a plausible hypothesis, it was never central to any point I was making regarding your point about theology and moral philosophy. Hence the "perhaps" clause.

My moral principles are culturally influenced, and the cultures I have lived in can be described as Christian. But I am capable of arguing for or against a moral principle independently of any theology. And don't believe theology should be used as a means to argue for any moral principle.

Your Wiki link about moral philosophy actually contains a sub-link to Christian ethics (often called moral theology in the RC). If Christian ethics isn't based on theology than nothing is.

As I said from the outset, it really doesn't matter if you "accept their [Christian's] reasoning or their understanding of why they took action" or not. The point is that they do take action - they are motivated, if you like - and they take it because their theology guides their morality.

You said that theology contributes nothing towards a moral philosophy - yet I believe I have provided a number of examples where it expressly does.

There are also people who have based their morality around Darwinism. So in one sense, you could say it has contributed to moral philosophy. But in another, more important sense, you can reject Darwinism as a valid template to devise moral laws an principles. I feel it is the same with theology.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm shocked this even has to be pointed out to you but

Sex outside marriage does not mean no commitment to a single partner

It does. clearly we are discussing a traditional Church marriage since that is what i referred to with "church". If you want to use some subjective humpty dumpty definition of marriage then it doesnt count.

and marriage does not mean a commitment to one sexual partner.

It does.

Non-married people have committed relationships

If they are exclusive committted to each other and to their children and were not legally married the argument could be made that the sacrement of marriage exists anyway.

and married people swing.

They don't have a marriage then. not according to "elements of the churches teachings"

Back to the actual point, can you explain how theology contributes to moral philosophy if God doesn't exist?

Yes. http://www.eou.edu/~jjohnson/Secular%20Natural%20Law%200915.pdf
page 6
Unfortunately though, in this secular intellectual climate, the
metaphysical puzzlement is merely transferred from meta-ethics to philosophical
theology.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

If they are exclusive committted to each other and to their children and were not legally married the argument could be made that the sacrement of marriage exists anyway.

They don't have a marriage then. not according to "elements of the churches teachings"

What was that about humpty dumpty definition of marriage?

Depending on who exactly you mean "the church" to be a marriage a marriage must between baptized Christians, include a promise made to God, include a promise made to the community or a combination of those.

Two gay atheists living in a committed monogamous relationship are not married in the Christian sense by any stretch of the imagination. They are how ever not engaging in a relationship where "sex with whomsoever one wants" is an option.

On the other than two Christians who have married and committed to God but who later one decide to swing are adulterers. They are still married though unless one divorces the other. If they see the error of their ways, repent and go back to a monogamous relationship they don't have to remarry.

All this is details thought, the central point was the rejection of the connection you made between Christian marriage and the alternative being "sex with whomsoever one wants"

What ever exact definition you want to argue over that is not the alternative.

ISAW wrote: »

Yes. http://www.eou.edu/~jjohnson/Secular%20Natural%20Law%200915.pdf
page 6
Unfortunately though, in this secular intellectual climate, the
metaphysical puzzlement is merely transferred from meta-ethics to philosophical
theology.

Let me ask the quesiton again

Can you explain how theology contributes to moral philosophy if God doesn't exist?

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

It has informed people's moral code throughout history. And I don't dispute that. What I reject is the idea that theology is a valid framework for exploring moral principles. The point was raised to counter ISAW implying that theology is "better" knowledge than science because it is knowledge about moral principles.

Well, perhaps I'm misunderstanding your words because it now seems that you are now shifting away from what you said previously. If you are simply saying that you, Mobert, don't find theology to be a satisfactory basis for the exploration of morality then that is just fine. I tend to think that it dismisses incalculable amounts of moral history in the process... but hey! However, voicing your personal disdain for theology as a source of good morality is not the same as your earlier claim that "theology can not contribute to moral philosophy". The former is personal conjecture, the latter is a categorical statement. And it's the latter I disagree with.

Btw, I'm not here to defend ISAW's position. TBH, I haven't been paying attention to it.

Morbert wrote: »

That's fine, but ask yourself how they decide what bits to take and what bits to leave out. How do they explore the teachings of Jesus or Allah?

They decided what is right and wrong the same way any of us do They explore the teachings of Jesus by reading Scripture and maybe imbibing whatever morsels of tradition they find palatable But as I'm not one of them it isn't up to me to explain their thought processes.

Morbert wrote: »

But I am capable of arguing for or against a moral principle independently of any theology. And don't believe theology should be used as a means to argue for any moral principle.

So are most of us. However, that is different to your claim that you have somehow escaped the influence of Christian morality.

Morbert wrote: »

There are also people who have based their morality around Darwinism. So in one sense, you could say it has contributed to moral philosophy. But in another, more important sense, you can reject Darwinism as a valid template to devise moral laws an principles. I feel it is the same with theology.

Yes, we are free to accept or reject morality based on X, Y and Z. I've never claimed otherwise, and I can't see the relevance to the core of the discussion between you and me. That is, the claim and counter claim about the ability of theology to contribute to moral philosophy.

Maybe we can cut through all the verbiage and any possible misunderstanding by answering me this question.

Can theology contribute to moral philosophy? (Please not that your answer should not be contingent on your personal opinions on the worth of any potential philosophy. I'm not looking for your moral philosophy in other words.)

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, perhaps I'm misunderstanding your words because it now seems that you are now shifting away from what you said previously. If you are simply saying that you, Mobert, don't find theology to be a satisfactory basis for the exploration of morality then that is just fine. I tend to think that it dismisses incalculable amounts of moral history in the process... but hey! However, voicing your personal disdain for theology as a source of good morality is not the same as your earlier claim that "theology can not contribute to moral philosophy". The former is personal conjecture, the latter is a categorical statement. And it's the latter I disagree with.

Btw, I'm not here to defend ISAW's position. TBH, I haven't been paying attention to it.

What I said previously was

"If God exists then it makes sense to define moral principles as part of God's will, and therefore true and universal statements. But I don't believe in God, so I don't believe moral laws can be defined as universal principles that are true. I also, for the same reason, don't believe theology can contribute to moral philosophy."

You cannot understand my sentence unless you know the context. It was being claimed that we can use theology to know the ethics behind the use of nuclear weapons. I argued that, as I do not believe in God, I reject any philosophical reasoning that draws conclusions from a theology. I do not believe a theology can contribute to moral philosophy.

I then clarified what I meant by this:

"There are also people who have based their morality around Darwinism. So in one sense, you could say it has contributed to moral philosophy. But in another, more important sense, you can reject Darwinism as a valid template to devise moral laws an principles. I feel it is the same with theology."

They decided what is right and wrong the same way any of us do They explore the teachings of Jesus by reading Scripture and maybe imbibing whatever morsels of tradition they find palatable But as I'm not one of them it isn't up to me to explain their thought processes.

They choose based on their own sense of morality, and perhaps more academic studies of ethics ("Judge not lest ye be judged" is a very powerful ethical principle, for example). They agree with Jesus, but don't ground their moral philosophy on the theology surrounding him. That was my point.

So are most of us. However, that is different to your claim that you have somehow escaped the influence of Christian morality.

"Escaping influence of" and not having some of the foundation of one's philosophy grounded in Christianity are very different things. I have never claimed the former. My morality is entirely grounded in moral nihilism.

Yes, we are free to accept or reject morality based on X, Y and Z. I've never claimed otherwise, and I can't see the relevance to the core of the discussion between you and me. That is, the claim and counter claim about the ability of theology to contribute to moral philosophy.

Maybe we can cut through all the verbiage and any possible misunderstanding by answering me this question.

Can theology contribute to moral philosophy? (Please not that your answer should not be contingent on your personal opinions on the worth of any potential philosophy. I'm not looking for your moral philosophy in other words.)

To reiterate. I believe theology can contribute to moral philosophy in the same sense that the scientific theory of Darwinism can contribute to moral philosophy.

Fanny Cradock

With all due respect, I don't think we will agree, Mobert. I'm happy not to turn this into a 2-page special if you are.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

What was that about humpty dumpty definition of marriage?

Quite simply christian "marriage" involves a man and a woman who are committed to each other for life and would like to have a family. No legal papers are required.

Two gay atheists living in a committed monogamous relationship are not married in the Christian sense by any stretch of the imagination.

Two hetrosexual people living together aren't either. Unless they are committed to each other for life and want to have a family.

They are how ever not engaging in a relationship where "sex with whomsoever one wants" is an option.

this is yu humpty dumpty problem not mine! You were given a definition and you persist in changing one or two elements. Next I suppose it wil be "what of one of them is a child" Or "what if one is insane and chant judge committment" . In fact all these sort of things are probably grounds for an annulment. You ahve been given a definition. Use it and dont try to make up your own.

On the other than two Christians who have married and committed to God but who later one decide to swing are adulterers. They are still married though unless one divorces the other.

Divorce is a different issue. Catholics don't have it not because of marriages ending but probably nore so because of rights to remarry. You are going off on a tangent like the Pharisees did with their "who is married to whom in heaven" idea. You have been given a definition. "Marriage" according to the church. Run with it!

If they see the error of their ways, repent and go back to a monogamous relationship they don't have to remarry.

If you can't remarry then the idea of remarrying makes no sense!

All this is details though,

Off topic unrelated musing on humpty dumpty definitions made by YOU because you won't just simply go by the Church definition.

the central point was the rejection of the connection you made between Christian marriage and the alternative being "sex with whomsoever one wants"

As I stated:
Just because you believe society is better without commitment to single partners and sex with whomsoever one wants as an alternative to this, does not prove that the elements (of say the churches teachings) you do agree with are invalidated as coming from god or some other objective morality.

What ever exact definition you want to argue over that is not the alternative.

You can't invalidate the idea of "objective morality" by simply changing the dedinition of marriage to suit yourself whenever you want. You are only adopting an only true scotsman point of view then. A logical fallacy

Let me ask the quesiton again

Can you explain how theology contributes to moral philosophy if God doesn't exist?

I can direct you to people who have ideas about it. Whether you understand then isn't for me to say. Secular natural Law is a valid field of academic study whether you I or the downpipe think it isn't!

Yes. http://www.eou.edu/~jjohnson/Secular...Law%200915.pdf
page 6
Unfortunately though, in this secular intellectual climate, the
metaphysical puzzlement is merely transferred from meta-ethics to philosophical
theology.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

It has informed people's moral code throughout history. And I don't dispute that. What I reject is the idea that theology is a valid framework for exploring moral principles.

How is it invalid then?

The point was raised to counter ISAW implying that theology is "better" knowledge than science because it is knowledge about moral principles.

Nope. Not really. I asked how a purely objective scientific point of view is "better".

My moral principles are culturally influenced, and the cultures I have lived in can be described as Christian. But I am capable of arguing for or against a moral principle independently of any theology. And don't believe theology should be used as a means to argue for any moral principle.

But you admit the source of them is a culture based in such theology? That they indirectly come from such theology?

There are also people who have based their morality around Darwinism.

Whom? social Darwinists? Who else? Atheists? How did they fare compared to say christianity? What great civilizations did they build? What mass slaughter did they avoid?

So in one sense, you could say it has contributed to moral philosophy.

Indeed maybe it has. The Church of England had no problem with it apparently only some clerics. Just as the RCC has a problem with Naziism but some Catholics supported the nazis. Today people think christianity opposed darwin and also supported nazis. Just like they think the pope hated Galileo or that Galileo was vilely punished even though he proved beynd a shadow of doubt he was correct.

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Quite simply christian "marriage" involves a man and a woman who are committed to each other for life and would like to have a family. No legal papers are required.

No legal papers but a promise made to each other before the community and God is.

There is a difference between two people in a monogamous relationship and a marriage, what ever way you look at it. Neither though involve sex with who ever you like.

ISAW wrote: »

this is yu humpty dumpty problem not mine!

No, actually it is your problem because it was your assertion

Just because you believe society is better without commitment to single partners and sex with whomsoever one wants as an alternative to this


I've already given examples of people in a relationship which is not by any stretch of the imagination a Christian marriage which doesn't involve "sex with whomsoever one wants"

You rather ridiculously tried to get around this by asserting that anyone in a monogous relationship was considered "married" when a far more reasonable response would have to simply accept that sex with whomsoever one wants is not the only alternative to marriage.

ISAW wrote: »

If you can't remarry then the idea of remarrying makes no sense!

Which means they are still married. So how does marriage the opposite to sex with who ever you want?

ISAW wrote: »

As I stated:
Just because you believe society is better without commitment to single partners and sex with whomsoever one wants as an alternative to this, does not prove that the elements (of say the churches teachings) you do agree with are invalidated as coming from god or some other objective morality.

And you have yet to back up that the alternative to sex outside of marriage is "sex with whomsoever one wants" other than to try and get everyone a monogamous relationship as being "married" under your humpty dumpty definition.

ISAW wrote: »

You can't invalidate the idea of "objective morality" by simply changing the dedinition of marriage to suit yourself whenever you want.

I using the definition of marriage everyone else uses. I'm in a mongomous relationship. I can't with a clear conscience nor would I want to have sex with who ever I want, my girlfriend would kill me and I also don't want to hurt her.

There isn't a Christian alive who would consider me married in the Christian sense. I am fornicating a much as anyone.

The idea that I'm married is ridiculous. The idea that therefore I can have sex with who ever I want is equally ridiculous.

ISAW wrote: »

I can direct you to people who have ideas about it. Whether you understand then isn't for me to say. Secular natural Law is a valid field of academic study whether you I or the downpipe think it isn't!.

So no then.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

How is it invalid then?

Theological morality is predicated on moral principles as reflections of the will of God. If there is no God, then these principles mean very little.

Nope. Not really. I asked how a purely objective scientific point of view is "better".

You asked me which would be 'better' knowledge, the scientific details of a nuclear device, or whether or not to use them. It was a reasonable inference.

But you admit the source of them is a culture based in such theology? That they indirectly come from such theology?

In the sense that some of what we call 'cardinal virtues' are influenced by religious belief. But 'theological virtues' do not influence my morality. [edit]-I should not that I don't agree with the classification of charity as a theological virtue, but rather a cardinal one.

Whom? social Darwinists? Who else? Atheists? How did they fare compared to say christianity? What great civilizations did they build? What mass slaughter did they avoid?

Social Darwinism fared terribly, and is abhorrent in many ways. I am not claiming the morality of Christians is abhorrent. My point was it 'contributes' to the study of moral philosophy in a similar style, even if the resultant virtues are far more agreeable. Either way, Fanny and I have agreed to disagree on that point.

Zombrex

Someone can ask how does the study of Darth Vader contribute to moral philosophy, but since Darth Vader doesn't exist the actual question is how does the study of George Lucas contribute to moral philosophy.

Same with theology. Without God theology is replaced simply with history and psychology, since you are no longer studying what God wants from us but rather studying what 1st century Christians claimed God wanted from us.

Theology ceases to have any bearing on the real world, just like Darth Vader doesn't have any bearing on the real world.

pts

Wicknight wrote: »

Someone can ask how does the study of Darth Vader contribute to moral philosophy, but since Darth Vader doesn't exist the actual question is how does the study of George Lucas contribute to moral philosophy.

Same with theology. Without God theology is replaced simply with history and psychology, since you are no longer studying what God wants from us but rather studying what 1st century Christians claimed God wanted from us.

Theology ceases to have any bearing on the real world, just like Darth Vader doesn't have any bearing on the real world.

I find your lack of faith disturbing....