Philosophical Failures of Christian Apologetics, Part 7: Morality Explained

Philosophical Failures of Christian Apologetics, Part 7: Morality Explained
Articles
42

I agree but the quotes you used for showing that God approves of “thought crimes” was actually denouncing them

May I just also mention that if every living thing went by the same standards as humans, things like crabs would not eat their babies??? I mean its not like the crab babies are that important since the parent can make thousands. And you got spartans of ancient times who literally killed babies on the spot if they looked too weak to be able to fight…

Remember Genesis:
God told humans not to eat from a tree that would let them know good and evil.
People who can determine good from evil by themselves are a threat to religious die-hards.

For a quick reality check, please tell me by what or whose standards is Hitler evil or good?

Then tell me by what standards are you good or evil.

My I remind everyone who responds to this that morality is in the eyes of the beholder.

This video fails to address the actual argument.
If there is no God. Where does our objective foundation of morality stand?
We can all agree that killing children, rape, and discrimination is wrong,
Where does that come from?

There are flaws in this argument. All the terms have not been thoroughly defined. The argument assumes an anthropomorphized God. If God is understood as a single being who can only be in one place at a time and is separate from us as we are separate from each other, then it truly is hard to reconcile an objective moral value which is separate from the valuer. However, when we change our definition of God everything else changes. There are many religions which define God to be a collective thing. For example, in Hindu philosophy God is sutratma – thread soul or sum of all souls. The argument put forward in the video states that there is no objective moral value because any measure of value is inherently dependent on a choice maker or agent of preference and therefore cannot be objective. However, the argument does not account for a collective preference as opposed to individual, subjective preference. For example, The individual preference of an African buffalo might be to stay alive – life is good and death by lion is bad. But, from the perspective of the organism called buffalo herd, the death of a weakened, aged buffalo is good and will keep the herd alive and healthy. The single buffalo inhabits a certain level of awareness, unaware of the dynamics of herd management but there is a higher level of awareness (could we say intelligence?) in the realm of something we call "Mother Nature" which manages both the herd of buffalo and the lion pride which keeps it in check. Nature is filled with examples of the hive mind and the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. Interestingly, in the system of Gematria within the Hebrew language, God (Elokim) and nature (Teveh) have the same numerical value, therefore are one and the same thing. Rupert Sheldrakes theory of the "Morphic Field" points to this and describes how living structures are nested hierarchies of fields within fields, each one a whole, and simultaneously part of a greater whole, each with its own level of awareness and even memory. A similar dynamic has been described in economics with Adam smiths invisible hand where individuals are led by this "hand" without knowing it, without intending it, to advance the interests of the collective. However, this hand often directs contrary to and in spite of the preference of the individual while still in favor of the interests of the whole. In this way, values are dependent not only on individual agent desire or preference but collective desire or preference which means that objective value can exist collectively in relation to individual subjective value. Objective value exists. God can still exist.

THE CONVERSATION IS ABOUT THE NATURE OF MORALITY
Original comment
"if apples don't grow on trees then the moon is an onion" is true cuz apples do grow on trees and an implication can only be faulse if something true implies something faulse.

Not all Capitalists are Christians and vice versa. Even if there is a correlation, correlation is not causation. Also, skewing evidence to fit your narrative makes you no more of a reliable source than Christian apologists.

@AntiCitizenX I don't know if someone mentioned this already but I'm too lazy to look through all the posts.

I disagree with your point that there are no moral objectives or truths, if I understand you correctly.

I agree that at its base morality is about well being. As we place value on our own species above other species it makes perfect sense that we view good/evil and right /wrong are those things that either promote or take away from well being.

If we've come to a basic agreement that this is the structure we are going to use to define morality, then there are objective truths.

If one wants to continue being healthy and continue living one ought not drink battery acid

If we're measuring by well being is this a subjective statement? Or does this action go against what promotes well being?

Moral structures and value are indeed subjective. Once there is an agreed upon framework, morally objective truths and responsibilities can be found.

Am I off my rocker here?

The actual driving force for the development of any altruistic behavior is enlightened self interest.

S
Su
Sub
Subs
Subsc
Subscr
Subscri
Subscrib
Subscribe
Subscribe t
Subscribe to
Subscribe to m
Subscribe to me
Subscribe to m
Subscribe to
Subscribe t
Subscribe
Subscrib
Subscri
Subscr
Subsc
Subs
Sub
Su
S

what do you think of rationality rules video about objective morality? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJSLvTN7pys

#MoralRelativism4Life

I was called evil before for saying "all white people are not racist and oppression of a person or group for actions by a member of their race is by itself racist" and that's the story of how I got suspended before graduating from high school!…

So what if enslaving 2% of the population would increase most people's happiness and increase the strength of the world economy?

The attempt to refute OMV existence is logically valid but is fallacious because the second premise is false. Not all values are dependent the desire or preference. We see people not doing what they desire but choosing to do what is good for the community or for the neighbors all the time.

yeah, but if you wanna get genetic that it's not a zero sum game thing reeks of capitalism, but i suppose you think that's a good thing

that yhwh does have a long history of not hurling lightning bolts at me for my blasphemy, and the bible does kinda say yhwh is gonna end the world before the people who were alive in jesus's time were dead. pretty sure they're all dead now. kinda seems like yhwh can't do more than knock over a lousy temple, and really romans did that, so…

you know… even if objective morality exist in the form of the good ol' bible just like the theist says, then the world is a fucking horrible place to live on. Exodus 21 lays down the law for slavery, many verses in bible explicitly says death sentence for a lot of things.
– Oh, you found someone praising our lord and savior Gaben in his basement? Well, time to kill everyone on the city down, and oh, don't forget to also set the city on fire, oh and also, make sure you bring some nice women to rape and make her yer 'wife' eh?
– Your kid is disrespecting you? No problem, just lop his head off and it's a totally moral thing to do.
– Someone is working on sabbath day? Off with his head it seems.
See the problem here? The bible is a fucking mess. on one point, it told us to love others, then the next thing you know is that god ordered a massacre somewhere. Imagine that as your "objective morality". That might not be the prettiest thing you can ever imagine.

I only have one qualm with the argument presented here and it was your biblical examples of God advocating for certain wrong things. Which some were taken out of context. For example Abraham sacrificing his son, which never happened God stopped Abraham before it could be followed through to the end, it was just a test to see if Abraham would follow God’s commands even if it meant giving up the thing he loved the most. I’m not going to go through all of them, but I found it dishonest to present the God in that manner. I will grant that some of them were not taken out of context and your argument still stands but still the faulty evidence presented shows a misunderstanding of some of the teachings the Bible is offering.

I'm half happy that I'm bored to tears at work or else I wouldn't have clicked on a channel that combines the words "anti", "citizen" and "x" in ist name. I was half expecting tin foil hat style rant.

While I agree christian apologists arguments are BS. You seem to say morality is all about objective, which I do not agree with. You are essentially throwing out morality with the christian bathwater.

Lets say you own a company, but one of your employees who is on your board of directors who you can not fire, is trying to take over your position and it looks like it will succeed. This person is relatively just as good a person as you, you both have loving families, the employee is not someone who does harm to anyone. One day you discover a magic wand of death, you can wave it and anyone you want to die, will die and no one can ever possibly know you did it. Or even let's say it is keyed to only work on that employee. What's to stop you from waving it to kill your employee to keep your company? Morality perhaps? But if morality was all about cause and effect and or objectives, then logically there would be nothing immoral about killing that employee. But there would be, most would agree. What ever you would choose, your conscience and morality would likely know that killing the employee was wrong.

Let's make this more complicated still.
Two groups of lives are in danger, you can only save one group, noone knows or will ever know that you made a decision on this. In one group is your awesome spouse who you love dearly, and your three children, your youngest is a bundle of joy and affection curious, smart well behaved. The middle child is a child prodegy genius the likes of which almost never happen, your oldest works with you in your company ad is actively aiding you in keeping control of your company. There is mutual love in this family all around.
In the other group is a thousand people, mostly bunch of strangers on the other side of the world you would never meet even if they lived through this, except one, which is said employee from earlier and family. You can only choose one group to save, which choice is the most MORAL choice? Not which would you choose, which is the more morale choice? Or say it wasn't you making the choice, you were passively watching from on high, which choice would you call the most moral?

Let's make this even more complicated still
Say in the distant future humans have filled many worlds. You are the captain of a spaceship with a thousand passengers including your loving family. A accident happens and your ship is sent careening out of control towards a a population of sentient aliens who exist as energy within a gas cloud. You, and only you know of these aliens, you know they are sentient, you know they can't and will never interact with humans. You also know if the ship plows into the cloud with its shields up, it will destroy them wiping out their species which contains it's own art, science, morality, compassion etc. You can put down the shields but then the ship will react negatively with the cloud and blow up, or you can simply self destruct before you get to the cloud. If it's just about personal, or human consequences, the decision is easy, right? But could there be moral factors to consider beyond consequences to yourself or even to multiple humans?

I believe morality is actions that word towards or against the love and valuing of sentient life . I believe (non-romantic) love is the valuing of sentient life which increases your sentience, and hate the opposite. Now there are gray areas that have subjective metrics with such definition/evaluation metrics but there can be circumstance of objective morality too. Yes morality is about intent and it is about social values too, but its what you know of sentient life, and your valuing of it, that interplays with these that brings about real morality.

My Christian mom: watches
Also her: you just have to have faith, I can't explain this stuff, talk to a pastor

While I want to pull out a gun and shoot out the church down the street, it doesn't benefit me beyond giving a short high, kills people who are responsible for certain processes in our community, would likely get me arrested or killed, etc. The negatives far out weigh the positives so of course I wont actually do it. Humanity didn't make it this far because we like to kill each other, we made it this far by working together, you scratch my back and I scratch your's, you write that paragraph and I'm write the next, 2 people with swords will likely beat 1 person with a sword, etc. This is something we are taught at a very young age, if you don't do what your parents want then you get punished, don't do what society wants and you will get punished (jailing, executing, a fine). As you can see there a plenty of other reasons than "because God" for why I don't run around shooting people I don't like. This is also why pirates and cowboys lived outside the laws grasp. Most of them believed in a God but if society isn't gonna stop them than who the f*ck will? When society finally moved out to the new world the pirates went away, when the law moved out west the cowboys disappeared. This concept seems way more substantiated than the idea "God is watching so I should be good".
Now let's make an easy counter to this idea of "universal morality". As we know, you shouldn't have sex with you siblings; so is that a universal rule, no. In fact this is actually a more recent development. Back in the 1800s many were perfectly fine with marriage to a sibling or cousin, this started to change though when we discovered there are consequences to this. Doing so will result in the passing down of bad genes, mutations become more common, the immune system becomes weaker, etc. If this were a universal rule than humans would never would have committed this act in the firstly place without thinking poorly of it. What about to execute people who have committed a crime. Many use the excuse an eye for an eye, however you will notice that executions are also going away as well. The main reason for this is the fact you can never guarantee the convicted is the actual criminal. We have had people in prison for 20 years and be set free to learn they likely aren't the actual criminal. Many will say the fact if someone pleads guilty will break this issue however many lie to being guilty as they are told the penalty will be smaller or are told the court is built against them. In Japan 98% of people convicted of a crime are found guilty with studies suggesting only 30-60% of those are likely correct; that means that 3/4th of people in Japanese prison are likely innocent.

The church should just shut its mouth when it comes to morality as long as they are the largest organised child sex abuse ring.

Solid points you making here bud,but uh- most of religion is just a farse to con people out of their spiritual energy to manifest and feed into the lies spread upon the masses by those who are in power. To be totally real here: Religion should never be taken as an absolute or factual answer.

5:50
Going back to the original premise
"Without God objective moral values and duties do not exist"
God being a personal being that prefers certain entities above others (ie a human being "is of more value than many sparrows" – Jesus Christ), and prefers those entities to take some actions above others (ie don't steal, give charity to the less fortunate), etc.

These standards are "objective" in the sense that they do not change, and apply to all living things. Example, God placed a moral demand on the animals too; don't kill humans, or you have to be killed. Because God made man in his own image, for an animal to kill a man is a great evil; and the animal must die. Likewise moral demands are placed on angels and other beings more powerful and wise than we. Whether or not humans exist, these moral principles exist because God holds that they are good; and he does not change.
As, if God exists, nothing can exist without him; these morals are eternally binding throughout all existence, and are in that sense objective.
Your complete rejection of the idea of objective moral values then, rather demonstrates the first premise to be logically coherent and consistent; as you are an atheist.

Christians have to believe that there is somebody telling them to be good because they are inherently evil

The moral argument isn't necessarily the worst argument for God, though it is absolutely awful. The worst I've heard is "look at nature, therefore my very specific God exists" followed by the ontological argument.

42 Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Marvel Cinematic Universe: Prelude to Infinity War
Articles
100
Marvel Cinematic Universe: Prelude to Infinity War

Before creation itself, there existed six singularities of immense power. When the universe exploded into being, their remnants were forged into concentrated ingots possibly by the Cosmic Entities Infinity, Entropy, Eternity and Death. Over time, the infinity stones representing Space, Mind, Reality, Power, Soul and Time became scattered across the …

God’s Word to the World – Series 7 – Part 6
Articles
4
God’s Word to the World – Series 7 – Part 6

>>ANNOUNCER: TODAY ON THE JOHN ANKERBERG SHOW AS WE APPROACH THE NEW YEAR’S CELEBRATION, MANY IN OUR WORLD WILL NOT BE CELEBRATING. THE UNITED NATIONS SAYS THAT THERE ARE NOW OVER 70 MILLION PEOPLE THAT HAVE FLED FROM THEIR COUNTRIES AND ARE LIVING IN REFUGEE CAMPS. AND TODAY WE ARE …