Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

Of course not.

And yet he can build a world in which:
God has perfect foreknowledge of every decision you will make + There is nothing you can do to change the decisions God already knows you will make = God gave you freewill.

Well, again, Will, knowledge does not equal making. The equation is actually just that straightforward.

It's a bit of a paradigm shift to 'get' that, if one has already imagined the world as fated or pre-set, because that latter belief is very simple. But simple things are often too simple; and Determism is like that. It creates a simplistic sense of contradiction, one easy to think about; but it ignores the obvious reconcilability of knowledge and making.

So there's no uneven equation there. What you would need, in order to generate a real contradiction, is the claim that God makes everything happen, and man makes things happen. There are some people who believe that...usually called "Calvinists," or "Divine Determinists," and with regard to them, I'd have to agree that there's a logical problem. But not with the word "foreknowledge": even the Calvinists recognize that, and prefer the word "foreordination." Even the Calvinists realize "foreknowledge" is not enough to give them what they want to assert.

But of course, the Atheist does indeed have this contradiction problem. For denying God any role in making things happen (by definition) he must believe that everything is nothing more than a product of time and chance...

I'm not interested in your musings about "the Atheist",

I can understand why. The Atheist problem is very serious, and quite intractable. It is much more consoling to ignore it entirely than to try to solve it from a skeptical perspective.

But if you have a right to question Theism -- which, I insist, you do indeed have -- then what wisdom is there in exempting your own presuppositions from the same terms of scrutiny? Are beliefs taken by accident, or unconsciously, or as a mere matter of negation of what somebody else thinks, usually wise beliefs? Or are they merely another kind of unexamined prejudice, unless we are prepared to open them up to an examination equivalent to that we level at contrary beliefs? There is danger in received beliefs, of course; but is there no danger at all in having no more than an ignorant and cynical skepticism, if, indeed, that's all we have? At the very least, it leaves us nothing to believe in, no positive conviction upon which to make rational and moral decisions...

This is why I think God should be avoided: It always leads to bizarre conversations of this nature, that are so convoluted, and involve so many odd twists and turns in logic, that one is left knowing damn well that it's a load of nonsense, but being completely unable to know where to start in unpicking it.

[Immanuel Can]

This is why I think God should be avoided: It always leads to bizarre conversations of this nature, that are so convoluted, and involve so many odd twists and turns in logic, that one is left knowing damn well that it's a load of nonsense, but being completely unable to know where to start in unpicking it.

Atheists prefer to keep things simple, it seems. But simple is not always true. Sometimes, it's just oversimplistic.

Lazy thinking is easy. "Unpicking" is hard. Some people just don't like mental work.

[Harbal]

This is why I think God should be avoided: It always leads to bizarre conversations of this nature, that are so convoluted, and involve so many odd twists and turns in logic, that one is left knowing damn well that it's a load of nonsense, but being completely unable to know where to start in unpicking it.

Atheists prefer to keep things simple, it seems. But simple is not always true. Sometimes, it's just oversimplistic.

I usually find that simply keeping things honest is sufficient. Trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes with a load of gobbledygook is not in any way honest.

Lazy thinking is easy. "Unpicking" is hard. Some people just don't like mental work.

And some people just don't like lies.

[Immanuel Can]

This is why I think God should be avoided: It always leads to bizarre conversations of this nature, that are so convoluted, and involve so many odd twists and turns in logic, that one is left knowing damn well that it's a load of nonsense, but being completely unable to know where to start in unpicking it.

Atheists prefer to keep things simple, it seems. But simple is not always true. Sometimes, it's just oversimplistic.

I usually find that simply keeping things honest is sufficient.

And sometimes, it is...and sometimes, it's not. It depends on how profound the issue is.

How profound are the questions of the origin of the world, of its true nature, of the existence of God, of the fundamental nature of morality itself...

Going to get those answered quickly, maybe with a slogan, are we?

[Gary Childress]

Atheists prefer to keep things simple, it seems. But simple is not always true. Sometimes, it's just oversimplistic.

I usually find that simply keeping things honest is sufficient.

And sometimes, it is...and sometimes, it's not. It depends on how profound the issue is.

How profound are the questions of the origin of the world, of its true nature, of the existence of God, of the fundamental nature of morality itself...

Going to get those answered quickly, maybe with a slogan, are we?

the questions in blue are probably unknowable and best left that way, in my opinion. I'd rather not be the keeper of the holy flame or whatever it ought to be called. If there is a God, then it's probably best to leave God to do things the way God wants to do them. Again, my opinion.

As far as answering them "quickly", there are many "quick answers" to those questions on both sides of the aisle. That's why I prefer agnosticism. I took the slow path in life, stayed home with parents, more or less avoided morally problematic situations altogether. That's fine with me. It's not the worst path to be on. I don't know if it's the same path everyone ought to be on, though. I suppose someone occasionally has to break something in order to figure out the hard way why it ought not be broken. And some things might need to be broken in order to replace them with better things.

[Harbal]

Atheists prefer to keep things simple, it seems. But simple is not always true. Sometimes, it's just oversimplistic.

I usually find that simply keeping things honest is sufficient.

And sometimes, it is...and sometimes, it's not. It depends on how profound the issue is.

How profound are the questions of the origin of the world, of its true nature, of the existence of God, of the fundamental nature of morality itself...

How profound the questions are depends on how much imagined profundity you project onto them.

The origin of the world? Given a basic interest in science, I would say the question of the origin of the world is fascinating, rather than profound.

Of its true nature? It's a big ball of rock, on the surface of which various forms of biological life have become established.


Of the existence of God? The question of God is only interesting if you are interested in God.

The fundamental nature of morality? It's a feature of human behavioural psychology, and is of more interest to some of us than it is to others.

Going to get those answered quickly, maybe with a slogan, are we?

That depends on what, specifically, is asked about them.

[Immanuel Can]

I usually find that simply keeping things honest is sufficient.

And sometimes, it is...and sometimes, it's not. It depends on how profound the issue is.

How profound are the questions of the origin of the world, of its true nature, of the existence of God, of the fundamental nature of morality itself...

Going to get those answered quickly, maybe with a slogan, are we?

the questions in blue are probably unknowable and best left that way, in my opinion.

Then don't bother with philosophy, I guess. Dealing with questions that frighten other people is what philosophers do. If you can't stand the heat, what are you doing in the kitchen?

[Gary Childress]

And sometimes, it is...and sometimes, it's not. It depends on how profound the issue is.

How profound are the questions of the origin of the world, of its true nature, of the existence of God, of the fundamental nature of morality itself...

Going to get those answered quickly, maybe with a slogan, are we?

the questions in blue are probably unknowable and best left that way, in my opinion.

Then don't bother with philosophy, I guess. Dealing with questions that frighten other people is what philosophers do. If you can't stand the heat, what are you doing in the kitchen?

Philosophy is the love of wisdom. There is a lot of need for people to discover what wisdom is. Just look at the daily news.

[Immanuel Can]

I usually find that simply keeping things honest is sufficient.

And sometimes, it is...and sometimes, it's not. It depends on how profound the issue is.

How profound are the questions of the origin of the world, of its true nature, of the existence of God, of the fundamental nature of morality itself...

How profound the questions are depends on how much imagined profundity you project onto them.

Oh? So all questions are actually simple, and profundity is merely a "projection"? There are no genuinely "profound" questions?

Well, I suppose that's a simple, comforting belief, in its own right.

[Immanuel Can]

the questions in blue are probably unknowable and best left that way, in my opinion.

Then don't bother with philosophy, I guess. Dealing with questions that frighten other people is what philosophers do. If you can't stand the heat, what are you doing in the kitchen?

Philosophy is the love of wisdom. There is a lot of need for people to discover what wisdom is. Just look at the daily news.

Well, wisdom takes work...mental work...and often, it takes suffering as well, actually. How many people do you know who have never suffered much, and yet are wise?

If you look at the daily news, you'll find no wisdom. You'll find factoids, all elicited in aid of an agenda...at least, for the most part. Wisdom has to do with the things that do not change, the truly profound things of life, not merely with the changeable circumstances marshalled by the news.

Heck, their name gives it away: the daily "NEW-s". It ain't the daily "permanent realities."

[Harbal]

And sometimes, it is...and sometimes, it's not. It depends on how profound the issue is.

How profound are the questions of the origin of the world, of its true nature, of the existence of God, of the fundamental nature of morality itself...

How profound the questions are depends on how much imagined profundity you project onto them.

Oh? So all questions are actually simple, and profundity is merely a "projection"? There are no genuinely "profound" questions?

Some questions require complicated answers, but one would need to know a specific question in order to get any sense of how complicated the answer might be. How "profound" a question or its answer might be is a matter of what, exactly, you mean by "profound".

Well, I suppose that's a simple, comforting belief, in its own right.

Why is a simple answer necessarily comforting?

[Immanuel Can]

How profound the questions are depends on how much imagined profundity you project onto them.

Oh? So all questions are actually simple, and profundity is merely a "projection"? There are no genuinely "profound" questions?

...one would need to know a specific question in order to get any sense of how complicated the answer might be.

What about the OP here? How "profound" would the discussion be to deal with it?

Why is a simple answer necessarily comforting?

Because it's easy. It gives one a sense of having grasped everything worth grasping, and being fine not changing anything. The world is fine as it is, nothing more needs to be discussed, there's no further uncertainty, all has been solved, there are no serious doubts left...very comforting, indeed.

Surprised to see how very comforting Atheism is? Agnosticism's a little more unsettling, but depending on the type, can be as shallow and smug as Atheism, almost. Both give one the sense of having resolved all the relevant controversies, or at least all that anybody can be responsible to solve.

[Gary Childress]

Then don't bother with philosophy, I guess. Dealing with questions that frighten other people is what philosophers do. If you can't stand the heat, what are you doing in the kitchen?

Philosophy is the love of wisdom. There is a lot of need for people to discover what wisdom is. Just look at the daily news.

Well, wisdom takes work...mental work...and often, it takes suffering as well, actually. How many people do you know who have never suffered much, and yet are wise?

If you look at the daily news, you'll find no wisdom. You'll find factoids, all elicited in aid of an agenda...at least, for the most part. Wisdom has to do with the things that do not change, the truly profound things of life, not merely with the changeable circumstances marshalled by the news.

Heck, their name gives it away: the daily "NEW-s". It ain't the daily "permanent realities."

Sometimes it takes mental work and sometimes it is almost effortless.

[Immanuel Can]

Philosophy is the love of wisdom. There is a lot of need for people to discover what wisdom is. Just look at the daily news.

Well, wisdom takes work...mental work...and often, it takes suffering as well, actually. How many people do you know who have never suffered much, and yet are wise?

If you look at the daily news, you'll find no wisdom. You'll find factoids, all elicited in aid of an agenda...at least, for the most part. Wisdom has to do with the things that do not change, the truly profound things of life, not merely with the changeable circumstances marshalled by the news.

Heck, their name gives it away: the daily "NEW-s". It ain't the daily "permanent realities."

Sometimes it takes mental work and sometimes it is almost effortless.

Hmmm...I'm trying to think of anything genuinely wise that somebody learned without paying anything (whether in mental effort or blood or tears) for learning it. Maybe you have something in mind...

[Harbal]

Oh? So all questions are actually simple, and profundity is merely a "projection"? There are no genuinely "profound" questions?

...one would need to know a specific question in order to get any sense of how complicated the answer might be.

What about the OP here? How "profound" would the discussion be to deal with it?

The first step in dealing with the topic would be to stop asking fuzzy, meaningless questions such as that one.

Why is a simple answer necessarily comforting?

Because it's easy. It gives one a sense of having grasped everything worth grasping,

And what is difficult about saying, "because the Bible tells me so"?

The world is fine as it is, nothing more needs to be discussed, there's no further uncertainty, all has been solved, there are no serious doubts left...very comforting, indeed.

But what when the simple answer is, the world isn't fine as it is; that doesn't seem particularly comforting.

Surprised to see how very comforting Atheism is? Agnosticism's a little more unsettling, but depending on the type, can be as shallow and smug as Atheism, almost.

Why would going through life without any religious beliefs make it more comforting? And what is more smug than saying, "I'm right because God says so"?

Both give one the sense of having resolved all the relevant controversies, or at least all that anybody can be responsible to solve.

That is a matter of what type of person you are, not whether you believe in God.