Good and Evil

[Immanuel Can]

I never know what you mean by, "if subjectivism is true".

Oh, that's easy: I just mean, "If subjectivism is a correct description of morality." That's all.

[Gary Childress]

I never know what you mean by, "if subjectivism is true".

Oh, that's easy: I just mean, "If subjectivism is a correct description of morality." That's all.

What's not "correct" about it? Or what aspect(s) of it do you think doesn't correspond to reality any more or less than "objectivity"? Morality tends to differ in subtle ways from person to person and from society to society. It's a fact of life. The challenge is finding common ground. That's a challenge and has always been a challenge with or without a belief in God. Belief in God doesn't change anything, except if the believer thinks God somehow favors him for some trivial, irrelevant reason over others.

[Immanuel Can]

I never know what you mean by, "if subjectivism is true".

Oh, that's easy: I just mean, "If subjectivism is a correct description of morality." That's all.

What's not "correct" about it?

I use it as a hypothetical. Notice the word "if." I do not believe subjectivism is correct. I'm only saying what it would mean "if" subjectivism were correct -- but it is not.

And if you want to know what "not correct" means, it means, "not apt," "not corresponding to reality," "not accurate," or "fails to describe the situation in hand."

[Gary Childress]

And if you want to know what "not correct" means, it means, "not apt," "not corresponding to reality," "not accurate," or "fails to describe the situation in hand."

Yes. The above describes the notion that there's an afterlife very well. Bunch of BS. I'll believe it when I see it.

[Immanuel Can]

And if you want to know what "not correct" means, it means, "not apt," "not corresponding to reality," "not accurate," or "fails to describe the situation in hand."

Yes. The above describes the notion that there's an afterlife very well. Bunch of BS. I'll believe it when I see it.

Problem: by any account, and certainly by the Biblical account, by the time you actually see it, it's too late.

That's a choice I wish you would not make. However, it's your choice to make.

[Harbal]

And if you want to know what "not correct" means, it means, "not apt," "not corresponding to reality," "not accurate," or "fails to describe the situation in hand."

Yes. The above describes the notion that there's an afterlife very well. Bunch of BS. I'll believe it when I see it.

Problem: by any account, and certainly by the Biblical account, by the time you actually see it, it's too late.

That's a choice I wish you would not make. However, it's your choice to make.

Why do you care what choice he makes?

[Immanuel Can]

Yes. The above describes the notion that there's an afterlife very well. Bunch of BS. I'll believe it when I see it.

Problem: by any account, and certainly by the Biblical account, by the time you actually see it, it's too late.

That's a choice I wish you would not make. However, it's your choice to make.

Why do you care what choice he makes?

Because not to care about that would be literally THE most callous, heartless and unchristian thing a person could do. Bar none.

[Harbal]

Problem: by any account, and certainly by the Biblical account, by the time you actually see it, it's too late.

That's a choice I wish you would not make. However, it's your choice to make.

Why do you care what choice he makes?

Because not to care about that would be literally THE most callous, heartless and unchristian thing a person could do. Bar none.

So it's not just about your duty to God; you also have personal feelings about Gary's fate? You need to do something about that before you descend into a downward spiral of irrationality.

[Lacewing]

Why do you care what choice he makes?

Because not to care about that would be literally THE most callous, heartless and unchristian thing a person could do. Bar none.

Whereas, urging people to believe nonsense is literally what you do because you don't know any better.

[Immanuel Can]

So it's not just about your duty to God; you also have personal feelings about Gary's fate?

That's not an either-or. It's a both-and.

[Harbal]

So it's not just about your duty to God; you also have personal feelings about Gary's fate?

That's not an either-or. It's a both-and.

But duty to God is all there is, isn't it? Our personal feelings are not to be trusted, didn't you tell us?

[Immanuel Can]

So it's not just about your duty to God; you also have personal feelings about Gary's fate?

That's not an either-or. It's a both-and.

But duty to God is all there is, isn't it?

Far from it. The point is relationship. ONe has a duty to one's children, or to one's spouse, for example: that doesn't remotely imply that one does not love them and respond to them personally and emotionally as well. To know God is to love God. There really is no other way to know Him. Anybody who has a mere burden of duty toward God simply does not know God as he should.

Our personal feelings are not to be trusted, didn't you tell us?

Our personal feelings do not define the moral duties we have. You also can't make somebody obligated to experience a feeling. That makes feelings very different from morality.

We don't know God as a product of our feelings; we have appropriate feelings to God because we know Him, relate to Him and love Him. Doing the right thing then becomes a product of that. And appropriate emotions do follow: but they do not lead.

[Harbal]

That's not an either-or. It's a both-and.

But duty to God is all there is, isn't it?

Far from it. The point is relationship. ONe has a duty to one's children, or to one's spouse, for example: that doesn't remotely imply that one does not love them and respond to them personally and emotionally as well.

Well I do have relationships with people, some of which involve love, and you seem to be saying that it's okay to feel I have some sort of duty to them, but when I said the same thing to you, you said I had no "warrant" to feel that.

To know God is to love God.

I don't see how one could know something that they cannot see, hear or touch, or have any direct experience of at all, let alone love it.

[Immanuel Can]

But duty to God is all there is, isn't it?

Far from it. The point is relationship. ONe has a duty to one's children, or to one's spouse, for example: that doesn't remotely imply that one does not love them and respond to them personally and emotionally as well.

Well I do have relationships with people, some of which involve love, and you seem to be saying that it's okay to feel I have some sort of duty to them, but when I said the same thing to you, you said I had no "warrant" to feel that.

Subjectivism would imply that any such sense of duty is merely a feeling, not a fact. So far from having a duty, all you'd have is an impression that you could overcome in the next ten seconds, should your mood, your will or even your digestion shift. But to have a duty is to do the right thing regardless of, and even contrary to, what one feels.

The soldier who is terrified does his duty if he does not capitulate to his feelings and run from his post. The faithful husband does his duty if he does not capitulate to lust for other women on a business trip. The fireman does his duty when, fighting his survival instinct, he rushes headlong into a blaze to rescue a trapped child. In all such cases, feelings and duty are at opposite interests. They are clearly very often not conducive to the same imperatives, therefore.

To know God is to love God.

I don't see how one could know something that they cannot see, hear or touch, or have any direct experience of at all, let alone love it.

That's a pretty good argument for the necessity of the Incarnation, of course: to provide a tangible, direct experience of God, but one not overwhelming to the will. For God wishes to be known by free choice, not by compulsion. The direct experience of the eternal God would be an overwhelmingly compelling experience, of course.

So He has appointed this time in which we find that if we want, we can resist the knowledge of Him, and even choose not to relate to Him at all; but He's done so with the view to giving us that freedom, individuality, volition, will, and identity that make us genuinely capable of voluntary friendship, if we will choose it. And He has done more than enough to give us reason to venture some faith, if only faith the size of the Biblical mustard seed, or as weak as a smouldering flax. He does not ask much of us: but to believe He exists, and that He will reward those who seek Him is the sine qua non of relationship with God.

[Harbal]

Far from it. The point is relationship. ONe has a duty to one's children, or to one's spouse, for example: that doesn't remotely imply that one does not love them and respond to them personally and emotionally as well.

Well I do have relationships with people, some of which involve love, and you seem to be saying that it's okay to feel I have some sort of duty to them, but when I said the same thing to you, you said I had no "warrant" to feel that.

Subjectivism would imply that any such sense of duty is merely a feeling, not a fact.

But it is a fact that I have the feelings.

So far from having a duty, all you'd have is an impression that you could overcome in the next ten seconds, should your mood, your will or even your digestion shift.

This might make theoretical sense to you, but I'm sure you know that, in practice, it is not the case. It is certainly not the case in my case.

The soldier who is terrified does his duty if he does not capitulate to his feelings and run from his post. The faithful husband does his duty if he does not capitulate to lust for other women on a business trip. The fireman does his duty when, fighting his survival instinct, he rushes headlong into a blaze to rescue a trapped child. In all such cases, feelings and duty are at opposite interests. They are clearly very often not conducive to the same imperatives, therefore.

Exactly, people -at least some- will follow their sense of duty at great personal expense. That impulse is already in us; we don't need God to turn it into a command before we act.

I don't see how one could know something that they cannot see, hear or touch, or have any direct experience of at all, let alone love it.

That's a pretty good argument for the necessity of the Incarnation, of course: to provide a tangible, direct experience of God, but one not overwhelming to the will. For God wishes to be known by free choice, not by compulsion. The direct experience of the eternal God would be an overwhelmingly compelling experience, of course.

That just sounds like a very human attempt to get people to believe something they would otherwise have absolutely no reason to believe.

So He has appointed this time in which we find that if we want, we can resist the knowledge of Him,

It seems more like he is giving us the opportunity to resist the attraction of our common sense.

He does not ask much of us: but to believe He exists,

Our survival depends on our faculty of rationality, and we completely rely on it to navigate our way through life, so I have to strongly disagree that asking us to abandon it is not asking much.