Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

You say God knows everything that is going to happen, but that is only possible if the future is fixed.

You're using a linear timeline. God isn't within time...He transcends it. As Isaiah says, he spans the entirety of time.

You read it. You may not believe it, but that's how the Bible says it is.

It doesn't really make any difference what God is, or how much he is modified, or how many super powers we endow him with, if he knows every future outcome, those outcomes must be predetermined. That isn't to say that God predetermines them, but something must.

[Lorikeet]

Agree with the above but there are more nuances and depths to the above.

Yes.

When the above moral norms are encoded to facilitate survival of the individual and the species, there must be some sort of neural algorithm supported by its physical neural correlates.
Since the are so evident within humanity, they are obvious pattern which can be inferred inductively to arrive at sound conclusion.
These can be researched and tested scientifically as scientific facts.

Appearances are the encoding of niche survival and reproductive strategies.
Patterned behaviours are, as well.
Those that offer an advantage become innate.....

Whatever is conditioned upon a human-based [collective] framework and system[FS] is objective, e.g. the science FS which is the gold standard of objectivity.
When those scientific facts which are also moral elements inputted into moral FS, they are objective morally, thus morality is objective.

Yes it is.
Ethics, on the other hand are human adjustments of these naturally selected behaviours.

Monogamy, for instance, is an ethical rule man imposed upon himself so as to integrate as many males, mostly, into social unities - make them investors in the collective's well-being.

see this link
How to convert objecive scientific facts to objective moral facts.
viewtopic.php?p=707334#p707334

I really don't like homework....I have a huge reading list I am chipping away at.

Your views?

Having skimmed through it, I see nothing objectionable.
patterns is what behaviours are.
All existence, in fact....or the part we can perceive.
Chaos is another issue.

When dealing with organisms - ordering unities - patterns is our guide - behavioural patterns.
Morality evolved so as to establish certain pattern s that were advantageous to species that had adopted particular strategies.
This is why morals only apply to social species.

The confusion arises when we include human amendments to these naturally evolved behavioural patterns.
Some ascribe to them a divine origin to enforce them.
Monogamy, as I've mentioned, is an example of a human ethical rule, attempting to control innate impulses in Homo sapiens.
Ethical rules against contraceptives or abortions ae also governed by human objectives, attempting to preserve group cohesion, and group competitiveness.

So, two types:
Morals = naturally evolved behaviours encoded by man, facilitating cooperative survival and reproductive strategies
&
Ethics = amendments, of the first, attempting to enforce behaviours so as to make complex human systems possible.
God enters the picture as a means of enforcing these behaviours.
Mutations arise, which challenge both.
God, essentially, is more than a representation of the incomprehensible, it is a representation and idealization of collectives.
Ethics is collective rules imposing restrictions to individual behaviours.

[Immanuel Can]

If your god exists, he clearly is subject to change because there was a time when he hadn't created the world, and an after when he did.

That's not a change in God.

Biblically speaking, the Creation is not, as in Pantheism, some part of God Himself. It's not the Creator. God existed when there was no material Creation, and would exist if there were none left. Hence, one Hebrew name for God is "I AM," meaning "the self-existent One," or "the One who always is."

But the Creation itself is certainly subject to change, and is a time-bound entity.

[Immanuel Can]

You say God knows everything that is going to happen, but that is only possible if the future is fixed.

You're using a linear timeline. God isn't within time...He transcends it. As Isaiah says, he spans the entirety of time.

You read it. You may not believe it, but that's how the Bible says it is.

It doesn't really make any difference what God is, or how much he is modified, or how many super powers we endow him with, if he knows every future outcome, those outcomes must be predetermined. That isn't to say that God predetermines them, but something must.

No, that doesn't actually follow. What that conclusion would require is that God was, as in Theistic Determinism, not merely knowing what will happen but actively making that, and only that, come about. In other words, it would posit a God who was nervously micromanaging the universe, and was incapable of dealing with the fact of human free will. That's certainly not the God described in the Bible. You'd have to find a different interlocutor to defend that sort of view...it couldn't be me.

But I can't help but notice that you seem to be studiously avoiding talking at all about Atheistic or Non-Theistic Determinism.

I think you and I both, at least intuitively and experientially, are inclined to think free will is real, and that we have it. However, how do you explain that, if the world is as one of those belief systems requires it to be -- namely, nothing but the product of time, chance and material forces of some kind? Doesn't that automatically reduce us to Determinism? If it doesn't, I'd like to know how we can avoid it, from a secular perspective.

[Will Bouwman]

That's not a change in God.

Ah, no change, no choice; so it's God who doesn't have freewill.

[Immanuel Can]

That's not a change in God.

Ah, no change, no choice; so it's God who doesn't have freewill.

You're mixing up two different things again, Will: change of action, and change of character. God certainly changes His actions. For instance, He doesn't make a new Earth or split the Red Sea every day. What the claim is, is that God doesn't change who He is. So God is 'free' in the relevant sense: like us, He has volition and does things that matter.

But we've covered this territory, pretty much, and we've given it a lot of space, so far. No doubt, we'll come back to it, as well. But for now, we've given it an airing. So let's talk about Atheism, now. It's evident you don't like the idea of strict Determinism, and if Theism required it, you would regard that as problematic in some way. But there's a much worse problem on the other side, and I'm interested in how you would navigate that.

How does a person who disbelieves in God manage to believe in free will?

[Lorikeet]

Universal ethics, regulated by an omniscient being, conceals a fear of the human will.
The believer, taking himself, as an example, assumes that the non-believer is capable of any atrocity.
In most cases he is correct.
Without the fear of god, imposing a restriction on their options, most humans would revert to their manimal nature.

Christians know what they would do if they did not believe there was a mind in the sky watching over them.
Projection.

[Will Bouwman]

That's not a change in God.

Ah, no change, no choice; so it's God who doesn't have freewill.

You're mixing up two different things again, Will: change of action, and change of character. God certainly changes His actions.

Then he doesn't transcend time.

What the claim is, is that God doesn't change who He is. So God is 'free' in the relevant sense: like us, He has volition and does things that matter.

If, as you say, he is the supreme being, then the fact that he can't change character is another constraint on his freewill. A perfect being cannot do anything less than perfect.

So let's talk about Atheism, now.

Let's not. I think your "Atheism" is only slightly more plausible than your god.

How does a person who disbelieves in God manage to believe in free will?

Because if a god were to tell me what I would do next, I believe I could do otherwise.

[Harbal]

You're using a linear timeline. God isn't within time...He transcends it. As Isaiah says, he spans the entirety of time.

You read it. You may not believe it, but that's how the Bible says it is.

It doesn't really make any difference what God is, or how much he is modified, or how many super powers we endow him with, if he knows every future outcome, those outcomes must be predetermined. That isn't to say that God predetermines them, but something must.

No, that doesn't actually follow. What that conclusion would require is that God was, as in Theistic Determinism, not merely knowing what will happen but actively making that, and only that, come about.

I can only see this as it seems logical to me, and I don't know anything about "theistic determinism". I am starting from the hypothetical position of God's knowing what will happen at any given point in the future. God could not possibly know what the future will be if the future could possibly be different to what God knows it will be, so, in other words, the future has to be what God knows it will be, which means it has to be set, fixed, predetermined. Now if you say that God does not make whatever happens in the future come about, then it must be the case that predetermination is just the result of how time and the universe work.

it would posit a God who was nervously micromanaging the universe, and was incapable of dealing with the fact of human free will. That's certainly not the God described in the Bible. You'd have to find a different interlocutor to defend that sort of view...it couldn't be me.

Well I don't know what it says in the Bible, I only know you say that God knows everything that will happen in the future. I am only thinking about the logical implications of that assertion; it is for you to judge how much logical sense there is in what the Bible says.

But I can't help but notice that you seem to be studiously avoiding talking at all about Atheistic or Non-Theistic Determinism.

I don't particularly know what non-theistic determination is; I only know my own thoughts on what a deterministic universe could be. I daresay there are all sorts of ideas and theories, but I don't have a theory as such.

I think you and I both, at least intuitively and experientially, are inclined to think free will is real, and that we have it.

I know you don't like it when I say this, but I honestly don't know. I don't think we have total free will, but if we have any at all, I really couldn't say how much.

However, how do you explain that, if the world is as one of those belief systems requires it to be -- namely, nothing but the product of time, chance and material forces of some kind? Doesn't that automatically reduce us to Determinism? If it doesn't, I'd like to know how we can avoid it, from a secular perspective.

All I can say is that reality is probably very different to the way we perceive it. When I try to be completely logical, it seems the universe must work entirely on a process of cause and effect, which does mean it would be completely deterministic, but I can't help thinking there is probably much more to it than that.

[Immanuel Can]

Ah, no change, no choice; so it's God who doesn't have freewill.

You're mixing up two different things again, Will: change of action, and change of character. God certainly changes His actions.

Then he doesn't transcend time.

I can't get your reasoning there. You'll have to explain that, Will.

What the claim is, is that God doesn't change who He is. So God is 'free' in the relevant sense: like us, He has volition and does things that matter.

If, as you say, he is the supreme being, then the fact that he can't change character is another constraint on his freewill.

Quite the opposite. Human beings have the problem that sometimes they don't act in accord with their own "best selves," their own characters-on-a-routine-basis. They can't always live up to being the best selves they can be. They're inconsistent, partly because they're so subject to the vicissitudes of time, place and misfortune, and partly because all people, even the best-intended, fall short of their aspirations to be holistically good. And, of course, some just choose to be bad.

God alone never has to act in any way not consonant with His character. That's not a limitation on his possibilities, but rather an expression of His abilities, and of His not being in any way subject to the vicissitudes of time and chance. What can you say against the Supreme Being being the only Being in the universe who is not ever constrained to behave in ways unsuitable to His character? That would seem to me to be an asset, not a liability.

How does a person who disbelieves in God manage to believe in free will?

Because if a god were to tell me what I would do next, I believe I could do otherwise.[/quote]
But an Atheist does not believe in God, so that's not even relevant. Let's look at Atheism on its own terms, not the Theist's. There's no need to impose suppositions on the Atheist that the Atheist himself would not even countenance.

Atheism implies a mechanistic view of the universe. That's obvious. If God doesn't create the universe, then the universe has to have been created by some mechanistic process, either material forces acting by chance and time, or maybe quantum mechanics. But it's certainly nothing to do with any volition.

How then can you believe that you have any free will? You're the pure product of mechanisms, as is everything you do, say or even think -- at least, according to Atheism.

[Immanuel Can]

God could not possibly know what the future will be if the future could possibly be different to what God knows it will be, so, in other words, the future has to be what God knows it will be, which means it has to be set, fixed, predetermined.

Is that how it seems to you? I mean, is that how life seems to you? Is that the supposition on which, for example, you're acting at the present moment?

I think not. So that should alert you to the fundamental flaw in that reasoning.

Let us assume, therefore, that Theistic Determinism is false. How do you escape Atheistic Determinism?

it would posit a God who was nervously micromanaging the universe, and was incapable of dealing with the fact of human free will. That's certainly not the God described in the Bible. You'd have to find a different interlocutor to defend that sort of view...it couldn't be me.

Well I don't know what it says in the Bible,

You can trust me. I'm telling you the truth about that. At the very least, that will save you looking it up...but I certainly invite you to, if you don't want to take what I say as honest.

I think you and I both, at least intuitively and experientially, are inclined to think free will is real, and that we have it.

I know you don't like it when I say this, but I honestly don't know. I don't think we have total free will, but if we have any at all, I really couldn't say how much.

From a secular perspective, an Atheistic or Non-Theistic one -- you can choose your position, and name it as you like -- the answer has to be that there's zero. That worldview has no capacity to explain any free will at all, it seems to me. But I'm open to being shown otherwise, if somebody can.

However, how do you explain that, if the world is as one of those belief systems requires it to be -- namely, nothing but the product of time, chance and material forces of some kind? Doesn't that automatically reduce us to Determinism? If it doesn't, I'd like to know how we can avoid it, from a secular perspective.

All I can say is that reality is probably very different to the way we perceive it.

"Must"? Why? Why not take our intuitions more seriously?

Here's my argument for that:

P1: If Atheism is true, everything is Predetermined (by material processes, or prior conditions, or natural laws, or quantum physics...pick your poison), and free will is an illusion.
P2: But IC and Harbal have free will.
C: Therefore....

You can't miss the conclusion, can you?

[Harbal]

God could not possibly know what the future will be if the future could possibly be different to what God knows it will be, so, in other words, the future has to be what God knows it will be, which means it has to be set, fixed, predetermined.

Is that how it seems to you? I mean, is that how life seems to you? Is that the supposition on which, for example, you're acting at the present moment?

I think not. So that should alert you to the fundamental flaw in that reasoning.

That reasoning is based on the hypothetical scenario that God both exists, and knows everything about the future. And it isn't a question of how it seems, because it is just an inevitable logical conclusion, based on the situation you presented me with. I don't think it's my reasoning that's at fault, it is the highly improbable conditions you described that are to blame.

Let us assume, therefore, that Theistic Determinism is false. How do you escape Atheistic Determinism?

I don't know what either of those things are.

Well I don't know what it says in the Bible,

You can trust me. I'm telling you the truth about that. At the very least, that will save you looking it up...but I certainly invite you to, if you don't want to take what I say as honest.

I am engaging with what you are saying and claiming, not with the source from whence your claims come. I'm not interested in the Bible, that's your department.

I honestly don't know. I don't think we have total free will, but if we have any at all, I really couldn't say how much.

From a secular perspective, an Atheistic or Non-Theistic one -- you can choose your position, and name it as you like -- the answer has to be that there's zero. That worldview has no capacity to explain any free will at all, it seems to me. But I'm open to being shown otherwise, if somebody can.

Like I said, I don't know how much free will we have, but I don't see what difference God makes as far as the possibility of us having it goes.

All I can say is that reality is probably very different to the way we perceive it.

"Must"? Why? Why not take our intuitions more seriously?

Well it's my intuition that is telling me that reality is probably very different to the way we perceive it, so I'm not ignoring it.

Here's my argument for that:

P1: If Atheism is true, everything is Predetermined (by material processes, or prior conditions, or natural laws, or quantum physics...pick your poison), and free will is an illusion.

I don't accept that premise, and I have no idea on what basis you are making it.

P2: But IC and Harbal have free will.

Do we? Well you may know that, but I certainly don't.

You can't miss the conclusion, can you?

My conclusion is that you are projecting views onto me that I don't have.

[Immanuel Can]

God could not possibly know what the future will be if the future could possibly be different to what God knows it will be, so, in other words, the future has to be what God knows it will be, which means it has to be set, fixed, predetermined.

Is that how it seems to you? I mean, is that how life seems to you? Is that the supposition on which, for example, you're acting at the present moment?

I think not. So that should alert you to the fundamental flaw in that reasoning.

That reasoning is based on the hypothetical scenario that God both exists, and knows everything about the future.

You can't mean "knows." You must mean "arranges." "Knowing" never makes anything happen.

Let us assume, therefore, that Theistic Determinism is false. How do you escape Atheistic Determinism?

I don't know what either of those things are.

Sure you do. You've been arguing that Theism requires Determinism.

My question is simple: since Atheism/Non-Theism requires Determinism, how do you manage to keep believing in free will?

I honestly don't know. I don't think we have total free will, but if we have any at all, I really couldn't say how much.

From a secular perspective, an Atheistic or Non-Theistic one -- you can choose your position, and name it as you like -- the answer has to be that there's zero. That worldview has no capacity to explain any free will at all, it seems to me. But I'm open to being shown otherwise, if somebody can.

Like I said, I don't know how much free will we have,

Well, Non-Theism (which is your position, I must conclude) has no possibility of it.

Here's my argument for that:

P1: If Atheism is true, everything is Predetermined (by material processes, or prior conditions, or natural laws, or quantum physics...pick your poison), and free will is an illusion.

I don't accept that premise, and I have no idea on what basis you are making it.

It's unavoidable, for the secularist. If there's no God, then something else must account for the existence of the universe, and you and me. That's bound to be some impersonal, natural force. And that force is certain to be fatalistic and predetermining of everything.

P2: But IC and Harbal have free will.

Do we? Well you may know that, but I certainly don't.

If you didn't believe it, then you wouldn't be arguing...because no minds, neither mine nor yours, would be capable of rational persuasion. We'd just be fated to believe whatever we were fated to believe, regardless of reasons or of the evidence.

And the conclusion still follows...unless you can show that one of the above isn't true.

[Harbal]

Is that how it seems to you? I mean, is that how life seems to you? Is that the supposition on which, for example, you're acting at the present moment?

I think not. So that should alert you to the fundamental flaw in that reasoning.

That reasoning is based on the hypothetical scenario that God both exists, and knows everything about the future.

You can't mean "knows." You must mean "arranges." "Knowing" never makes anything happen.

I do mean "knows". You said God knows the future, and I explained what I thought the logical consequences of that would be. God arranging the future was one possibility, but not the only one.

I don't know what either of those things are.

Sure you do. You've been arguing that Theism requires Determinism.

I haven't been arguing that. My argument is that God could only know the future of a deterministic universe. You are the one who insists that God knows the future, not I.

My question is simple: since Atheism/Non-Theism requires Determinism, how do you manage to keep believing in free will?

You have made two false assumptions there. The lack of God does not mean a deterministic universe, or at least I know of no reason why it means that, and I do not believe in free will. We may have free will, or we may not have it; I don't know.

Like I said, I don't know how much free will we have,

Well, Non-Theism (which is your position, I must conclude) has no possibility of it.

I know of no reason why that should be the case.

I don't accept that premise, and I have no idea on what basis you are making it.

It's unavoidable, for the secularist. If there's no God, then something else must account for the existence of the universe, and you and me. That's bound to be some impersonal, natural force. And that force is certain to be fatalistic and predetermining of everything.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but I haven't come to it.

P2: But IC and Harbal have free will.

Do we? Well you may know that, but I certainly don't.

If you didn't believe it, then you wouldn't be arguing...because no minds, neither mine nor yours, would be capable of rational persuasion. We'd just be fated to believe whatever we were fated to believe, regardless of reasons or of the evidence.

I can only say it seems like we have free will, but I don't think it's as simple as that. If pressed, I would say we probably have it to an extent, but not completely.

[Immanuel Can]

That reasoning is based on the hypothetical scenario that God both exists, and knows everything about the future.

You can't mean "knows." You must mean "arranges." "Knowing" never makes anything happen.

I do mean "knows". You said God knows the future, and I explained what I thought the logical consequences of that would be. God arranging the future was one possibility, but not the only one.

Well, unless you're thinking that "knowing" automatically entails "arranging," that is simply not possible to put in any form that even looks logical. So we'll have to disagree about whether we can equivocate "knowing" into "arranging."

Or, you could give me the syllogism that you think works.

The lack of God does not mean a deterministic universe

Prove that.

What non-mechanistic means do you think could have possibly created the universe...other than God, of course.

Like I said, I don't know how much free will we have,

Well, Non-Theism (which is your position, I must conclude) has no possibility of it.

I know of no reason why that should be the case.

Think carefully, then.

If the universe came about by some impersonal force, then in principle, everything was pre-set from the first moment the process began. After that, all that was ever in play was physical regularities of various kinds. From the moment of the Big Bang (or whatever -- or more precisely, from whatever prior chain of causes led up to the Big Bang) nothing was ever going to happen that wasn't, in principle, perfectly predictable by cause-effect relations.

So the ultimate answer to why you believe what you believe is not your free will...it's the Big Bang (or whatever caused it).

There you are. There's the reasoning.

I don't accept that premise, and I have no idea on what basis you are making it.

It's unavoidable, for the secularist. If there's no God, then something else must account for the existence of the universe, and you and me. That's bound to be some impersonal, natural force. And that force is certain to be fatalistic and predetermining of everything.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion, but I haven't come to it.

You will, when you think about it carefully.

I can only say it seems like we have free will, but I don't think it's as simple as that. If pressed, I would say we probably have it to an extent, but not completely.

We have to be precise, then, to say what we mean by "free will." I have never met even one single person who thinks that to say people have some free will is to say something absurd, like "the power to do anything, anytime," for example. EVERY person who advocates for free will, at least every one that I have ever met, is quite fine to say that there are things we can choose and things we cannot. The difference between the free will folks and the Determinists is more stark: the free will people say, as you say, that we have some "extent" of choice, and never "completely." So what you're saying is actually not a compromise at all -- it's the free will position as it is normally suggested.

So we're back to the problem: as a Non-Theist of some sort, how can you believe in the existence of ANY amount of free will? Have you abandoned rationality completely? Because the only possible reasoning available to a Non-Theist would entail that free will is utterly impossible.

Thus, if any free will exists at all, all forms of Non-Theism are false. And if they are true, then there is absolutely no possibility that free will of any kind exists.