JP,

>>I have not been arguing from moral objectivity to God.… the single point I have been making is that if there is no God … then all moral claims are subjective and relative.<<

Let me repeat, I am not an ethicist but (was) a mathematician: The statement A implies B is the same as the statement nonB implies nonA, i.e. “moral objectivity IMPLIES God” is the same as “there is no God IMPLIES no moral objectivity (‘all moral claims are subjective and relative’)”.

>>This is not to say that people do not or cannot create ethical systems, such as those generated by Confucianism, Buddhism and presumably by A J Phillips and pelican. <<

I cannot speak for AJ Philips and pelican (now I see, they already spoke for themselves), however I do not think the moral systems of Confucians and Buddhist were that arbitrary, independent of what Catholics call “natural law”. You can maintain - as theists, including me, do - that these “foundations” are insufficient without the divine ingredient, but that is a different story and terrain (moral philosophy) where I am an outsider.

>>What of the atheist who cares more about their own self-interest than for aesthetics?<<

What of the Christian who cares more about their own self-interest than for his/her faith ?
I do not think this kind of argument - e.g. whether there are more bad atheists (who think they can get away with doing what is against the "common good") or bad Christians (who think they can get away with doing what is against the "common good" and/or against the will of God) - will bring us anywhere.

Please don’t misunderstand me, I can see your point. Our (Christian) faith is an EXTRA that we have (and because of our free will can use or abuse it, understand or misunderstand what it requires from us). We should try to live by it thus providing a testimony for it - verbal or not - without boasting about it in arguments with those who lack it.

Pelican – you did assert that, “individual rights outweigh community opinion where there is no harm to others” (7 December 2010 9:46:45 PM), which appears to me to be a clear example of you making a determination that individual values should prevail over community values.

You say you are merely expressing your opinion on these issues. Now your opinion may be interesting or thoughtful or silly or lots of things, but what matters is, does your opinion have any authority? If not, then your opinion is just a curiosity that can be noted and safely ignored.

And I hasten to add, that will be equally true of all our opinions, mine included. If it is the case that there is no God and the only source of morality is what we humans choose to make up, then our moral values are mere opinions that lack any objective authority.

You say you believe in a “a biological imperative that drives human beings towards survival rather than destruction”. Are you saying that “biology” is a conscious entity that somehow happens to have the goal of driving people/animals to survival? You will need to give some supporting argument for that claim. In the absence of a convincing argument, things just “are” and have no ultimate goals.

Even if you insist that there is such a “biological imperative”, why should anyone care, if they don’t want to?

You ask, “Why can't ethics and morality stem from something other than via the supernatural”. In everything I have written I have not denied that human beings can and do make up moral systems. I have acknowledged that Confucius and Buddha did and that you and A J Phillips can too.

All I am arguing is that these moral systems are all human creations and so they are subjective and relative. Therefore there seems to be no basis for saying that one person’s moral beliefs are “right” and another’s are “wrong”: therefore the murderer’s and the rapist’s moral beliefs are as valid as those of Nelson Mandela or Florence Nightingale.

This is not being pessimistic, but logical.

<<I do believe in a biological imperative that drives human beings towards survival rather than destruction>>

The biological imperative towards the survival of the species drives men to plant their seeds in a woman's vagina.

What sort of biological imperative drives homosexuals to plant their seeds in a man's rectum?

What sort of biological imperative toward survival drives homosexuals to engage in sexual activities that put them at fifty times the risk of destruction from HIV/AID's?

George,

Thanks for that.

Your description of a higher moral authority as an “extra” is spot on. It can be just as much of a benefit as it can be a hindrance to the INDIVIDUAL, depending on how they apply it.

The belief in a god could be what stops someone committing suicide, but then it could also be what drives an activist to shoot-up an abortion clinic and think they were justified in doing it; which is why I think your advice that believers should try to live by it without boasting about it, is very wise.

By boasting about it, believers open themselves up all sorts of attack, and there’s certainly no shortage of examples of misery caused by those who proclaimed a higher moral authority.

JP,

It’s a shame you didn’t take George’s advice. Here is just one example of what I meant by opening yourself up to attack...

You say: “...if there is no God then claims that one thing is right and another is wrong are completely subjective and relative.”

But given the shabbiness and contradictory nature of holy books, I could just as easily say: “If someone believes in a God then claims of what this god wants are completely subjective and relative.”

But since you’re STILL not clear on the objectivity of secular morality, and since you are under the false impression that moral absolutes are fundamentally important, I’ll give you an example using Sam Harris’s chess analogy...

In chess, ‘don’t lose your queen’ is an important rule to follow if you want to play good chess. But there are exceptions.

Sometimes, losing your queen is the only thing you can do and sometimes, it’s the most brilliant thing you can do. But chess is a circumstance of absolute objectivity; there are right and wrong answers and there are finite combinations of moves for any given game.

We have ethical principles that are good to follow, but the fact that they have exceptions says nothing about the prospect of there being a moral truth.

Do you understand now?

A J Phillips – As I said to pelican, I am trying to make a logical argument so I will try to set it out more formally, using premises I think you accept.

1. There is no God and there is no God-ordained morality.
2. There are human beings.
3. All human beings can make up moral values.
4. All moral beliefs are nothing more than constructs by humans.
5. No human being has greater moral knowledge than any other.
6. No human being has an irrefutable basis for claiming that their moral system is superior to, or should have authority over, the moral system of any other human being.

Conclusion: in the absence of God, human morals are completely subjective and relative.

That is all I have been arguing.

But to address some of your other concerns. You say, “if religion did have the value that you claim it has, that still wouldn’t say anything about whether or not a god existed”. My argument does imply that someone greater than humanity – God who created us - is necessary in order for moral values to be objective and absolute, and I do think this is valuable.

It is only if morals are objective and absolute that we can meaningfully say that murder is wrong regardless of what the murderer may say. But I agree with you that my arguments do not prove that God exists and I have never suggested that they do. But if there is no God then morals are subjective and relative and the moral beliefs of the murderer are as valid as the moral beliefs of you.

“Good” and “bad” have meaning if there is a God but in a godless, relativistic universe they are essentially meaningless. If the murderer’s moral belief that murder is “good” is as valid as the doctor’s moral belief that healing the sick is “good”, then the term “good” becomes meaningless.

Regarding God and satan, it is only if the revelation contained in the Bible is true that any determination can be made as to what and who is good.

AJ Philips,

>>it could also be what drives an activist to shoot-up an abortion clinic and think they were justified in doing it<<

The emphasis here must be on “activist”: There are unfortunately many political, ideological, environmental, animal-rightist, nationalist, religious etc activists who resort to violence