Bo accused me of thinking like a theist by assuming some "cosmic value". I'd like to defend myself as Im certain that when Bo uses the term Theist he does so in the pejorative sense. ;-P Id like to qualify that I'm considering what possible fundamental (objective) values might exist...if ANY do. Both moral AND cosmological. I'd like to switch bases and discuss MORAL objective values & meaning. Seems to me we find ourselves in a logical contradiction if we attempt to defend the position that there are NO objective values. (Given the inevitable limitations of the human mind it is conceivable that a logical contradiction is not necessarily a  sufficient justification to take the statement off the table but I'll suggest that accepting our present understanding of logic to be the only way to engage in any kind of purposeful discussion without descending into postmodern chatter is one of the foundations of a debate site.) With that said - I think that we have to assume thought in the way Descartes did. And I think we have to assign intrinsic value to though in order not to face the immediate existential crisis of suicide in the face of a life of inevitable pain & suffering. I listened to Harris explain his moral "landscape" theory this morning & it makes sense to me that although we may not be able to objectively classify the good life we can clearly identify undesirable states & any movement AWAY from these is inevitably a step TOWARDS "better" states of well being which we can abriviate to "good" actions. In an attempt to tie this in to the earlier comments I'd like to suggest that our acceptance of other peoples sentience based on their common equipment requires us to also accept their desire to reach their own peak in the moral landscape. (On a sidenote I don't know any formal arguments against solipsism- I'd be interested to read any good links anyone has) However- the problem of finite resources leads to conflict between these sentient beings & the ethos of valuing the human as an ends in himself negates any might-is-right/ darwinian solution.  (incidentally my understanding is that Christianity and it's interpretation of Plato's soul is much indebted for spearheading the humanist concept of a life's inherant value)    So the topic id like to suggest for discussion is whether you agree with my premises. And whether you then agree with my conclusion that - The meaning of life MUST be the investigation, determination & classification of SENTIENCE (or the lack of it) for all entities in our world.    Furthermore,  (and I think there are many assumptions that need to be made before accepting the initial conditions of this next statement) I fail to see how this cannot effect the value of life, Bo. There are certain acts of cruelty that I would be prepared to place my own life on the line to prevent. However I am only likely to do so for those I feel a kinship for. As we move more animals into the privaledged class of sentient beings- I feel it is inevitable that there are more individuals who I am duty bound to forfeit my own wellbeing to protect through kinship solidarity. My life becomes less valuable or perhaps what I do with it becomes more important as a result of it's place on an even bigger picture of individuals being subjugated. As you accept yourself Bo- "We are biologically wired for self-preservation, that means protecting our own genes." Do you not accept that morality is in part centred on the understanding that there are others in the world besides ourselves & there interests play a part in a utilitarian based outcome. [How unique does life have to be for it to have value? If every planet in every solar system, in every galaxy had life, would you commit suicide because your life "must be worthless"? These are the same issues that our ancestors had when struggling to accept that the earth was not the center of the universe. Who cares. Not me.] Or perhaps you don't care?   **** sorry - I appreciate this post rambles on *****

Again, so sorry for the ramble but in my defense I'd like to mention there was (at least) some spacing in my original. For whatever reason the forum seems to remove all my spacing as soon as it's posted. Bo et al if you can use your moderator rights to edit any spaces back in for clarity that'd be ace thanks again for the site- Im looking forward to being set to rights by Bo! Lol

You did not qualify this statement as to why you think it would be a logical contradiction. Perhaps if we categorize the statement "there are no objective values" as an objective value in itself, this becomes self-refuting, but I would argue that belief/fact is hardly a "value".

What is a "value"? Before we can have kind of intelligent conversation on this we need to be on the same page as to what we are considering a "value". If we go by the dictionary the first definition is "relative worth, merit, or importance". Relative to what? Values are relative to our other values, and the values of others.

What is "objective"? To me, something objective has the same value or existence for every being, and has existence independent of other beings. Now of course, being the skilled philosophers that we are we can argue just about anything, and perhaps objectivity can change based on the arguments and acceptance -- which essentially means its objective state is actually unknown, while it can be objective or subjective in the minds of those contemplating its objectivity. With me so far?

My favorite example of objectivity and subjectivity is temperature. Temperature is based on an objective observation -- the speed of vibration of the molecules within a system. This speed has an known and verifiable absolute lower limit -- when the molecules have no motion (which happens to be an impossible state). This, of course, is called absolute zero, and is the objective standard in which we measure all temperature. Now if I say, "Wow, that is hot!" -- that is subjective. "Hot" compared to what? And therein lies the true test of perceivable subjectivity -- if you can ask "compared to what" and get different answers of equal validity, for all practical purposes, you are speaking subjectively.

Theists (and others) are often misled into insisting that objective values MUST exist, because so many of us humans seem to share the same values. And why wouldn't we? We are all the same species of biological creatures, living in the same time in history, and most of us coming from similar cultures. But I say the burden is on those who insist values have objective existence, to identify the source of the objectivity, in a verifiable, empirical way. It MUST be done this way -- otherwise all we have is the insistence of objective values based on subjective values and beliefs.
I don't think I am following you here... if you give credit to thought for preserving one's life in the face of immediate existential crises, you must blame thought for taking one's life based on what most would consider irrational conditions. I don't see where any intrinsic value is required.
First let me say, although I am an admirer of Harris' mission to get people to seriously think about the religions they follow, I don't agree with many of his beliefs -- moral objectivity being one of them. I feel he is defending an indefensible position -- at least his recent debate with William Lane Craig made it seem that way. Or perhaps I just don't understand his position well enough. Anyway, look at the subjectivity in that statement. "We can clearly identify undesirable states..." Yes, we can identify OUR undesirable states, not other peoples. And we must not conflate moral states from physical states. This statement (and Harris' philosophy) attempts to over simplify morality. It is clearly undesirable, for the prisoner, to be put to death, but how about for the families of children he raped and murdered? Where is the "good action" here? It depends who you ask, and their existing, subjective, moral values.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum#Criticisms
I believe that there is no objective meaning of life, but each one of us are free to assign our own meaning to life. If you think about it, every person in this world is equipped with a different set of skills, knowledge, desires, talents, etc. You can't expect Micheal Jordan to accept your meaning of life, when he is so amazing at basketball, and making fans happy all over the world. Again, the idea of objectivity is causing us to tell others what life should mean to them.
Of course. But you have yet to offer any evidence as to why this must be objectively true. As you know, human history tells a story of morality based on kinship, not some form of utilitarianism for all sentient beings. The Bible makes it clear that we should not value animal life -- at least not like human life, and it is arguable that Jesus' idea of "neighbor" was not everyone, but a more localized society/group, as made evident in one case by his initial refusal to help the Syrophoenician/Canaanite woman who begged him to help her daughter -- "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." (Matt 15:21:28). The point is, we are both humans, from similar cultures, at the same time in history. The fact that we share so many of the same moral values should not be confused with objectivity of moral values. Once again, we need to accept the subjective nature of values until proven otherwise, to allow room for understanding and compromise in our cultural differences.

Universal agreement is not objectivity; it's just universal agreement.

Bo- do you or do you not agree with Sam Harris' contention that "the worst misery possible" is an objective standard with which to measure  moral progress?? Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins discuss Who Says Science has Nothing to Say About Morality? Taped at The Sheldonian Theatre https:/www.rapidshare.com/files/461448700/Sam.Harris.and.Richard.Dawkins.2011.flv Or vimeo.com/24423153 My fear is that you will once again disappear into a postmodern finger wagging refusal to define any terms and we won't make any progress with a discussion I'd truly like to know your opinion on. It really does startle me that you claim to refuse ANY and ALL objective morality....  I think I can break down my shock & horror into 2 parts... 1/ I have heard an apologist talk of "fizzing" and argue that without an acceptance of sentient human interests all we an ever say we are doing I fizzing. Almost like a backwards step from AJ Ayers emotivism. Are you prepared to deny your humanity THAT much Bo?? Are you prepared to stand on a podium and proudly say that your own strongly felt opinions are nothing more than chemical processes & reactions and that the ultimate outcome of your life, your families life & the outcome of human existence is absolutely VALUELESS? 2/ if I arrived at your house tomorrow with a flamethrower and said that I wanted to burn your house down with your family inside SURELY you would agree that this would be utterly utterly immoral.... Surely you would argue that despite any disagreement no matter how bad it got we would still be "brothers in humanity"... Surely you would agree that no matter what happened between us there would always v a mutual respect based on our shared value as sentient beings. An objective standard by which to measure all our interactions. The fundamental moral baseline of a mutual respect for one another's intrinsic value/ goodness as a sentient being? When I was at university (14yrs ago) I spoke with a lecturer about the lack of meaning in the universe and he told me about a play he had once seen where a character represents the position I was positing. Another character in the plays punches him in the nose to snap him out of it. I've never forgotten that lesson from a professor of linguistics on a course concerned with the mathematical modelling of computer simulations - Prof Thierry Sheurer. True Story. You last statement about universal agreement not being the same as objective reality smacks of the kind of fundamental epistemological argument that I usually see used by theists in defines of religion. Perhaps you are right and we can never know ANYTHING has objective existence.... If that is the case surely we would have to revert to a utilitarian foundation for ethics, religion, politics, worldview anyway!! Is my logic acceptable O'Brian..or does 2+2 really equal 5?

Or maybe O'Brian has too much of an agenda... Perhaps Cratylus is a better nickname? ;-P

Hi Ben,

Thanks for sharing that link. I just watched the entire presentation along with discussion and Q&A.
No, I don't. However, if his contention is the "the worst misery possible" is A standard in which we should measure moral progress, I would be more open to the idea. Harris is doing exactly what I stated in my last post -- he is using subjective terms as a basis for his objective moral basis.

First let's look at his stated subjective terms: "worst misery possible". I don't think you would find a psychologist or neurobiologist, including Harris, who would insist that misery is NOT a subjective experience occurring inside the minds of those experiencing the misery. For example, watching you (or anyone) murder my family via flamethrower would probably be close to the worst miserly possible for me. But for someone reading about this in some obscure paper in another country, it would be nothing more than a "that's terrible" fleeing thought.

His contention has the same problems Anselm has for his ontological argument, i.e. if we can imagine the "greatest possible being" then Anselm insists that it must have some objective existence (really paraphrasing). But the subjective nature of his use of the term "great" would actually serve more to disprove the God of the Bible, since any one of us could imagine a less violent and more forgiving God as the one written about in the Old Testament. Because we all have different standards of greatness, Anselm's argument fails, and because we all have different standards of misery, Harris' argument fails.

Now let's look at what Harris did not state. Who is "everyone"? Does it include all humans? How about murderers and rapists? How about the Taliban, do we want to make sure they are not miserable? How about animals? Fish? Plants? Bacteria? Viruses? Or should we just assume that only humans are the only conscious beings whose misery is worth avoiding? Who says? How is any of this objective in any way?

If the worst possible misery for everyone (whatever that means) is our objective standard for morality, then where does the instant annihilation of everyone fit in on this moral scale? There would be no anticipation of death, no pain, and certainly no misery -- in fact, this would do away with all of the existing misery in the world today. By Harris' "objective" standard of morality, making the moral choice to annihilate everyone seems like a pretty good one.

Harris was accused by an audience member of going for the "low hanging fruit", by appealing to emotion (my addition), and using the example of throwing battery acid in the face of a little girl for learning how to read. Surely this MUST be objectively wrong... what MONSTER would not see it as such? It is monster that would not see this as wrong, but the skilled philosopher that would still deny the objectivity of "wrongness". Once again, to claim this or any action as objectively wrong, you (or someone) MUST provide a logically sound or empirically verifiable basis for objectivity -- not an emotional one. Hopefully I have made it clear that Harris' basis for objectivity is not logical nor empirically verifiable, and is seriously flawed as we can see by reaching for some higher fruit.

Harris stated that values can be right or wrong if they contribute to other people's misery. Once again, an over simplification that only appears to work in obvious situations. Incarceration of a rapist makes the rapist miserable (presumably), so is this morally wrong for us to do? Grounding children for "their own good" will make them miserable -- but is this morally wrong? When is it OK to cause an individual or groups misery in exchange for a "greater good" or the happiness of others? THIS is what morality is all about, and Harris' contention about using misery as a baseline can say nothing about this -- even if misery were objective, and he admits as much.

Harris used the analogy of health to morality. Health, like morality, has many clear effects on our "well-being" (another subjective term on which his objective morality relies). But can we really say that there are objective standards to health? Well, perhaps we can. Why? Because health not only measures the subjective state of a system's well-being, but it also measures objective, observable criteria such as function of a system. For example, if a kidney has failed and cannot function, we can objectively say something about the health of that system, because we are talking in binary terms -- a function/no function prognosis. But what can we say about a 70 year old man who has minor arthritis, a much more complex "system" biologically, than an organ, and a system in which function is not as simple as function/no function? Health, in that sense, is subjective.

Just because obvious extremes exist in system, in which universal agreement prevails, does not mean that system has an objective existence. Harris is using his "worst possible misery" as his moral extreme. As I have already shown, "worst possible misery" is not an objective, universal, or empirically definable state.

Harris claims to be a sort of consequentialist (but understandably wants to avoid the label), that is, moral choices should be made based on the outcomes or consequences of the choice. The problem with this idea, is that life is chaotic. It is impossible to predict long-term outcomes and consequences. Nature tells us this. Therefore, any short-term perceived benefits could easily be overshadowed by long-term negative effects (like going back in time and killing Hitler, only to return to a world destroyed by nuclear war).
Not sure where you are getting this from. As you can see in our thread I was the only one defining terms.
It won't once you attempt to define how morality is objective.
I have no idea how you get all this from my previous statements. I have stated several times that the idea of objective value is very different from our own subjective value. My life being valueless to the universe does not mean my life is valueless to me. You must logically or empirically show me otherwise how your life is objectively valuable to the universe.
But what if a terrorist said if you didn't do this, he would launch a nuclear strike on all of England, and convinced you, beyond reasonable doubt, that he could and would do it? Not so clear any more, is it? The apparently immoral action could be seen as a moral one. Where is objectivity?
"Mutual respect based on our shared value as sentient beings". "Respect" is subjective, "value" is subjective, and members of the group "sentient beings" is very debatable, even in the scientific community. This vague and subjective statement cannot be used a basis objective morality.
If I am incorrect, then universal agreement IS objective reality -- all the time. Is that your position? Just because theist might eat corn, doesn't mean I can't eat corn too. Theists aren't always wrong
But I never said that. That would be an extreme epistemological statement that I feel might have some truth, in some sense, but is a pointless position to take in a world where rules and laws can be defined with near certainty. My denial of objectivity, for this discussion, is on objective morality -- that is all.

While I can appreciate that you, and others, are trying to find an objective moral code by which we can all live, especially by not appealing to theology or the supernatural, I am afraid that like the last number in an infinite series, it will never be found. Morality will continue to be defined based on the ideals of the influential and persuasive, and for as long as these conflicting ideals exist, this moral debate will live on.

Wow Bo! Thank you So much for taking the time to respond in such detail... I've read it through once and tbh you've blown my mind so in order to take it in I'm gonna have to read through it a few times and try to break it down into bits. The little that did make immediate seense to me like the parallels between Anselm's Ontological argument and an argument for an existence of the most extreme moral classifications was a good one. (I'm going to pinch that if you don't mind) I also didn't see the "well what if it was going to prevent nuclear war-is it still wrong" argument coming, which was stupid of me....well played! Really great point you made about functionality and a utilitarian type justification of morality only working with binary decisions and how that is immediately compromised when any spectrum of usefulness is considered. Then throwing in the uncertainty of a chaotic world and the difficulty of predicting any future states - very good. So what I'm going to do - I tend to get a good 45mims each morning driving to work when I can listen to a debate - I'm going to try to c&p your post into MS word and get the computer voice thing to read it out, if I record that then I can stick it on my iPod and listen to your post a few more times over the next few days. I have to be honest - I'm still struggling with the idea that we can't define anything as objectively moral without God. But maybe that just something I have to come to terms with. As I said I spent a lot of time as an arrogant teenager thinking I'd worked it all out and that nothing was objective then I thought I'd grown up and found some pretty smart reasons to claim humanist morality.... If you remember my other thread im still keep to keep hold of the idea (and attempt to give grounding to) the existance of transcendent concepts. Right & wrong seem so quintessential to humanism I'm still struggling to find a secular argument for a basis for brotherhood and solidarity

Ben, obviously you don't understand how this debate sites works. You are supposed to disagree with everything I say, then throw a few personal insults in, before insisting that you right about everything. But, I do appreciate the variety!

Bo,



How is/Is your argument against objective morality any different from the more general argument against objective awareness of reality, the hard problem of conciousness or qualia?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

One of my favorite paitings is IKB. What are your thoughts on that?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Klein_Blue

and its relation to The inverted spectrum argument

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia#The_inverted_spectrum_argument

in that if we swapped the terms good for bad, up for down, inside from outside... do you agree these terms refer to some independant states in the universe - if only relational states ( how one entity relates to another)

I am not sure how to answer this, as I am not familiar with all the arguments for or against those topics you mention. But if I understand the gist of this question correctly, maybe we can sum up by asking how can we tell if anything has an objective existence, especially since all of our experience is filtered through our senses?

When we define something with an objective existence, we do not and cannot use subjective terms. That is like trying to multiply negative numbers to end up with a positive number. It is an application of the principles of mathematics and logic that tell us this cannot be so. Defining or offering proofs for anything objective must work within a system where were have already accepted objectivity -- notably the laws of math and/or logic. Of course, one can ask why we accept 1+1=2 to begin with, but it becomes quickly obvious that unforgiving skepticism leads to absurdity.

The idea of probability (and subjectivity) is central to my philosophy. Instead of asking what certainly exists, I ask what probably exists. Based on scientific, rational, logical, and/or mathematical evaluation these probabilities, we can determine which of two or more alternatives is more likely. Based on the degree of probability, there are many things, for all practical purposes, we can and do call "objective".

As for the hard problem of consciousness / qualia, I think it is quite separate from rejecting the idea of moral objectivity. If consciousness were proven to be transcendent somehow, it still would not necessarily follow that morality is objective -- even if it were transcendent. Likewise, if the transcendent is part of our reality, philosophers still have a long way to go to connect it objective morality. And if they ever did, defining what this really means in terms of behavior and "oughts" by which we "should" live, could never escape subjectivity.

But the question still remains, on what basis can we call morality objective, besides imagining that it comes from a magical objective source from the heavens? Theists have this objective foundation -- God, although they can believe an objective morality exists, morality is still unknowable based on the nebulous and subjective language used in the Bible, translation errors, copying errors, conflicting personal "revelation" and interpretation, and of course, multiple and conflicting holy books all of which claim to be written by God.

For all practical purposes, their morality is just as subjective as everyone else's.
Lovely. It would look nice in Papa Smurf's bedroom.
The terms "up and down", "inside and outside" refer to space-time -- that is, they are used to describe a physical state within the universe, so I would agree that they refer to some independent states in the universe. But "good and bad" are not. These are human concepts that use to describe events/actions we perceive. Same thing with loud, hot, sexy, cute, annoying, and a seemingly endless array of words we use to describe our perceptions.

In conclusion, I might have been rambling a bit because I don't see any necessary parallels in my argument against non theistic objective morality and those other philosophical problems you presented. If I am missing something, please do explain where you see the necessary connection.

Bo- you've given me loads to think about, thank you for spending your time. I hope I can pass at least some of those ideas on & do justice to your time & effort. Ps Love the Relationship with Reason site. "From what? What was God doing prior to eternity that made he decide to create?  Was he bored?" should be "From what? What was God doing prior to eternity that made him decide to create it?  Was he bored?"

Unless you're going to deny the objective existance of the rules of Grammar! ;-P

Here is an argument from C.S.Lewis on (the moral Law). I paraphrased his thoughts on this subject, because I cannot find the book. let's say my fellow man is in danger and helping him could possibly save his life however, it could cost me mine. Then another instinct comes into play, one that's contrary to the "Golden rule" (the instinct of self-preservation). So now, you have a choice to follow one of the two impulses. So my question is where does this third thing, which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away, come from?

I think (and I am not properly trained in Philosophy) that this short similitude is relevant to the idea of transcendent morals. There has to be a form, (or a paradigm if you would like) of what is right, independent of the herd instinct.

Hi Greg and a big welcome!

I never heard of the Golden Rule being equated with the instinct of self-preservation, but I can see the similarities. But it is important to also see the differences. In one sense, attempting to save a life of another while risking your own IS the Golden Rule, because surely you would want another to do the same for you. This would be following just one instinct.

We often pose these situations in the "low hanging fruit" category, that is, we create the situation so virtually all of us has a clear picture of what we "ought" to do. But what if a convicted rapist is drowning in freezing waters, and you are single parent of a toddler who is there with you, and if you risked your life and died, your toddler would surely die too as no other adults are around? What would God want us to do? What does the "transcendent" morals tell us to do? What is the "objectively right" thing to do in this situation?
Why do you say that? Tell us why there has to be? Better yet, tell us how we all can objectively know that there is.

Hi Greg, I agree with you that there is a very strong sense of what the right thing to do is in a situation like that. I think what Bo is getting at is that situations like the one you suggest aren't realistic and are just Caricatures of morality. They are at the ultra extreme end of the spectrum of decisions that we make. Ask yourself how many times have you ever had a situation like that actually happen where you couldn't see the other persons viewpoint or use your moral imagination to empathise with how someone else might at differently. I tried to approach it slightly differently and tried to justify it from a first principles type approach where I tried to find an objectively agreeable starting point - conciousness. But after reading Bo's objections he's got me questioning that too. I liked how Bo equated this to the Ontological argument - as I've spent a lot of time looking at that.

Thanks' for that civilized reply. I say that because I'm use to the sarcastic comments I get on "The Atheist experience." I agree with your point about the extreme caricatures of morality; however, the point that C.S. Lewis was making in the book is the moral law is not one of are instincts, but rather the thing that tells us we ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. He clarifies, by saying that the thing that judges between two instincts cannot itself be either of them. He uses a great analogy, and I quote "You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the key-board. The moral law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys". From a humanist perspective this is not acceptable, because it (seems to me anyway) undermines their autonomy. By the way, sometimes because of long work hours and time commitments to my family, I'm not able to give a quick response.

Hi Greg, while I cannot promise you sarcastic-free replies, I can certainly promise you civilized ones

I am quoting C.S Lewis' self-given objections to his own concept of "moral law" as stated in chapter 2 of his book, Mere Christianity.
Lewis never does this -- he simply presents us with several problematic analogies that he tries to use as support for the foundation that he claims exists.
What about the desire to look both ways before crossing the street versus the feeling that you ought to look both ways before crossing the street? Can we conclude that some transcendent objective traffic law from God exists? Or is this "ought" merely our brain's ability to calculate if/then scenarios as well as anticipatory consequences and responses to action or inaction?

How about the ought that tells we ought not to eat that delicious ice cream? We feel the desire to satisfy our stomach as well as the desire to preserve our health, and then this third feeling -- this "ought". Is this really a moral decision in any way? Does God really care if we eat ice cream of not? What about all those people with great metabolisms that never feel they ought not to eat ice cream?

The point is, if you simply focus on extreme examples you miss the flaws in the reasoning.

This ought feeling Lewis describes has been demonstrated to be a subjective feeling based on a number of natural factors. To fully understand this, you need to step outside of your own subjective morality, and look at the "oughts" that exist in other times and cultures, and even among individuals in the same time and culture. Ask an Indian if we ought to eat cow or not. Ask an Islamic woman if she ought to go in public without a burqa. Ask Moses if he ought to eat shellfish or not -- then ask Jesus the same question. If these "oughts" result in different answers, you need to ask what is going on, and be able to explain it under the "divine morality law".

The "ought" is our brain's ability to suppress initial desires and evaluate possible outcomes -- a process that occurs in our frontal lobe. Lewis is right that it is not a biological "instinct", but it is our evolved ability to control our instincts through rational processes. This is what Lewis, not having the benefit of 60 years of neurobiology, called the "third impulse".

Hay Bo, thanks for that informative response. It’s exciting for me to gain some insight from the perspective of an Atheist. I stated at the onset of my response that I did not appreciate the sarcasm chronically dispensed by your comrades on the A.E. however I realize the necessity of such language in a debate. In fact, I rather enjoy dishing it back to the idiots who make dogmatic assertions.

So, feel free to use sarcastic language, because at times I will provoke a disparaging response.

Now allow me to put something you said about the statement made by C.S Lewis into context. The book mere Christianity is one of his first apologetic writings, after his conversion. As you probably know he was formally an Atheist, and I must say I am delighted that he joined forces with the believer’s camp, because he was wicked smart, and dangerous as an Atheist.

In the introduction, he states that he is not an expert in this field. Therefore, the implication is obvious to the smart reader, that he will probably make some unintended mistakes along the way. The premise of the book is to show the reader that not all other worldviews correspond to reality.

Now, let’s address your slick sophistry. You are using amoral examples to support your case for “ought’s”i.e. “How about the ought that tells we ought not to eat that delicious ice cream?” Come on Bo are you trying to pull the proverbial wool over my eyes. You stated that Lewis is using extreme moral caricature scenarios, really! Would it suffice to use a more common scenario, one you could relate too, in order to make his point? I can assure you there are plenty of situations where a man has to make a moral life saving decision. So stop comparing Apples to Oranges, and give me an applicable comparison.

Hi Greg! First off, I am glad you found the new location of this thread. Secondly, ever heard of a flash?

One to think about... what is the difference between a moral issue and an amoral issue? Is this an objective distinction on its own? Or is a human construct? Of course, I would argue for the latter, and anyone arguing for the former would need to demonstrate some clear demarcation rather than arbitrarily throw things into the moral/amoral categories.

An example, pre-marital sex. I fell in love with my wife on our first date (age 23). After about 4 months of dating (just about daily) we moved in together and "knew each other" A year later we married and life has been grand ever since (been married for 14 years, with two great kids). Now my Christian brother still sees this as a moral catastrophe, where there wasn't a single moral "ought not" in my body when sharing that time with my not-yet-but-soon-to-be wife. Why did my brother see this as a moral issue where I didn't? Authority. My brother felt I was doing something "wrong" according to the rules of the Christian Bible whereas I did not see the Bible as a valid source of authority, therefore, I did not see what I was doing as "wrong".

If you are married Greg, and you don't put your wife in a burka, are you committing a moral wrong? In depends who you ask. Over a billion Muslims would say that both you and your wife have committed a terrible moral wrong. You and I don't see this, because neither of us see the Koran as a legitimate moral authority.

One more example, eating bacon. This one is interesting because the law comes from the same God of the Christians and the Jews. Ask a practicing Jew if they "ought" to eat pig. This would be (in their eyes) breaking God's rules but to the Christian who follows the authority of Jesus and his declaration of all foods OK to eat, this is not a moral issue.

If you start to put the pieces of the puzzle together, you will see that our sense of morality comes from rules and authority. Some rules appear to be innate, like self-preservation, kinship, and reciprocal altruism, as these can be demonstrated by the study and observation of non-human animals. The rest, I would argue, are cultural.

No intention to mislead, I assure you. But my intention was exactly what you have observed -- that this same "feeling" Lewis describes is applicable to amoral issues as well.

I really do wish there were clear, objective moral values that every member of the human species would honor, but it just isn't so, no matter how badly we want it to be. The first step to global peace is accepting moral subjectivity and working on bridging the gaps in morality through education, discussion, and debate.

Hay Bo, Thanks’ for the nice reply. I can see were in a deadlock; so I guess we should move on to another topic. Therefore, in closing let me say that I cannot give you solid answers, to your sincere questions without using scripture as a reference point. The reason being that you do not believe the bible is Divine, rather then human in origin, in other words, I can’t reason from a book, you deem to be nothing more then a collection of fairy-tales.

One of the first apologetic tasks when reasoning with an unbelieving subject is to show them the bible has authority. So with that being said let’s pretend the scripture has such authority. It says in Romans that each man has his own set of standards, and is judged by those very rules that he inevitable breaks. Therefore, whether its convention, or cultural customs, there is something inherent in our nature that occasions us to break our own laws.

Then use scripture to give me solid answers. Although you are correct that I don't accept divine authority of the Bible, or any book for that matter, I am respectful of any wisdom in literature. If the Bible can provide solid, objective, answers to moral questions, I welcome that wisdom.

Let's start with an easy moral question. Is it morally wrong to kill someone?

It depends on the context. There are two meanings for kill in the Old Testament; one is used in the context of War. This one is justifiable. The other one is used for murder. This kind of killing is morally wrong, and never condoned by God. It is also acceptable to kill in the act of self-defense.

If it is morally acceptable to kill in "war", then we have accept that the Taliban along with their tortures, suicide bombings, killing of women and children, etc. are morally acceptable. Not just them but any warlord or any army that, kills or has killed, for any reason. What if America declares war on Canada because we are pissed that their dollar is now worth more than ours? Is it OK to kill all of them? What if I declare war on my wife and I kill her? Is that OK?

I teach self-defense, and trust me on this one -- there are very few situations where killing someone is justifiable, at least as far as the law goes, morally speaking as well (in my opinion). Clear example, a little girl finds her dad's gun and points it at you. Is it OK to kill her?

I need your help on this one, Greg. How are you/the Bible/God defining "murder"? Certainly it can't include the killing of

• People Who Don't Listen to Priests (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
• Witches (Exodus 22:17 NAB)
• Gays (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
• Fortunetellers (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
• Children who hit one of their parents (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
• Children who curse at one of their parents (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
• ... the list goes on and on

Greg, I am sorry if this sounds offensive, but it is an honest question. Have you ever read the Old Testament? Statistically speaking, very few Christians read anything outside a few passages in the New Testament.

Even if I were to agree that the Bible actually says that it is OK to kill in war and self-defense, and never OK to "murder" (which I certainly do not), all you (the Bible/God) did was attempted to make a rule/law objective by attaching single, subjective terms to it. So even if we all were to accept the authority of the Christian Bible, this would do nothing for defining an objective morality, made evident by all the wrongs historically done in "the name of God".

Bo, I must say you have some good, but common questions. I use to listen to “The Bible Answer Man” every day for years, so I have heard these kinds of questions addressed by the host many times. That is why I say these are commonplace inquires from skeptics from many different walks of life. I do not mean to say your questions are trite by any means, in fact, most of the people who call into the show are much smarter, then I am.

Before I address some of your valid questions, I need to know if you are sincere, or just patronizing me? Because you are a little more advanced then the typical reprobate who merely wants to mock and disparage the Christian Worldview. I don’t deem you a devious man, however you are clever enough to bait me, and that’s all right because I like a good challenge.

Therefore, if you really want a REASON to believe, I will give you facts, however, even I was to win an argument, you’re bias would probably prevent you from accepting the Christian Worldview.

Oh!! I want a REASON to believe! Give me some facts that are convincing!
Of course, before you do this, ask yourself, if I were to prove all of those facts wrong or irrelavent, would you still be a christian?
If so, then these are not the reason you believe, so why would you think they would be reason enough for me to beleive.

Give me reason, but give me your reasons.