Download MP3 · RSS · Subscribe via iTunes · Discuss

Digg · Facebook · del.icio.us · reddit · StumbleUpon

He explores the secular meanings of stories about the mythical Garden of Eden, and actually celebrates the eating of the fruit of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and of the fruit of the Tree of Life

Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”

I’m reminded of the murals in Walker Memorial at MIT, which celebrate Knowledge on one wall and yet echo (in Latin) the dangers of knowledge on the other wall.

The good wall with Alma Mater
[Central Panel - “Alma Mater” surrounded by the sciences]
[Art of Boston—Three colored panels at bottom are from this “alma mater” wall]

The spooky wall with someone resembling Thomas Edison:
[ blog from RealPhysics]
[“SE” wall with science-technology]

[“et eritis sicut dii scientes bonum et malum”]

Yeah, I thought I was doing something wrong, like using the wrong browser or something.

..., arguing against nihilistic atheism.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org

mp3 download doesn’t work—points back to pointofinquiry.org— will edit comment after it’s fixed.

Jackson

Way out in left field here,but I love the new avatar.What a change from that solemn,portrait of who?Who was that?Jefferson?Anyways,nice abstraction.

Paul Kurtz is the leading figure in the humanist and skeptical movements over the last four decades. He is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo. As chair of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), the Council for Secular Humanism, and Prometheus Books, and as editor-in-chief of Free Inquiry Magazine, he has advanced a critical, humanistic inquiry into many of the most cherished beliefs of society for decades. He is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and has been featured widely in the media on topics as diverse as reincarnation, UFO abduction, secular versus religious ethics, communication with the dead, and the historicity of Jesus.

During this conversation with D.J. Grothe, Paul Kurtz discusses the importance of creativity in terms of outreach for the skeptical and secular humanist movements. He talks about the his book Forbidden Fruit, which focuses on the application of science and reason to the Good Life and to normative ethics. He argues that ethics need not have religious foundations, and that ethics should instead have purely secular and humanist sources. He explores the secular meanings of stories about the mythical Garden of Eden, and actually celebrates the eating of the fruit of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and of the fruit of the Tree of Life. He argues that the universalistic ethics within the world’s religions in fact stem from secular humanism. He details what it is to live a life of excellence and defends against the charge that his ethics is self-centered and self-absorbed, arguing for good will in a secular context, and that the common good is not alien to enlightened self-interest. He touches on the secular position on controversial social issues, such as abortion and sexual ethics, including gay rights and gay marriage. He expounds on what he calls the “common moral decencies,” which he argues are a product of evolution. He finishes by discussing the myth of Sisyphus and what it portends for the scientific secularist today, arguing against nihilistic atheism.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org

We can all take heart at the fact that all of our basic “ethics"or moral values stem from science and not religion.Ohh to have the hindsight,and see back when the foundations of various religions were being laid.They all borrowed from innate,natural codes.
They learned along the way to steal these values as their own.And then to use them as some sort of omnipotent “sourceflow"of knowledge.Thus enshrining themselves in righteousness,and subsequent moral domination.

..., arguing against nihilistic atheism.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org

mp3 download doesn’t work—points back to pointofinquiry.org— will edit comment after it’s fixed.

Jackson

Way out in left field here,but I love the new avatar.What a change from that solemn,portrait of who?Who was that?Jefferson?Anyways,nice abstraction.

Thanks. [ R.A. Fisher Memorial Window at Oxford], showing a 7x7 Latin Square.

He finishes by discussing the myth of Sisyphus and what it portends for the scientific secularist today, arguing against nihilistic atheism.

A small quibble. The above is the last sentence in the description of the conversation between D.J. and Paul Kurtz. But nowhere in the broadcast did I hear any reference to “nihilistic atheism.” So what is the source for the claim? There’s nothing about atheism that requires nihilism. Certainly, there are atheists who are nihilists, but there are many more, like Mr. Kurtz himself, who are not.

That sentence refers to the end of the interview when D.J. and Kurtz discuss meaningless in a godless universe.

That sentence refers to the end of the interview when D.J. and Kurtz discuss meaningless in a godless universe.

Fair enough. But what I heard Kurtz saying was that we humans can find meaning in a godless universe. Ergo, godlessness does not necessarily lead to meaninglessness. Besides, “nihilism,” as I understand it, is the rejection of all religious and moral principles. Since atheists are as capable of morality as theists and morality is not, as Kurtz so eloquently demonstrates, inherently religious, atheism does not necessarily infer nihilism. To me, and I may be entirely alone in this, the phrase “nihilistic atheism” sounded like a shot at atheism that was uncalled for and unsupported by anything in the program.

As I said, it’s a small quibble. I did enjoy the broadcast.

Paul Kurtz is the leading figure in the humanist and skeptical movements over the last four decades. He is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo. As chair of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), the Council for Secular Humanism, and Prometheus Books, and as editor-in-chief of Free Inquiry Magazine, he has advanced a critical, humanistic inquiry into many of the most cherished beliefs of society for decades. He is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and has been featured widely in the media on topics as diverse as reincarnation, UFO abduction, secular versus religious ethics, communication with the dead, and the historicity of Jesus.

During this conversation with D.J. Grothe, Paul Kurtz discusses the importance of creativity in terms of outreach for the skeptical and secular humanist movements. He talks about the his book Forbidden Fruit, which focuses on the application of science and reason to the Good Life and to normative ethics. He argues that ethics need not have religious foundations, and that ethics should instead have purely secular and humanist sources. He explores the secular meanings of stories about the mythical Garden of Eden, and actually celebrates the eating of the fruit of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and of the fruit of the Tree of Life. He argues that the universalistic ethics within the world’s religions in fact stem from secular humanism. He details what it is to live a life of excellence and defends against the charge that his ethics is self-centered and self-absorbed, arguing for good will in a secular context, and that the common good is not alien to enlightened self-interest. He touches on the secular position on controversial social issues, such as abortion and sexual ethics, including gay rights and gay marriage. He expounds on what he calls the “common moral decencies,” which he argues are a product of evolution. He finishes by discussing the myth of Sisyphus and what it portends for the scientific secularist today, arguing against nihilistic atheism.

http://www.pointofinquiry.org

We can all take heart at the fact that all of our basic “ethics"or moral values stem from science and not religion.

VYAZMA, just playing devil’s advocate here, and because this is a subject that I’m devoting a lot of thought to at the moment. How exactly do we base our ethics and moral values on science? Science by
definition is “value-free,” and indeed most sensible scientists would tell you that science does not in any way provide any prescriptive ethic/moral axioms, it simply provides bare, naked facts about the
world. We keep repeating this idea that we derive our ethics from science (and even sometimes “from nature”) but all I have ever seen, quite frankly, is an endless assertion of this without anything to
back it up.

Paul Kurtz is one of my heros.  That said, I have a problem every time I hear him interviewed.  His use of the word exuberant.  He always mentions living an exuberant life.

ex⋅u⋅ber⋅ant    [ig-zoo-ber-uhnt] Show IPA Pronunciation  
–adjective
1.  effusively and almost uninhibitedly enthusiastic; lavishly abundant: an exuberant welcome for the hero.
2.  abounding in vitality; extremely joyful and vigorous.
3.  extremely good; overflowing; plentiful: exuberant health.
4.  profuse in growth or production; luxuriant; superabundant: exuberant vegetation.

While I am secular and a humanist, and am most interested in Paul’s ideals, I am woefully unprepared to be exuberant.  I mean, if he said live life to the fullest, I can handle that. Don’t worry, be happy, that is a possibility.  But exuberant, not a chance.  Uninhibitedly enthusiastic?  Neither word applies to me.

I won’t even get into living a life of excellence. 

(this is all with tongue firmly in cheek)

The interview is interesting and inspirational.  I do think I will get his book.

He finishes by discussing the myth of Sisyphus and what it portends for the scientific secularist today, arguing against nihilistic atheism.

A small quibble. The above is the last sentence in the description of the conversation between D.J. and Paul Kurtz. But nowhere in the broadcast did I hear any reference to “nihilistic atheism.” So what is the source for the claim? There’s nothing about atheism that requires nihilism. Certainly, there are atheists who are nihilists, but there are many more, like Mr. Kurtz himself, who are not.

Always an interesting interview.

I have to agree that a discussion of [ Sisyphus ] is not the same as “nihilistic atheism”.

In regard to abortion—Paul Kurtz is emphatic about a woman’s right to choose but he doesn’t seem to acknowledge any ambiguity in the exact threshold where abortion should be discouraged. What gives a 91-day fetus rights which an 89-day fetus doesn’t have —how does his perspective agree with and differ from that of Peter Singer— lots of room for more discussion.

Edit to add:
A nod to Steve, who seized on this point before I posted.  Let VYAZMA reply to Steve on this one.

We can all take heart at the fact that all of our basic “ethics"or moral values stem from science and not religion.

That seems like a cold comfort given the fact that science is value neutral.  Any values utilized in science come from outside of science.

Ohh to have the hindsight,and see back when the foundations of various religions were being laid.They all borrowed from innate,natural codes.

What happened where the religious morals do not agree?  Did unnaturalness somehow intervene in the natural world?  Or are all religious morals actually innate, natural codes?

If you believe the latter, on what science is the belief based?

They learned along the way to steal these values as their own.And then to use them as some sort of omnipotent “sourceflow"of knowledge.Thus enshrining themselves in righteousness,and subsequent moral domination.

Are innate natural codes righteous?  If yes, wouldn’t a religion be righteous to whatever extent it was based on stolen (is that stealing an innate, natural act or were they being naughty to take like that?) innate, natural codes?  If the innate, natural codes are not righteous then why would they add any righteousness to religious moral codes?

What happened where the religious morals do not agree? 

Thanks to Bryan for reminding me of this point that came up in the interview.  It is often said   that without religion there would be no morality, but as Paul Kurtz notes this view is contradictory because there are hundreds of religions with contradictory moral codes.  And the moral codes of some of our current religions seem to be evolving.

In response to Steve(sorry for the belated reply).Without a doubt all of our values stem from science.Yes science in and of itself is value free.(or is it?we apply all kinds of values to scientific procedure and observation:ie measurement,worth,and impact).However we humans are not value free,and yet we are pure science.At least I am.I wasn’t made from somebodies rib or formed out of clay by some super-being.
These values stem from zoological,and biological,and pyschological factors.These three factors are the same in all humans,barring some anomolies like mutation,mental disorders,or any other defects.(yes some of these can sometimes be the front-running tendrils of evolution.)The other major factor which enables us to break these codes,is the disruption of the social order.Such as over population in a given environment.Just because we can spread like a virulent mold,faster than we can evolve to adapt to it,doesn’t mean we lose those original,more slowly evolving value codes.It just means we break the codes,as a pressure valve.Like murder and war.
I have already stated in other threads that the basic moral or value codes come from species/biological programming,that is innate in all evolving beings.For example most species,most of the time,do not harm or kill their own,or most other species.This is why flight takes place far more often than fight.So,here is one example of a moral code prime order,which we have built into us.Yes we have intelligently transmogrified it and writ it down so to speak,but there it is,in it’s purest form.Now most of our other values stem from this one alone.
Then of course,do I have to state all of the values which we have developed, concerning mating ritual?Another innate,scientifically based value code that is built into all of us.
Next take the fact that we are social creatures.I think that happened scientifically,I don’t think somewhere along the way we decided to start hanging around together in families and cities.This was geneticaly/evolutionary built into us.Is that scientific?HMMMN?Yes,I think it is!!Do I have to expound on the moral/value codes which are resultant from us being socially ordered?
I don’t want to type out 5000 words on this,gather from inference,the points about social order,and the built in codes that are part of its mechanism for continuance.

What happened where the religious morals do not agree? 

Thanks to Bryan for reminding me of this point that came up in the interview.  It is often said   that without religion there would be no morality, but as Paul Kurtz notes this view is contradictory because there are hundreds of religions with contradictory moral codes.

I think it is silly to argue that there would be no morality apart from religion, apart from noting that a belief in an “ought” is by definition not derived from science as well as requiring faith.  Up to you how you want to define “religion” in this case.

The real argument is against the coherence of non-religious systems of morality, that is those that claim to feature objective morality rather than some form of subjective morality.  Certainly you can be an atheist and feel that someone “ought” to do a particular act in a particular set of circumstances, but it is a different thing to justify the belief in philosophical terms in a manner that agrees with an atheistic world view.

Edit to add:
I’m perplexed by the suggestion that contradictions between religious systems of morality would somehow contradict the argument that without religion there would be no morality.  Perhaps that point is moot given that I think the latter argument is silly.

And the moral codes of some of our current religions seem to be evolving.

Strictly speaking, that isn’t a problem for objective morality—not even absolute morality.  It does present a potential epistemic problem if objective morality changes over time, however.

Bryan,I think I answered your queries as well.One point though concerning one of your questions.I believe you asked:“if innate natural codes are not righteous,why would religion make them righteous?”(paraphrase).Was that a question of yours?
Answer(if that was your question):for moral dominance,and subsequent mass effect mind manipulation.Righteousness is just another word for pride!!
Religion is the effect of getting people to be proud of innate moral values.Something that is not necessary,and actually harms the fabric of those very innate moral codes,or values.Then religion stirs into the mix a dash of mysticism and voila!!
Righteousness comes from religion,it is the phenomenom of making people proud of their own natural behaviors.

Bryan,I think I answered your queries as well.One point though concerning one of your questions.I believe you asked:“if innate natural codes are not righteous,why would religion make them righteous?”(paraphrase).Was that a question of yours?
Answer(if that was your question):for moral dominance,and subsequent mass effect mind manipulation.Righteousness is just another word for pride!!

That is not the way I was using the term “righteous.”  I was trying to get at whether natural moral codes are right (the ordinary meaning of the term “righteous”).

Thanks for addressing my questions.  I’ll leave this issue to Steve unless you’d like to engage the conversation with me (PM me if that’s your wish).  But if Steve never gets around to it I’ll probably step in eventually.

Bryan,I think I answered your queries as well.One point though concerning one of your questions.I believe you asked:“if innate natural codes are not righteous,why would religion make them righteous?”(paraphrase).Was that a question of yours?
Answer(if that was your question):for moral dominance,and subsequent mass effect mind manipulation.Righteousness is just another word for pride!!

That is not the way I was using the term “righteous.”  I was trying to get at whether natural moral codes are right (the ordinary meaning of the term “righteous”).

Thanks for addressing my questions.  I’ll leave this issue to Steve unless you’d like to engage the conversation with me (PM me if that’s your wish).  But if Steve never gets around to it I’ll probably step in eventually.

Well.Bry.Sure I guess they’re “right”.They couldn’t really be wrong,seeing as how they come from a scientific,evolving code,which so far has led us up to this point.
No though you guys run with it.I’m not up for a long discussion on the metaphysics of ethics and moral codes.Peace out..

Bryan,I think I answered your queries as well.One point though concerning one of your questions.I believe you asked:“if innate natural codes are not righteous,why would religion make them righteous?”(paraphrase).Was that a question of yours?
Answer(if that was your question):for moral dominance,and subsequent mass effect mind manipulation.Righteousness is just another word for pride!!

That is not the way I was using the term “righteous.”  I was trying to get at whether natural moral codes are right (the ordinary meaning of the term “righteous”).

Thanks for addressing my questions.  I’ll leave this issue to Steve unless you’d like to engage the conversation with me (PM me if that’s your wish).  But if Steve never gets around to it I’ll probably step in eventually.

Well.Bry.Sure I guess they’re “right”.They couldn’t really be wrong,seeing as how they come from a scientific,evolving code,which so far has led us up to this point.
No though you guys run with it.I’m not up for a long discussion on the metaphysics of ethics and moral codes.Peace out..

I suspect there’s nowhere to go from here.  If the religious codes are “right” then what’s the problem with “stealing” from the source code?  There is a real question as to whether your view about scientifically derived codes is coherent, which I’m sure was Steve’s observation as well.  Science can describe existing moral codes, and can even propose naturalistic origins for existing moral codes.  It can’t tell you whether they ought to be followed or not, which is probably why you have no objection to calling the religious codes “right” in some meaningless (or subjective) fashion.

Bryan,I think I answered your queries as well.One point though concerning one of your questions.I believe you asked:“if innate natural codes are not righteous,why would religion make them righteous?”(paraphrase).Was that a question of yours?
Answer(if that was your question):for moral dominance,and subsequent mass effect mind manipulation.Righteousness is just another word for pride!!

That is not the way I was using the term “righteous.”  I was trying to get at whether natural moral codes are right (the ordinary meaning of the term “righteous”).

Thanks for addressing my questions.  I’ll leave this issue to Steve unless you’d like to engage the conversation with me (PM me if that’s your wish).  But if Steve never gets around to it I’ll probably step in eventually.

Well.Bry.Sure I guess they’re “right”.They couldn’t really be wrong,seeing as how they come from a scientific,evolving code,which so far has led us up to this point.
No though you guys run with it.I’m not up for a long discussion on the metaphysics of ethics and moral codes.Peace out..

I suspect there’s nowhere to go from here.  If the religious codes are “right” then what’s the problem with “stealing” from the source code?  There is a real question as to whether your view about scientifically derived codes is coherent, which I’m sure was Steve’s observation as well.  Science can describe existing moral codes, and can even propose naturalistic origins for existing moral codes.  It can’t tell you whether they ought to be followed or not, which is probably why you have no objection to calling the religious codes “right” in some meaningless (or subjective) fashion.

Well that’s it.That is my point.Science can propose(actually prove)the origins,or the reasons for these codes.Origins is kind of ambigous,because these codes have been evolving too.So when you say origins it would be helpful to pick a certain area of the species timeline.Certainly we could go back far enough to a time when there were no mammals.If indeed all life sprung from one celled animals or some such creatures then surely the codes were more archaic,more “digital"if you will.Ones and Zeros.But these became more complicated as life itself became more complicated.Eventually these codes had to evolve into values that dealt with,Earths environment,interaction with other species,interaction within the same species.
Now as we sit here today,how do we interpret these codes?I don’t know.Humans have created a world which is,...which is ...what?
This is the question.Have we advanced too rapidly?Have we overpopulated too fast,and created methods to defeat the automatic control valves to steady our growth.Through religion,politics and social organization have we begun to create new moral codes,ourselves?Are “these"codes relevant?Or are they just a passing blip on the radar of evolution?Will a great “pressure release valve"happen,checking us,reseting us as it were.Where once again these evolutionary codes will be more prevalent.Not hidden,(but still there)beneath the Giant Spaghetti Monster of our own social,convoluted behavioral sysyem.

If the religious codes are “right” then what’s the problem with “stealing” from the source code?  There is a real question as to whether your view about scientifically derived codes is coherent, which I’m sure was Steve’s observation as well.  Science can describe existing moral codes, and can even propose naturalistic origins for existing moral codes.  It can’t tell you whether they ought to be followed or not, which is probably why you have no objection to calling the religious codes “right” in some meaningless (or subjective) fashion.

Well that’s it.That is my point.Science can propose(actually prove)the origins,or the reasons for these codes.Origins is kind of ambigous,because these codes have been evolving too.So when you say origins it would be helpful to pick a certain area of the species timeline.Certainly we could go back far enough to a time when there were no mammals.If indeed all life sprung from one celled animals or some such creatures then surely the codes were more archaic,more “digital"if you will.Ones and Zeros.But these became more complicated as life itself became more complicated.Eventually these codes had to evolve into values that dealt with,Earths environment,interaction with other species,interaction within the same species.
Now as we sit here today,how do we interpret these codes?I don’t know.Humans have created a world which is,...which is ...what?
This is the question.Have we advanced too rapidly?Have we overpopulated too fast,and created methods to defeat the automatic control valves to steady our growth.

We tend to run into a problem, here, since if we consistently refer to humans as a naturalistic phenomenon those questions are answered just as simply as any other.  Humans have created a world that bears the imprint of human activity, which is essentially a tautology.  What else should we have done?  Did we somehow stray from our nature?

If we overpopulated too fast for some population control mechanisms then it was our nature to do that.  Where nature provides no control for overpopulation method O, then what are humans to do?  Invent one?  But why not invent themselves as the exception instead? Science provides no answer to the question, all it does is describe the situation.

Through religion,politics and social organization have we begun to create new moral codes,ourselves?Are “these"codes relevant?Or are they just a passing blip on the radar of evolution?Will a great “pressure release valve"happen,checking us,reseting us as it were.Where once again these evolutionary codes will be more prevalent.Not hidden,(but still there)beneath the Giant Spaghetti Monster of our own social,convoluted behavioral sys(t)em.

More importantly, the naturalistic system leaves morality as a subjective phenomenon, with some aware of the game.  Those who know it’s a game may exempt themselves from the rules and/or recognize that the rules are necessarily elastic.  If right and wrong are determined by your opinion, what is to stop you from altering your opinion?

If right and wrong are determined by your opinion, what is to stop you from altering your opinion?

Nothing. But your “opinion” is presumably based on your experience, and the only reason you’d change it is (a) new information, including contact with other people or (b) new thinking on the information you already have. Or (c) both….

Bad quotation tags in your original, FWIW.

But your “opinion” is presumably based on your experience, and the only reason you’d change it is (a) new information, including contact with other people or (b) new thinking on the information you already have. Or (c) both….

How about new information like “I know that morality is subjective, so whatever I think is right is right.  I really want X and I believe I can obtain it without being caught.  I’ll think it is right and therefore it will be right.”

Would that work?

But your “opinion” is presumably based on your experience, and the only reason you’d change it is (a) new information, including contact with other people or (b) new thinking on the information you already have. Or (c) both….

How about new information like “I know that morality is subjective, so whatever I think is right is right.  I really want X and I believe I can obtain it without being caught.  I’ll think it is right and therefore it will be right.”

Would that work?

ummm Bryan this is so farfetched an example it’s not worth continuing the discussion. Sorry I missed your point.

But your “opinion” is presumably based on your experience, and the only reason you’d change it is (a) new information, including contact with other people or (b) new thinking on the information you already have. Or (c) both….

How about new information like “I know that morality is subjective, so whatever I think is right is right.  I really want X and I believe I can obtain it without being caught.  I’ll think it is right and therefore it will be right.”

Would that work?

ummm Bryan this is so farfetched an example it’s not worth continuing the discussion. Sorry I missed your point.

It’s as though moral subjectivism is no more realistic than Santa Claus. 

I’m not sure why people are even trying to explain it to Bryan, when it is obvious he has not listened to the podcast, much less read the book.

I’m not sure why people are even trying to explain it to Bryan, when it is obvious he has not listened to the podcast, much less read the book.

Apparently it’s so complicated that trying to explain it is futile unless one has listened to the podcast and/or read the book.

Do you think it’s complicated, Mriana?  Isn’t it at least something that someone who has read the book might have some chance of explaining to somebody who hasn’t read the book?

I don’t think it’s complicated at all.  Listen to Kurtz on the podcast and you will get it.

I don’t think it’s complicated at all.  Listen to Kurtz on the podcast and you will get it.

Regarding my question as to how one should treat the information that ethics is ultimately subjective and we can do what we want, Kurtz offers an answer that any of you (those who listened to the podcast) should easily have been able to provide.

Kurtz maintains a view of morality as a human construct, analogous to the law itself.  As to the question of whether humans should be moral or not ...

(L)et me confess right off that I can make little sense of the question, “Why ought I to be moral?” as it has been traditionally formulated. For if it is meant as a universal question, it is hard to know what response would constitute an adequate solution, and even whether this question is intelligible. Moreover, it masks an underlying “quest for certainty,” as John Dewey calls it, when none can be found.”
http://atheism.about.com/od/bookreviews/fr/ForbiddenFruit_2.htm

So Kurtz dresses moral subjectivity in the Emperor’s finest, in summary.

I don’t think it’s complicated at all.  Listen to Kurtz on the podcast and you will get it.

Regarding my question as to how one should treat the information that ethics is ultimately subjective and we can do what we want, Kurtz offers an answer that any of you (those who listened to the podcast) should easily have been able to provide.

Kurtz maintains a view of morality as a human construct, analogous to the law itself.  As to the question of whether humans should be moral or not ...

(L)et me confess right off that I can make little sense of the question, “Why ought I to be moral?” as it has been traditionally formulated. For if it is meant as a universal question, it is hard to know what response would constitute an adequate solution, and even whether this question is intelligible. Moreover, it masks an underlying “quest for certainty,” as John Dewey calls it, when none can be found.”
http://atheism.about.com/od/bookreviews/fr/ForbiddenFruit_2.htm

So Kurtz dresses moral subjectivity in the Emperor’s finest, in summary.

Bryan, would you listen to the podcast before commenting in this section—your comments come across as non sequiturs and need some bridging comment from you to establish the context.

For example, in the Jennifer Michael Hecht interview on Doubt,  the book covers a whole lot of stuff that is not covered in the podcast, and the podcast sort of delved into her perspectives on ‘truth’, ‘science’,poetry, etc.—which are covered more in other books of hers. So it wasn’t really a targeted discussion of the book. Similarly, this week’s podcast with Tom Flynn on science fiction and atheism has an opening 5-6 minutes on Xmas which is part of Tom Flynn but slightly off the narrow focus of the interview topic.

You tend to get the discussion off on a very philosophical abstract discussion which aggravates the context relative to the podcast.
[If you have listened to the podcast, maybe you could put in a couple of anchor-points every so often to solidfy how your comment connects.]

Anyway thanks for your patience and long-standing comments and willingingness to provide different viewpoints.  People are extremely kind about saying thank you on this forum and it’s not really my style—but again thanks.

Jackson

Bryan, would you listen to the podcast before commenting in this section—your comments come across as non sequiturs and need some bridging comment from you to establish the context.

I listened to the podcast before the post to which you replied.  If you think it is a non sequitur the kindly provide an explanation.  Do you think that Kurtz does not ultimately offer us subjective morality?

For example, in the Jennifer Michael Hecht interview on Doubt,  the book covers a whole lot of stuff that is not covered in the podcast, and the podcast sort of delved into her perspectives on ‘truth’, ‘science’,poetry, etc.—which are covered more in other books of hers. So it wasn’t really a targeted discussion of the book. Similarly, this week’s podcast with Tom Flynn on science fiction and atheism has an opening 5-6 minutes on Xmas which is part of Tom Flynn but slightly off the narrow focus of the interview topic.

That’s nice, but in the interview Kurtz appears to provide plenty of commentary that seems to make his morals and ethics ultimately subjective.  He just expressed it more conveniently (and linkably) in the excerpt I provided.

You tend to get the discussion off on a very philosophical abstract discussion which aggravates the context relative to the podcast.

The book about which he was interviewed is about morality and ethics, isn’t it?
Sure, there was a certain about of fluff about living an exuberant life and stuff, but it boils down to morality and ethics, and beyond that it boils down to another type of boil:  Subjective morality.

[If you have listened to the podcast, maybe you could put in a couple of anchor-points every so often to solidfy how your comment connects.]

Morality is “objective” since we’re objectively human.  Otherwise it boils down to our democratic process (majoritarian rule?).

Anyway thanks for your patience and long-standing comments and willingingness to provide different viewpoints.  People are extremely kind about saying thank you on this forum and it’s not really my style—but again thanks.

You’re right about that—there are quite a few who have expressed that type of appreciation, and I’m not particularly good about thanking the individuals for saying it (torn by acknowledging praise and going off-topic).  To those who have said that type of thing, I do appreciate it.  And thanks in return for the matching (or exceeding) patience it takes to tolerate the dissenting views. 

We are social creatures and if we want to survive, as well as get along with others in society, we have to have certain rules and laws.  Even groups of chimps have their own social rules of conduct and order.  Check into Jane Goodall’s research and you might get a clear understanding of what Paul Kurtz is trying to say.

Try this:  http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/schick_18_4.html

and this:  http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morality.html

Not sure if any of that will make it clear to you, but it has nothing to do subjective or objective.  Some things are and others are not.  However, it is much more than that.  I think part of the problem is that some theists can’t put aside their religion to ask themselves very important questions, such as, IF there were no god and there were no religious guidelines, would you still be appauled about the idea of murder or harming others in any way?  If the answer is no, then by all means keep your beliefs, but if the yes, then ask yourself why you would not want to harm anyone or even commit murder?  This is not subjective at all.

Schick covered the idea of believing something is right, does not make it right, using the example of Hitler and Stalin, who believed they were right, yet they were very wrong.

We are social creatures and if we want to survive, as well as get along with others in society, we have to have certain rules and laws.  Even groups of chimps have their own social rules of conduct and order.  Check into Jane Goodall’s research and you might get a clear understanding of what Paul Kurtz is trying to say.

Try this:  http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/schick_18_4.html

and this:  http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/morality.html

Admire the fine stitching around the sleeves and the marvelous lace on the collar, eh?

It’s hardly that mysterious.  Kurtz would not suggest that the chimps follow any sort of metaphysical objective morality.  They simply follow evolutionary programming that we may describe as “moral”—but we’d describe it as “moral” in the same sense if the chimps were constantly at war and routinely subjected each other to waterboarding.  It’s objective in that it exists and we can observe it, not as to whether it’s right or wrong in anything other than a subjective sense.

Not sure if any of that will make it clear to you, but it has nothing to do subjective or objective.

Why, if that’s the case, was I easily able to find a quotation from the book (from Kurtz) that effectively frames his ethical views in terms of subjectivity?  Does he not understand his own views???

Some things are and others are not.  However, it is much more than that.  I think part of the problem is that some theists can’t put aside their religion to ask themselves very important questions, such as, IF there were no god and there were no religious guidelines, would you still be appa(l)led about the idea of murder or harming others in any way?  If the answer is no, then by all means keep your beliefs, but if the yes, then ask yourself why you would not want to harm anyone or even commit murder?  This is not subjective at all.

The issue of whether Kurtz’s views effectively reduce to subjective relativism does not depend on any mental theistic handicap on my part.  But it’s good to know that you can wield an ad hominem circumstantial when and if the need arises.

Schick covered the idea of believing something is right, does not make it right, using the example of Hitler and Stalin, who believed they were right, yet they were very wrong.

Schick also pointed out that cultural relativism, to which Kurtz apparently subscribes, leads to the conclusion that there are no universal moral standards. 
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/schick_18_4.html

In turn, that realization presents us with the question of why we should bother accepting cultural norms as our standard.  Take California, for example.  California voted on Prop 8.  Rather than simply acceding to the wishes of the cultural majority, the minority has risen up in protest.  So are they right or wrong in terms of cultural relativism?

Indeed, Schick returns to the example of Hitler in discussing the flaws in cultural relativism.  The German culture was OK with persecuting the Jews, in majoritarian terms.  Hitler has his justification, unless we have to consider cultures outside of Germany to the extent that the Nazi views get watered down to minority status.  But we can do that endlessly to the point of absurdity, can’t we?

I know Schick does, that’s why I pointed out that article to you.

However, I don’t think you quite get it still.

Bryan,I think I answered your queries as well.One point though concerning one of your questions.I believe you asked:“if innate natural codes are not righteous,why would religion make them righteous?”(paraphrase).Was that a question of yours?
Answer(if that was your question):for moral dominance,and subsequent mass effect mind manipulation.Righteousness is just another word for pride!!

That is not the way I was using the term “righteous.”  I was trying to get at whether natural moral codes are right (the ordinary meaning of the term “righteous”).

Thanks for addressing my questions.  I’ll leave this issue to Steve unless you’d like to engage the conversation with me (PM me if that’s your wish).  But if Steve never gets around to it I’ll probably step in eventually.

Well.Bry.Sure I guess they’re “right”.They couldn’t really be wrong,seeing as how they come from a scientific,evolving code,which so far has led us up to this point.
No though you guys run with it.I’m not up for a long discussion on the metaphysics of ethics and moral codes.Peace out..

I suspect there’s nowhere to go from here.  If the religious codes are “right” then what’s the problem with “stealing” from the source code?  There is a real question as to whether your view about scientifically derived codes is coherent, which I’m sure was Steve’s observation as well.  Science can describe existing moral codes, and can even propose naturalistic origins for existing moral codes.  It can’t tell you whether they ought to be followed or not, which is probably why you have no objection to calling the religious codes “right” in some meaningless (or subjective) fashion.

I’d agree, Bryan. Science is incapable of providing a human being with an “ought” in any given situation. From an evolutionary perspective, spreading my DNA
far and wide is evolutionary wise. In the everyday world where we all live, we’d call that “promiscuity.” To the question “Ought I to impregnate as many woman
as I can?”, science is silent, because it is structurally incapable of answering such moral questions. From an evolutionary perspective, grabbing the maximum
resources possible and defending them from all comers (thereby depriving them of those resources) is evolutionarily wise. In the everyday world where we all
live, the practical consequences of that is the infamous “greed is good” mentality epitomized by Ayn Rand and her ilk. To the question “Ought I to take away
all the resources I can defend from my fellow creatures?”, science is again silent.

So, like you, I remain unconvinced that science has anything useful to tell us, morally/ethically speaking. It can simply describe the world that exists, not the better,
saner, more humane world that “ought” to exist.

I know Schick does, that’s why I pointed out that article to you.

However, I don’t think you quite get it still.

Don’t get what?

I did what you said would enable me to understand.  I listened to Kurtz.  I followed your reference to Schick.  Are you sending me to bad references?  Can you highlight the portions that I need to emphasize in order to achieve understanding?  Or are we playing a shell game?

Steve, if we know how AIDS is spread, via science, do we continue to practice unsafe sex?  I think in some respects, if we use our brains, science can contribute to ones ethics or morals.

Steve, if we know how AIDS is spread, via science, do we continue to practice unsafe sex?

I think I can speak for Steve in saying that science per se doesn’t care what you do with the information.  It all depends on the values you bring to the table, because science isn’t going to provide them.  You can use the information about how AIDS is spread to avoid AIDS.  You can use the information in order to design government programs to reduce suffering from AIDS.  Or you can turn around and use the information to spread AIDS to a sexual partner.  Or design government programs to promote the spread of AIDS.

The contribution of science is the same in either case.

I think in some respects, if we use our brains, science can contribute to ones ethics or morals.

Science merely helps flesh out the stage on which you play out your values.  If you want a source for your values then it will come from somewhere other than science.

These kind of conversations remind me of what my science teacher told me in 8th grade.If,from where he was standing,he moved half way to the wall,he could keep repeating that and never reach the wall.
How far do we need to dice the comprehension of right and wrong(subjectively)and the connection it has with innate moral coding.(or evolutionary value codes).
In fact if I may,I would propose that these topics may be more germain to certain individuals,more than others.And not just on an interest level.But on a more behavioral level.
I keep learning new words on this site.Correct me if I’m wrong,but isn’t it tautolgical to use the very same intelligence engine(our minds)to try and figure out certain,Catch 22,ideas,located inside those same engines.Kind of like trying to train a dog to track it’s own scent.
Perhaps only the comprehension of value codes both innate and invented(which all stem,however complicatedly,from the innate ones),is subjective.
In closing I must ask myself,what is the ultimate reason for some individuals to chop and dissect morals,mores,rules and values and ethics.Why do some people wrestle with the ultimate reason for values,or morals?Is it nothing more than a manifestation of uncertainty?Uncertainty about our origins,about why we think,and possibly did some higher power give me the mind and conscience to think?
If these questions are that troubling,then get yourself a god,worship it,and have peace of mind.
But,there is no god.Only the inner reaches of your mind,harkening back subconsciously(sp)to your tadpole ancestors!!

What happened where the religious morals do not agree? 

Thanks to Bryan for reminding me of this point that came up in the interview.  It is often said   that without religion there would be no morality, but as Paul Kurtz notes this view is contradictory because there are hundreds of religions with contradictory moral codes.

I think it is silly to argue that there would be no morality apart from religion, apart from noting that a belief in an “ought” is by definition not derived from science as well as requiring faith.  Up to you how you want to define “religion” in this case.

The real argument is against the coherence of non-religious systems of morality, that is those that claim to feature objective morality rather than some form of subjective morality.  Certainly you can be an atheist and feel that someone “ought” to do a particular act in a particular set of circumstances, but it is a different thing to justify the belief in philosophical terms in a manner that agrees with an atheistic world view.

Edit to add:
I’m perplexed by the suggestion that contradictions between religious systems of morality would somehow contradict the argument that without religion there would be no morality.  Perhaps that point is moot given that I think the latter argument is silly.

And the moral codes of some of our current religions seem to be evolving.

Strictly speaking, that isn’t a problem for objective morality—not even absolute morality.  It does present a potential epistemic problem if objective morality changes over time, however.

Bryan, I never did understand your response here.  I was agreeing with Kurtz that it is contradictory to claim that certain moral values are “correct” because they are based on a religion’s point of view, because there are hundreds of religions and their moral views differ.      It seems like you didn’t respond to this point but tried to bring up a something which appears to me unrelated except for your unsupported assertion that it is “the real argument”.

I also think this morality discussion is somehow sidelining the “real argument” which is that there isn’t a God—and it’s somewhat moot whether morality is objective or subjective or natural or nurtured - depending on how one defines these terms it’s some of each, and if one defines everything a different way then everything is (by defintion) subjective - where this word tautological comes up again.

To recap—the claim that religion has something to do with morality is flawed partly becausethere are hundreds of religions and they are inconsistent in moral views as well as theology.  To me This is a sub-argument of the “real argument” that God doesn’t exist because there are obviously hundreds of religions (including modern ones we agree are bogus like Scientology and Mormonism with respected, intelligent and devoted followers) with contradictory views.

Bryan, I never did understand your response here.  I was agreeing with Kurtz that it is contradictory to claim that certain moral values are “correct” because they are based on a religion’s point of view, because there are hundreds of religions and their moral views differ.

That isn’t a contradiction unless it is supposed that two conflicting sets of (religious) morals are both correct.  I was disappointed that no attempt was made during the course of the interview to clarify that point, for it leaves Kurtz looking like a poor thinker and interviewer a bit soft.  Not that Grothe portrays himself as objective in a way that makes that an acute problem.

It seems like you didn’t respond to this point but tried to bring up a something which appears to me unrelated except for your unsupported assertion that it is “the real argument”.

I thought I was making clear that I think the one argument (no religion=no morality) is silly while emphasizing that a good and interesting argument stems from whether non-theistic systems can construct a self-consistent model of morality—that is, one that does not suffer from an imposing epistemic difficulty. 

I simply don’t see how Kurtz’s views offer any help with the traditional problems faced by non-theistic moral systems.

I also think this morality discussion is somehow sidelining the “real argument” which is that there isn’t a God—and it’s somewhat moot whether morality is objective or subjective or natural or nurtured - depending on how one defines these terms it’s some of each, and if one defines everything a different way then everything is (by defintion) subjective - where this word tautological comes up again.

I think the issue of morality bears directly on the argument regarding the existence of God.  If there is no morality, then it is absurd that a (haphazard) causally determined universe has us talking about the issue of morality, and that is just one of many aspects of reality that seem unexpected in mindlessly planned universe.

To recap—the claim that religion has something to do with morality is flawed partly becausethere are hundreds of religions and they are inconsistent in moral views as well as theology.

Your reasoning here is flawed.  Even if all religions about which we know have inconsistent moral systems (leaving aside the chasm between assertion and proof), it does not follow that there is no consistent religious morality that remains undescribed by humans.  It seems clear that it is possible in principle for such a system to exist coherently (I’d recommend a framework akin to that of W. D. Ross but with decreased emphasis on intuition).

To me This is a sub-argument of the “real argument” that God doesn’t exist because there are obviously hundreds of religions (including modern ones we agree are bogus like Scientology and Mormonism with respected, intelligent and devoted followers) with contradictory views.

We’ve been over this argument of yours before.  At best it is a weak probabilistic argument.  At worst it is frankly fallacious.  You’d do better not to rely on it.

Bryan thanks for your comments—let me chew this over.

Happy New Year.

Jackson

The universe has no morals to give us.  Our morals come
from us, coming though our culture that we made together.
The morals are about living the good life with each other;
and living for the future of the species.  What species can
we live well with out?  If the gods are not here with us,
not joining together with us, sharing and living for us, the
morals that help them are worthless to us, we can live well
without the gods and their morals.

Kurtz asks for living with exuberant joy and eupraxophy, Paul
does a good job speaking about it… A+.  But when applying
the ideas, which ways work well?  What habits have you found
that spread the joys of life to others?

Enjoy the new year, it’ll be a better one as science and
engineering gives us more information and opportunities.

The universe has no morals to give us.  Our morals come
for us, coming though our culture that we made together.
The morals are about living the good life with each other;
and living for the future of the species.  What species can
we live well with out?  If the gods are not here with us,
not joining together with us, sharing and living for us, the
morals that help them are worthless to us, we can live well
without the gods and their morals.

Indeed, since no matter how bad things are you can always subjectively call them good. 
Or conversely call the good bad, depending on your mood or the mood of the masses.

Kurtz asks for living with exuberant joy and eupraxophy, Paul
does a good job speaking about it… A+.  But when applying
the ideas, which ways work well?  What habits have you found
that spread the joys of life to others?

Enjoy the new year, it’ll be a better one as science and
engineering gives us more information and opportunities.

Your glass is half full. 

I think the issue of morality bears directly on the argument regarding the existence of God.  If there is no morality, then it is absurd that a (haphazard) causally determined universe has us talking about the issue of morality, and that is just one of many aspects of reality that seem unexpected in mindlessly planned universe.

I’m not ignoring your other points but rather just trying to keep my response short & organized.

I may be misunderstanding you; it seems as if the paragraph is asserting in an indirect way that morality is necessary for God and not the other way around.

Or are you asserting, in a way that that I’m missing, that the existence of a Christian morality indicates the existence of a Christian God?

Or is the word “morality” being used in multiples ways - Can your statement be accurately paraphrased as “If the universe itself has no ultimate morality, then it is absurd for us to be talking about morality”

I think the issue of morality bears directly on the argument regarding the existence of God.  If there is no morality, then it is absurd that a (haphazard) causally determined universe has us talking about the issue of morality, and that is just one of many aspects of reality that seem unexpected in mindlessly planned universe.

I may be misunderstanding you; it seems as if the paragraph is asserting in an indirect way that morality is necessary for God and not the other way around.

That is not my intention, and I’m not sure how you get that message.

Or are you asserting, in a way that that I’m missing, that the existence of a Christian morality indicates the existence of a Christian God?

In more general terms than that, I’m suggesting that the fact that we debate morality makes so little sense in a universe in which morality does not objectively exist (and never has) provides a probabilistic indication that some form of objective morality exists.

Or is the word “morality” being used in multiples ways - Can your statement be accurately paraphrased as “If the universe itself has no ultimate morality, then it is absurd for us to be talking about morality”

Yes, and I don’t mean “absurd” in the sense of being contradictory or impossible.  More in the sense that it makes a great deal of sense for morality to fail to exist as an issue in a universe with no morality.

Or are you asserting, in a way that that I’m missing, that the existence of a Christian morality indicates the existence of a Christian God?

In more general terms than that, I’m suggesting that the fact that we debate morality makes so little sense in a universe in which morality does not objectively exist (and never has) provides a probabilistic indication that some form of objective morality exists.

Or is the word “morality” being used in multiple ways - Can your statement be accurately paraphrased as “If the universe itself has no ultimate morality, then it is absurd for us to be talking about morality”

Yes, and I don’t mean “absurd” in the sense of being contradictory or impossible.  More in the sense that it makes a great deal of sense for morality to fail to exist as an issue in a universe with no morality.

OK.  I don’t see the problem with “morality” being at least partly subjective and cultural.

OK.  I don’t see the problem with “morality” being at least partly subjective and cultural.

It isn’t inconsistent for morality to be subjective—but you’re somewhat hinting again that morality might be both objective and ~objective (subjective) at the same time and in the same sense.  That is a problem (a contradiction), if that’s what you’re doing.

OK.  I don’t see the problem with “morality” being at least partly subjective and cultural.

It isn’t inconsistent for morality to be subjective—-.

I don’t want to drag this thread out.  This is an area I’m not familiar with, but I wouldn’t have thought that morality had to be “universally” consistent with anything.

OK.  I don’t see the problem with “morality” being at least partly subjective and cultural.

It isn’t inconsistent for morality to be subjective—-.

I don’t want to drag this thread out.  This is an area I’m not familiar with, but I wouldn’t have thought that morality had to be “universally” consistent with anything.

It is reasonable to consider truly (self-) contradictory things impossible.

There is nothing absolute, objective or divine about morality. It is a human construct deriving from human social relations.

There is nothing absolute, objective or divine about morality. It is a human construct deriving from human social relations.

I agree with everything you say here, Balak, except perhaps for the last part where you say “...deriving from human social relations.” I believe our sense of morality (or at least its bases) can be traced long before we evolved into humans. Our “human” (recent) social relations are only partly responsible for what we now consider morality. But, hey, 80% of our body’s DNA belongs to bacteria and we still call ourselves Homo sapiens. 

I now remember reading once about a parasitic plant that would derive its sustenance from another plant except from a plant that has already been taken by its next to kin. Their Bible is primitive, but it’s a start: Thou shalt not steal from your brother!

I now remember reading once about a parasitic plant that would derive its sustenance from another plant except from a plant that has already been taken by its next to kin. Their Bible is primitive, but it’s a start: Thou shalt not steal from your brother!

Nature finds all kinds of oddities.

Their are mites whose eggs hatch in the mothers body. The ratio of males to females is like 1:8. The male impregnates all of his sisters and then they eat their mother alive to get out of her body. Once they get out the male dies and his impregnated sisters start the process over again.

For humans it would be immoral to impregnate your sisters and even more immoral to eat your mother alive.

Seems Bryan’s ‘intelligent designer’ has had to think up some pretty perverse ways of entertaining himself…

I think if I believed in God I would probably answer that the mites—I thought they were wasps (?)—are not acting immorally because they do it out of instinct, and a human would have to reason himself into having sex with his sister. Ergo, human would act immorally, the mite would not. But the problem here is not that one might come to such a conclusion because one believes in God, but because one believes that human doesn’t act on an instinct. Only when we accept that we all (the mites and us) act out of an instinct, only then we can reject any objectivity in morality.

Not sure I agree here, George. The Jeebus-freaks want to set up an either/or framework in which the (uncritical) secularist jumps to agree with their claim that there is such a thing as ‘objective morality’. (sounds vaguely scientific).

Step 2 has the sky-pilot asking the secularist to explain the basis for the ‘objectivity’. The secularist starts mumbling about how our ‘objective’ moral categories must come from ‘nature’ ‘instinct’ etc., but quickly finds that looking to the natural world really provides no clear support for the thesis that there’s something inherently ‘immoral’ about eating your mother alive.

Step 3 allows the believer to exlaim (correctly): See? That absolute sense that it’s ‘wrong’ to eat your mother, which is - it’s safe to say - shared by all humans must come… from somewhere else!

(Of course it’s not the contention of science that that people are or can be ‘rational’ animals, but that our subjective reasons for doing and not doing things are subject to scientific scrutiny and explanation.)

The evangelists debating trick comes in slipping in terms like ‘objective’ and ‘absolute’ in relation to morality - which inherently forces the discussion outside the realm of natural and social science - leaving only.. the ‘supernatural.’

Pulling off this kind of intellectual sleight-of-hand may not impress a consistent materialist, but it’s the equivalent of hitting a home run for the poor rubes who seek their solace at the feet of Bryan’s big Gay-Hating-Tax-Cutting-Charlton-Heston-in-the-Sky

OK.  I don’t see the problem with “morality” being at least partly subjective and cultural.

It isn’t inconsistent for morality to be subjective—-.

I don’t want to drag this thread out.  This is an area I’m not familiar with, but I wouldn’t have thought that morality had to be “universally” consistent with anything.

It is reasonable to consider truly (self-) contradictory things impossible.

Bryan, if one identifies a contradiction I agree it means either the premises are incorrect or the logical argument leading to the contradiction is incorrect.  I would hesitate to use the word “impossible” and perhaps don’t understand its usage here.

I think “morality” is a product of both nature and nurture/culture and don’t understand the contradiction you think is almost self-evident in a discussion of morality.  Similarly, the ability to speak and understand language is partly innate but also influenced by upbringing and one’s surroundings.

It isn’t inconsistent for morality to be subjective—-.

I don’t want to drag this thread out.  This is an area I’m not familiar with, but I wouldn’t have thought that morality had to be “universally” consistent with anything.

It is reasonable to consider truly (self-) contradictory things impossible.

Bryan, if one identifies a contradiction I agree it means either the premises are incorrect or the logical argument leading to the contradiction is incorrect.  I would hesitate to use the word “impossible” and perhaps don’t understand its usage here.

Subjective morality makes the truth of moral claims dependent on subjective opinion (A can be true for me and A can be false for you).
Objective morality makes the truth of moral claims independent of subjective opinion by definition.

As a result, if we try to speak of A being morally true on both an objective basis and an objective basis at the same time and in the same sense then we are talking about a contradiction.  It is either one or the other and cannot be both unless we change the sense in which we mean either of the terms.  But when we talk of subjective morality undermining objective morality we traditionally speak specifically of the truth values of moral precepts, not whether or not whether or not it is objectively true that I hold A to be true.

I think “morality” is a product of both nature and nurture/culture and don’t understand the contradiction you think is almost self-evident in a discussion of morality.

I’ve expanded on it above.  If you still have questions about it feel free to ask.

There is nothing absolute, objective or divine about morality. It is a human construct deriving from human social relations.

I appreciate the atheist/secularist who makes no bones about the lack of an objective morality.
Not that I don’t appreciate atheists who think there is an objective morality, but the latter reasonably have some work to do in order to make their views appear logically consistent (or at least deal with the epistemic problem).

And those like Balak, of course, might have some explaining to do when it comes to their perceptions of international law and justice (as with a current thread on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict).

Not sure I agree here, George. The Jeebus-freaks want to set up an either/or framework in which the (uncritical) secularist jumps to agree with their claim that there is such a thing as ‘objective morality’. (sounds vaguely scientific).

Step 2 has the sky-pilot asking the secularist to explain the basis for the ‘objectivity’. The secularist starts mumbling about how our ‘objective’ moral categories must come from ‘nature’ ‘instinct’ etc., but quickly finds that looking to the natural world really provides no clear support for the thesis that there’s something inherently ‘immoral’ about eating your mother alive.

Step 3 allows the believer to exlaim (correctly): See? That absolute sense that it’s ‘wrong’ to eat your mother, which is - it’s safe to say - shared by all humans must come… from somewhere else!

(Of course it’s not the contention of science that that people are or can be ‘rational’ animals, but that our subjective reasons for doing and not doing things are subject to scientific scrutiny and explanation.)

The evangelists debating trick comes in slipping in terms like ‘objective’ and ‘absolute’ in relation to morality - which inherently forces the discussion outside the realm of natural and social science - leaving only.. the ‘supernatural.’

Pulling off this kind of intellectual sleight-of-hand may not impress a consistent materialist, but it’s the equivalent of hitting a home run for the poor rubes who seek their solace at the feet of Bryan’s big Gay-Hating-Tax-Cutting-Charlton-Heston-in-the-Sky

Heh.  You say that as though there’s something objectively wrong with gay hating.  But you don’t really believe that, do you?

Speaking of rhetorical sleight of hand ...

Subjective morality makes the truth of moral claims dependent on subjective opinion (A can be true for me and A can be false for you).
Objective morality makes the truth of moral claims independent of subjective opinion by definition.

As a result, if we try to speak of A being morally true on both a basis and an objective basis at the same time and in the same sense then we are talking about a contradiction.  It is either one or the other and cannot be both unless we change the sense in which we mean either of the terms.  But when we talk of subjective morality undermining objective morality we traditionally speak specifically of the truth values of moral precepts, not whether or not whether or not it is objectively true that I hold A to be true.

Bryan to me what people informally refer to as “objective” morality is positions held by the vast majority of people across many cultures and many times, and what people informaly refer to as “subjective” morality is more “local” in culture or in time.  A “moral claim” is not “true” in the sense that a “fact” is “true”—- right?——

You say that as though there’s something objectively wrong with gay hating.  But you don’t really believe that, do you?

Which ‘object’ would be able to have any position on this… or any other issue? What has ‘objective’ got to do with it?

Both gay-hating and tax-cutting are attributes of the supernatural figure Bryan has created (suprise) in his own image...

Funny the way it works out… that his personal ‘god’ so considerately elevates the christian’s narrow-minded, culturally specific and ego-centric ‘morality’ to
‘absolute’ and ‘objective’ status.

Bryan to me what people informally refer to as “objective” morality is positions held by the vast majority of people across many cultures and many times, and what people informaly refer to as “subjective” morality is more “local” in culture or in time.  A “moral claim” is not “true” in the sense that a “fact” is “true”—- right?——

I do not agree that morality is subjective, so don’t expect me to answer “right.”  An objective morality would mean that at least one moral claim is factually true.  If we use “objective” in a more careless sense then the contradiction at least fades into the background even if it doesn’t disappear.

But there really isn’t much sense in using “objective” to mean “consistent” or the like.  Using other terms would communicate the idea with less natural confusion.

You say that as though there’s something objectively wrong with gay hating.  But you don’t really believe that, do you?

Which ‘object’ would be able to have any position on this… or any other issue? What has ‘objective’ got to do with it?

Exactly.  Once you wear the axiom that there is no objective morality, you can’t make sense of calling a moral claim true or false.

You could be just underscoring my point, unless I’m missing something.

Both gay-hating and tax-cutting are attributes of the supernatural figure Bryan has created (suprise) in his own image...

But if you’re admitting my point then it doesn’t make much sense for you to essentially repeat what you wrote before.  Are people supposed to be outraged if I create a gay-hating supernatural figure in my mind?  Is there something objectively wrong with that?  You seem to admit that there isn’t while at the same time trying to manufacture outrage over it.  Does that make any sense at all?

Funny the way it works out… that his personal ‘god’ so considerately elevates the christian’s narrow-minded, culturally specific and ego-centric ‘morality’ to ‘absolute’ and ‘objective’ status.

Does it make any sense at all to call any moral system narrow-minded if there is no truth value to moral systems in the first place?  No matter how supposedly narrow-minded my system is, how could it be objectively wrong (in the moral sense) if there is no objective morality?

Is it that you don’t see your inconsistency, Balak?

balak: Both gay-hating and tax-cutting are attributes of the supernatural figure Bryan has created (suprise) in his own image...

Bryan: Are people supposed to be outraged if I create a gay-hating supernatural figure in my mind?  Is there something objectively wrong with that?  You seem to admit that there isn’t while at the same time trying to manufacture outrage over it.  Does that make any sense at all?

Nothing ‘objectively wrong’ with your beliefs at all (objects recognize no right or wrong). No outrage is warranted, only an understanding of their material foundations.

You are welcome to bow down before whatever graven image best serves your economic, class and political interests. But the very usefulness of your illusion for the class interest you uphold makes its promotion harmful from the standpoint of my class interest - which is best served by a scientific, materialist outlook.

Just as much your class needs to inculcate illusions in society to mask the appropriation of wealth from unpaid labor, the working class needs scientific clarity to reveal the material interests that such ruling-class ideologies work to conceal. Your interest is in promoting OZ, THE GREAT AND MYSTERIOUS; mine lies in pulling back the curtain and revealing the snake-oil salesman crouched at the controls.

balak: Funny the way it works out… that his personal ‘god’ so considerately elevates the christian’s narrow-minded, culturally specific and ego-centric ‘morality’ to ‘absolute’ and ‘objective’ status.

Bryan: Does it make any sense at all to call any moral system narrow-minded if there is no truth value to moral systems in the first place?  No matter how supposedly narrow-minded my system is, how could it be objectively wrong (in the moral sense) if there is no objective morality?

There is plenty of truth value - and fascinating scientific richness - in the materialist study and explanation of moral systems. Far from being ‘objective’ and ‘absolute’ these change and evolve, like all religious doctrines, more or less according to the needs of their promotors.

When Martin Luther experienced his famous Thurmerlebnis while passing a stool in the privy of the Wittenberg monastery, he established the founding axiom of the Protestant Reformation - the doctrine of justification by faith. Establishing a ‘personal relationship with Jesus Christ’ (i.e. not mediated through a priest) was the ideological counterpart of the commoner’s right to dispose of private capital (i.e. freed from the Catholic sanction of ‘filthy lucre’ on money dissociated from landed property, and lifting the ban on lending at interest).

So the ‘God=money=shit’ paradigm is a lot older than Ted Haggart (though I think adding crystal meth was his innovation).

balak: Both gay-hating and tax-cutting are attributes of the supernatural figure Bryan has created (suprise) in his own image...

Bryan: Are people supposed to be outraged if I create a gay-hating supernatural figure in my mind?  Is there something objectively wrong with that?  You seem to admit that there isn’t while at the same time trying to manufacture outrage over it.  Does that make any sense at all?

Nothing ‘objectively wrong’ with your beliefs at all (objects recognize no right or wrong). No outrage is warranted, only an understanding of their material foundations.

You are welcome to bow down before whatever graven image best serves your economic, class and political interests. But the very usefulness of your illusion for the class interest you uphold makes its promotion harmful from the standpoint of my class interest - which is best served by a scientific, materialist outlook.

That puts you right back to hinting at an objective morality with an objective scientific foundation (otherwise how should we find it significant that your class interest is best served a scientific, materialist outlook?).
Or may you just neglected to mention that your class interests have the same sort of illusory foundations as any other.

Just as much your class needs to inculcate illusions in society to mask the appropriation of wealth from unpaid labor, the working class needs scientific clarity to reveal the material interests that such ruling-class ideologies work to conceal.

A-ha!  Scientific clarity and “material interests”—a term simply loaded with more hints of objective valuation.  But by “material interests” you’re just talking about the need for food, shelter and such.  Or did I miss something?

The need for food does not translate to a moral right that one receive food ... does it?

Your interest is in promoting OZ, THE GREAT AND MYSTERIOUS; mine lies in pulling back the curtain and revealing the snake-oil salesman crouched at the controls.

If you say so, but it seems that I get criticized as much for not specifically promoting theistic beliefs as for anything else.  The message, at times, appears to be that I shouldn’t poke around the edges of the curtains that protect the would-be logical frameworks of atheistic worldviews.  But you’d throw back your own curtains without hesitation, wouldn’t you?

Or perhaps keep them closed because there’s nothing objectively wrong with keeping them closed ...

Your call. 

balak: Funny the way it works out… that his personal ‘god’ so considerately elevates the christian’s narrow-minded, culturally specific and ego-centric ‘morality’ to ‘absolute’ and ‘objective’ status.

Bryan: Does it make any sense at all to call any moral system narrow-minded if there is no truth value to moral systems in the first place?  No matter how supposedly narrow-minded my system is, how could it be objectively wrong (in the moral sense) if there is no objective morality?

There is plenty of truth value - and fascinating scientific richness - in the materialist study and explanation of moral systems.

Not the sort of truth value that makes one moral system better than any other—for as soon as you take that path you’re asserting an implied “ought” that is itself either objective or subjective.  And we end up back at the start.  Is your morality hidden behind an endless loop of privacy curtains?

Far from being ‘objective’ and ‘absolute’ these change and evolve, like all religious doctrines, more or less according to the needs of their promotors.

Including you?

When Martin Luther experienced his famous Thurmerlebnis while passing a stool in the privy of the Wittenberg monastery, he established the founding axiom of the Protestant Reformation - the doctrine of justification by faith. Establishing a ‘personal relationship with Jesus Christ’ (i.e. not mediated through a priest) was the ideological counterpart of the commoner’s right to dispose of private capital (i.e. freed from the Catholic sanction of ‘filthy lucre’ on money dissociated from landed property, and lifting the ban on lending at interest).

So the ‘God=money=shit’ paradigm is a lot older than Ted Haggart (though I think adding crystal meth was his innovation).

Sure.  But presumably you don’t see any objective problem with exorbitant interest, let alone protection rackets.  They’re fine if they advance your interests and otherwise not (so far as you’re concerned, anyway).  Or am I still missing something?

So in light of all this, what is supposed to be your point in trying to leverage the gay-hating point?  Is it in your interests for those who hate gay-haters to view my argument dimly through its association with something they don’t like?  Or what?

So in light of all this, what is supposed to be your point in trying to leverage the gay-hating point?  Is it in your interests for those who hate gay-haters to view my argument dimly through its association with something they don’t like?  Or what?

I am interested in showing how the promotion of of social backwardness, particularly fear, ignorance and shame related to matters of sexuality, is an important mechanism for regimenting society to serve the economic interests of the exploiting class against those who sell their labor power to survive. For example, the common practice of abortion largely escaped the notice of Christianity for 1800+ years, only becoming ‘murder’ in the eyes of the Vatican when young women began to enter the working class in masive numbers during the industrial revolution.

So is it just a happy coincidence, from Bryan’s class standpoint, that he has found himself a gay-hating, misogynist, free-market promoting god to worship?

So in light of all this, what is supposed to be your point in trying to leverage the gay-hating point?  Is it in your interests for those who hate gay-haters to view my argument dimly through its association with something they don’t like?  Or what?

I am interested in showing how the promotion of of social backwardness, particularly fear, ignorance and shame related to matters of sexuality, is an important mechanism for regimenting society to serve the economic interests of the exploiting class against those who sell their labor power to survive.

Social backwardness compared to what?  How do you judge “social backwardness” without making a morality judgment?  Why, for example, would it be backward to hate gays if it’s neither right nor wrong to hate gays?

For example, the common practice of abortion largely escaped the notice of Christianity for 1800+ years, only becoming ‘murder’ in the eyes of the Vatican when young women began to enter the working class in masive numbers during the industrial revolution.

You may have your facts wrong on that one.

Pope Innocent III (1161-1216):
He determined that a monk who had arranged for his lover to have an abortion was not guilty of murder if the fetus was not “animated” at the time.
Early in the 13th century, he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of “quickening” - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. Before that time, abortion was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human person, not an actual human person.

Pope Sixtus V (1588) issued a Papal bull “Effraenatam” which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty.
 
Pope Gregory XIV (1591) revoked the previous Papal bull and reinstated the “quickening” test, which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist_c.htm

So is it just a happy coincidence, from Bryan’s class standpoint, that he has found himself a gay-hating, misogynist, free-market promoting god to worship?

Ah, now we’re adding misogyny! 

This is really just an ad hominem attack after all, isn’t it?

I am interested in showing how the promotion of of social backwardness, particularly fear, ignorance and shame related to matters of sexuality, is an important mechanism for regimenting society to serve the economic interests of the exploiting class against those who sell their labor power to survive.

Social backwardness compared to what?  How do you judge “social backwardness” without making a morality judgment?  Why, for example, would it be backward to hate gays if it’s neither right nor wrong to hate gays?

It is in the interest of the ruling class to promote moral panic and fear around ‘hot button’ issues connected with sexuality.

It is in my class interest to promote the understanding that the ‘eternal laws’ of morality are no such thing. Promoting belief in a patriarchal, misogynist god derived from the scrolls of bronze-age torture porn has been very useful in preserving modern capitalism - not least by propping up the institution of the family.

Likewise, movements of the oppressed have sought at various times to refashion the available gods to serve their own subjective ends - but that’s another topic.

For example, the common practice of abortion largely escaped the notice of Christianity for 1800+ years, only becoming ‘murder’ in the eyes of the Vatican when young women began to enter the working class in masive numbers during the industrial revolution.

You may have your facts wrong on that one.

A more thoughtful look at the information provided under you link underscores my point - a) that the common practice of abortion among women through the ages does not rate a mention in the bible (New or Old Testament), b) that for hundreds of years at a time there seems to have been little religious interest in the topic, and c) that even clerical opinion has hardly been written in stone (until very recently). There is certainly nothing comparable in the history of the church to the crazed ‘holocaust’ rhetoric and mobilizations of the religious right (and these are mainly confined to the U.S.).

So is it just a happy coincidence, from Bryan’s class standpoint, that he has found himself a gay-hating, misogynist, free-market promoting god to worship?

Ah, now we’re adding misogyny! 

This is really just an ad hominem attack after all, isn’t it?

Not ad hominem, but ad fidem. The point is that gods, like ‘objective moralities’ are not eternal, but very much historically contingent and answerable to class interests.  For the possessing classes ‘objective morality’ has always come down to two principles: “private property is sacred” and “the slave shall never raise his hand against the master”.

I am interested in showing how the promotion of of social backwardness, particularly fear, ignorance and shame related to matters of sexuality, is an important mechanism for regimenting society to serve the economic interests of the exploiting class against those who sell their labor power to survive.

Social backwardness compared to what?  How do you judge “social backwardness” without making a morality judgment?  Why, for example, would it be backward to hate gays if it’s neither right nor wrong to hate gays?

It is in the interest of the ruling class to promote moral panic and fear around ‘hot button’ issues connected with sexuality.

It is in my class interest to promote the understanding that the ‘eternal laws’ of morality are no such thing. Promoting belief in a patriarchal, misogynist god derived from the scrolls of bronze-age torture porn has been very useful in preserving modern capitalism - not least by propping up the institution of the family.

Likewise, movements of the oppressed have sought at various times to refashion the available gods to serve their own subjective ends - but that’s another topic.

Social backwardness compared to what?

Unless you’re simply admitting that you use the appeal to morality despite not believing in its objectivity?  It’s just a handle that helps you manipulate others?  Or do we tell social backwardness purely by the clock?  If tomorrow we claim our women by clubbing them and dragging them away by the hair have we established the new modern norm that makes egalitarian courtship simply another backward notion?

For example, the common practice of abortion largely escaped the notice of Christianity for 1800+ years, only becoming ‘murder’ in the eyes of the Vatican when young women began to enter the working class in masive numbers during the industrial revolution.

You may have your facts wrong on that one.

A more thoughtful look at the information provided under you link underscores my point - a) that the common practice of abortion among women through the ages does not rate a mention in the bible (New or Old Testament), b) that for hundreds of years at a time there seems to have been little religious interest in the topic, and c) that even clerical opinion has hardly been written in stone (until very recently). There is certainly nothing comparable in the history of the church to the crazed ‘holocaust’ rhetoric and mobilizations of the religious right (and these are mainly confined to the U.S.).

Indeed, the more thoughtful look appears to have altered your point entirely. 
The side-by-side comparison is instructive.

So is it just a happy coincidence, from Bryan’s class standpoint, that he has found himself a gay-hating, misogynist, free-market promoting god to worship?

Ah, now we’re adding misogyny! 

This is really just an ad hominem attack after all, isn’t it?

Not ad hominem, but ad fidem. The point is that gods, like ‘objective moralities’ are not eternal, but very much historically contingent and answerable to class interests.  For the possessing classes ‘objective morality’ has always come down to two principles: “private property is sacred” and “the slave shall never raise his hand against the master”.

And the choice of unpopular traits linked together with “free-market promoting” is simply a coincidence?

I see ...

Not ad hominem, but ad fidem. The point is that gods, like ‘objective moralities’ are not eternal, but very much historically contingent and answerable to class interests.  For the possessing classes ‘objective morality’ has always come down to two principles: “private property is sacred” and “the slave shall never raise his hand against the master”.

And the choice of unpopular traits linked together with “free-market promoting” is simply a coincidence?

I see ...

Please note, secular liberals, that Bryan has utterly failed to define ‘objective morality’ or demonstrate that such a thing exists - outside the kingdom of heaven at least.

He should now admit that ‘god’ is (like ‘objective morality’) nothing but a constantly-shifting collection of norms and attributes developed, embraced, and imposed - consciously or unconsciously - to serve the purposes of social control. This is no innovation of christianity - man has always created gods in his own image.

Not ad hominem, but ad fidem. The point is that gods, like ‘objective moralities’ are not eternal, but very much historically contingent and answerable to class interests.  For the possessing classes ‘objective morality’ has always come down to two principles: “private property is sacred” and “the slave shall never raise his hand against the master”.

And the choice of unpopular traits linked together with “free-market promoting” is simply a coincidence?

I see ...

Please note, secular liberals, that Bryan has utterly failed to define ‘objective morality’ or demonstrate that such a thing exists - outside the kingdom of heaven at least.

lol
Why should they note that?  I simply noted that your rhetoric appears to take for granted that some sort of objective morality exists, based on statements like “narrow-minded” and “backwardness.”  It’s not like “narrow-minded” morality is any more or less wrong/right than broad-minded morality if there is no objective morality, is it?

The thing to note is that Balak appears to consistently try to evade that point in favor of reiterating what appear to be character attacks (see again “narrow-minded,” “backwardness” and my utter failure to change topics by defining “objective morality” as if any of the current discussion hinged on that definition.

He should now admit that ‘god’ is (like ‘objective morality’) nothing but a constantly-shifting collection of norms and attributes developed, embraced, and imposed - consciously or unconsciously - to serve the purposes of social control. Mans has always created god in his own image.

Again, Balak identifies an “ought”—but is this ought (that I should admit something or other about god) not purely subjective?  If I subjectively disagree then who should serve to arbitrate and why?

Balak, maybe you should just admit that your rhetoric is as much utilitarian manipulation as anybody else’s and we can get back to the original topic.  What say you?

Oooo… Poor Bryan. Why so touchy!?

‘Subjective’ is not the same as arbitrary and random. Try to grasp this simple concept.

Oooo… Poor Bryan. Why so touchy!?

‘Subjective’ is not the same as arbitrary and random. Try to grasp this simple concept.

I wonder why Balak thinks I’m displaying touchiness?

I’d like to see Balak try to explain how the difference between “subjective” and “arbitrary and random” allows him to deny objective morality and argue via moral outrage at the same time.  That would be good.  But I guess we’re stuck with a variety of ad hominem attacks instead.

You are right, Bryan. The Christians are not narrow-minded from the perspective of the Christians.

deleted—sorry—