perhaps some of you know about Jason Lisle, whom works for the institute of creation research, and his blog, anyrate he claims that only his religion can provide objective morality and all other worldviews fall short now when somebody told him that if his morality was based on the commands of a god, or what not its by definition subjective he said this......
"If God were merely a very powerful individual as you’ve suggested, the situation wouldn’t change much. But God is actually the Creator of all that is. He is sovereign. And He is the Judge. All people will answer ultimately to God, and hence His rules are necessarily objective. They are the same for everyone, and binding on everyone because we all owe our existence to God and will answer to Him. Clear?" and "People are finite, and so our personal preferences are limited to our own mind. But God is infinite, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, and sovereign. So His thoughts determine reality, and His preferences determine morality. In order for morality to be objective, it must stem from God. No other system can make sense of that.”
and i was utterly dumbfounded when he wrote those things and i was wondering did the things he make utterly no sense what so ever? could a command of a being ever become "necessarily objective?
Any reading of the bible, supposedly the word of the christian and Jewish god, shows a being who is amoral, narcissistic, bellicose, arbitrary, narcissistic, violent, and childish. That god is not worthy to be considered any source for morality.
People who make money and derive power by speaking for christianity seem to think they have to make wide-ranging pronouncements about the superiority and finality of their religious system. Creation research is a reactionary response to rationality and loss of authority of christian dogma. It doesn't have to make sense. And it doesn't.
i know that, but the way lisle responds its so mind numblingly awful and stupid,....
Yes, utterly "mind numbingly awful and stupid" and dangerous and sick!
In a word, his model for morality is simplistic. God said it, we're supposed to accept it, that settles it, right? Not even remotely so, or not for anyone who has a working sense of empathy, never mind a sense of consistency. I mean:
All of which and too much more is why Euthyphro's Dilemma is such a hot topic among atheists. Making such unsubstantiated pronouncements to people with the capacity for REASON is problematic at best and self-disqualifying at worst.
Maybe Yahweh should have thought a bit harder before opening his big yap.
"The Euthyphro dilemma
"Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?"
"Is what is morally good commanded by god because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by god?"
OK, lets take god out of the equation.
Is morality loved because it is moral, or is it moral because it is loved?
Is what is morally good commanded by people because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by people?"
Morality is always defined by a particular culture. The question is whether there is a Universal Morality, sans gods, and if so, how is it regulated?
He is deluded and cannot think straight. Forget words like "objective" and so on. This person assumes the bible to be correct and his flawed logic shows it. To him and others like him, the bible is a given. This book is the authority that backs up god, and to many it also "proves" god - unless they get the proof by admiring nature or something.
The bottom line is this. When I say "god is good" I have established morality outside of the framework of god.Your morality comes from you.
Morality empowers people to flourish as an individual and as a culture.
If one flourishes at the expense of another, it is immoral.
Any functional morality will inevitably be a product of consequentialism, a recognition that deleterious acts have consequences which negatively impact the group and endanger its continued survival. This operates in parallel with the empathy which homo sapiens developed in order to survive in the first place. Dictated morality which doesn't take either of these factors into account is less about morality than it is about the dictate and its attempt to artificially superimpose control, without any demonstrable benefit to the group for which it is meant.
Certainly, there may be SOME workable morality found in the Pentateuch, but far more dictated crap than the practical variety. As Hitch himself said:
Yeh, verily. It is SO! ;-)