"I just have to ask questions that always - always - go unanswered and even unacknowledged."
When someone uses terms like "always", especially when they repeat the "always" for emphasis, there is a high degree of probability that the statement using the term "always" will be false. It's claim that cannot practically be proven True, because it's generally beyond the ability/desire of the claimant to put forth the effort to do so. On the other hand, it's not hard to prove false, as it only needs one example to do so.
The hitch in proving this claim false, is that it is unlikely that the questioner would accept the answer to a virtually identical (if differently worded) question as it's not the "same" question.
The reality is that those who ask questions like these know that answers are available, much more so with the advent of Google, from multiple sources. Questions like these don't often seem to be actual requests for information as much as argument starters.
As a general rule, when people use terms like "always", never, etc, I simply ignore them because they can't even be bothered to state their claim accurately.
67 comments:
Craig...
"The reality is that those who ask questions like these know that answers are available, much more so with the advent of Google, from multiple sources. "
I've google searched. The answer is not out there. That is, objective proof of the human theory that God has provided objectively proven moral answers to questions of morality is not out there. I've looked.
Now, like you, I am a finite and fallible man. Maybe I've missed it. If so, it sounds like you think you can easily find "multiple sources" with the answers.
Cool. Share the link.
When you don't, will you have the integrity to say, I can't/won't...?
Craig...
When someone uses terms like "always", especially when they repeat the "always" for emphasis, there is a high degree of probability that the statement using the term "always" will be false. ,/I>
That's not bad advice. However, one must keep in mind that in this case, I'm talking about the very limited group of people I personally have asked questions of.
Stan (and presumably many other traditionalist human religious traditions) have a human theory that "morality is determined by God..." and, "So "good" is defined by God..."
That IS a theory... it is an objectively human theory he is espousing as a human. God has not told him that. It's something that HE (and other humans) have used their reason to conclude.
Right?
And so, I've asked Stan (and you and others like y'all), IS that YOUR personal human opinion or is it objectively proven?
In MY personal interactions with y'all, I'm relatively certain that you all have opted not to answer OR (perhaps rarely) answer by only asserting that it's objectively true.
But making that assertion is NOT proving it, objectively, right?
THAT is what has NEVER been answered in my experience. Never.
Likewise, I'm asking the additional question:
"IF we allow that this unproven theory is right and "God" has "told us" via "the Bible" what is objectively moral, AND, given that humans disagree about moral theories based upon biblical interpretations, how do we determine who is understanding it correctly?
That question, likewise, has always gone unanswered in the times that I've asked it.
Or, if it HAS been answered, it was answered in an unsupported manner. As in, "Well, clearly WE and people who agree with US are the ones who are understanding it correctly!"
In addition to being arrogant as hell, it is an emotionally brittle and intellectually deficient unsupported claim.
Now, IF you can point to ANY ONE EVER IN ALL OF HISTORY who has objectively proven their answers to these questions, then you will have corrected my error and helped me understand better.
That ball remains, as always, in your fellas' court.
Given how often you won't say that you can't/won't it's amusing to see you get so huffy when people simply act like you.
The problem isn't that answers don't exist, it's the you don't like or don't find that the answers live up to your arbitrary standards of "proof".
I've answered these questions multiple times, responded to them even more (because I'm tired of answering them multiple times), they're your questions. Questions you seem to be suggesting are very important to you. Given that reality, it's not my responsibility to find answers to your questions, that live up to your arbitrary hunches about "proof".
That you haven't, that I recall, pointed to one specific example and specifically explained what you have problems with tells me that you can't/won't do so because it's easier to bitch about other people answering your questions than to engage.
"That's not bad advice. However, one must keep in mind that in this case, I'm talking about the very limited group of people I personally have asked questions of."
Well, maybe your problem is that your demanding answers from the wrong people, or not being specific in your demands. However, that's great for you. Since it's such a small group of people proving your claim should be easy.
"Stan (and presumably many other traditionalist human religious traditions) have a human theory that "morality is determined by God..." and, "So "good" is defined by God...""
How about you actually quote "Stan" or these mysterious "traditionalist human religious" sources so we know exactly what their position actually is. If you're going to bitch about something you claim someone has said or believes, it's on you to accurately communicate their belief or words. Having said that, given that even you acknowledge that YHWH literally IS "good", that He is the 100% "good", so who is more qualified than YHWH to "define" "good". Is not His embodiment of "good" enough to qualify Him?
"That IS a theory... Right?"
If by "theory" you mean accurately quoting scripture, then sure. Of course, this raises the usual problem with you. Your lack of a counter theory that aligns with the plain meaning of scripture, and that is directly supported by specific scriptures (and that does not contradict scripture), isn't a good look.
"And so, I've asked Stan (and you and others like y'all), IS that YOUR personal human opinion or is it objectively proven?"
You've asked ad nauseum, we've answered ad nauseum, and you ignore our answers and keep asking. Not my problem.
"In MY personal interactions with y'all, I'm relatively certain that you all have opted not to answer OR (perhaps rarely) answer by only asserting that it's objectively true."
Here we go, the massive goal post move. The original claim was "I just have to ask questions that always - always - go unanswered and even unacknowledged.", now you play the mealy mouthed, namby pamby "I'm relatively certain. What a cowardly move. Of course you won't change your original claim over at the cesspool.
"But making that assertion is NOT proving it, objectively, right?"
You have NOT proven your claim objectively, you haven't even bothered to try. You haven't even given one single example.
"That ball remains, as always, in your fellas' court."
Except you made the unsupported claim that you not only haven't supported, but have instead made a cowardly retreat from the claim without acknowledgement of your bullshit claims.
"THAT is what has NEVER been answered in my experience. Never."
Again with the backpedaling, goalpost moving, and equivocation.
Again, who cares what questions you are asking. Why is it incumbent on us to blindly accede to your demands that we answer your questions? What makes you so arrogant that you think that demanding that your questions be answered over and over again is your right?
That question, likewise, has always gone unanswered in the times that I've asked it.
"Or, if it HAS been answered, it was answered in an unsupported manner. As in, "Well, clearly WE and people who agree with US are the ones who are understanding it correctly!""
The excuses just keep coming. It's interesting that you, who loves to cite "experts" as often as possible, objects to citing experts in this case. The very notion that you demand that we, as laymen, answer your questions at your back and call while ignoring thousands of years of actual experts, scholars, and wise teachers, seems to indicate that this is more about stirring up argument than a True desire for information.
"In addition to being arrogant as hell, it is an emotionally brittle and intellectually deficient unsupported claim.'
Yes, your original claim (which I've quoted twice) is an "emotionally brittle and intellectually deficient unsupported claim". That you've backed away from your original claim merely reinforces that conclusion. That you've reduced yourself to attacks on and demands of us, rather than simply searching for answers to your questions, or simply living with the fact that you can't find answers that satisfy you, suggests that you really don't care for answers as much as ammunition.
"Now, IF you can point to ANY ONE EVER IN ALL OF HISTORY who has objectively proven their answers to these questions, then you will have corrected my error and helped me understand better."
Given your track record of ignoring sources I've provided you in the past, why would I bother wasting my time again?
Dan,
Because I'm in a generous mood I will grant you this one opportunity. Give me the one, singular question that you claim to want an answer to. Only one. Not multiple questions which you claim are all "THE QUESTION" or "THE ONE QUESTION". No compound questions either.
One question that is as simple and direct as you can make it. No editorializing bullshit, no double negatives, no bullshit. One simple direct question and I'll do your research and all reach out to an expert or two to get you some resources.
Personally, I don't think you can accomplish this feat, but if you can I will do what I can.
In answer to your request:
Assuming Stan, et al, think that we can "know" answers to moral questions from reading the Bible AND, at the same time, people of good faith read the Bible and reach differing conclusions on moral questions, then, how do we objectively determine who is understanding it correctly?
Is that clear enough?
I understand that my request might have been confusing, but maybe you just skimmed over the part about editorializing bullshit and don’t understand the concept of simple and direct.
I’m not going to take this to experts with all the bullshit about your hunches about other people and your guesses about what they think.
I was right, but I’ll give you one more chance. One simple, direct question that you want answered.
If you can’t do it, I’ll guess at what you want and ask that.
FYI, I still have no confidence in your ability to do what I asked.
Craig, you're not being rational. I asked a very simple and reasonable question. There was zero "editorializing bs..." I can't even fathom what you could possibly consider editorializing.
IN A WORLD WHERE PEOPLE OF GOOD FAITH HAVE DIFFERING OPINIONS about any moral questions dealt with in the Bible, how do we objectively determine who is understanding it correctly?
To answer more of your questions...
"who cares what questions you are asking."
People who want to make their case in good faith.
"Why is it incumbent on us to blindly accede to your demands that we answer your questions?"
I'm demanding nothing. I'm merely noting the reality that I have reasonable good faith questions that, IF you all would answer them, it would bolster your case or, indeed, prove your case indisputable.
Why wouldn't you all answer them respectfully and in good faith?
"What makes you so arrogant that you think that demanding that your questions be answered over and over again is your right?"
Again, I've made no demands. I'm simply asking reasonable questions, politely, respectfully asking y'all, Help me understand...
Any rational adult has the right to ask questions of another if they find their human opinions less than rational. Do you disagree?
The title of your post is, "Accuracy is important." I agree and I assume you think accuracy is important, too, since it's literally what you said.
So please, be accurate and tell me specifically, factually and accurately, what I said that was "editorializing..." Or, better yet, be accurate and admit that was a giant overstep on your part and, of course, I'm simply asking a reasonable question AND that answering my question (if you all can), would only serve to strengthen YOUR argument.
Craig:
Given your track record of ignoring sources I've provided you in the past, why would I bother wasting my time again?
This is an entirely unsupported and frankly, inaccurate claim on your part. You can not point to ANY of your sources that I've ignored, as a point of fact. That I read them and found that they literally did not answer the questions being asked and further, found them lacking in intellectual, rational and biblical vigor, does not mean that I ignored them.
Disagreeing with you and any "experts" you may or may not cite is not the same as ignoring. Do you understand that?
Or, are you thinking, "Well, I provided people who offered opinions similar to mine. If Dan disagrees with THAT, then he must be ignoring what they actually said..."? Because, if so, can you see that this would be intellectually dishonest, fallacious and not a bit arrogant?
More often than not, I'll be asking some reasonable, good faith question, pertinent to the topics we discuss and when you occasionally reference some article/source that touches on nearby topics, they won't be answering the specific questions I'm asking. That's my point. No one is even TRYING to deal with these reasonable questions that are being asked.
WHAT do we do when people in good faith disagree on moral questions or biblical teachings... can we objectively prove one or the other side is factually correct? If not, then what?
IF we're appealing to "the Bible" as a source of knowledge about moral or rational questions, and, given that the Bible is NOT a woodenly literal collection of books written in a variety of styles and at least at times embracing figurative language, WHAT is the objectively authoritative rubric for deciding what is and isn't factual in the Bible... OR does such a rubric exist?
These are rational questions vitally important to traditional religionists who say the Bible is the sole or primary source for understanding theology and morality. You'd think you'd be glad to address them.
But google it. These sorts of answers to these reasonable questions simply don't even come up.
Despite your claims, you had to re write your question. That says all anyone needs to know.
Once again, who cares?
You demand answered despite answers being offered multiple times over multiple years. These are your questions, why would you think I’m beholden to answer your questions when I don’t care about the questions or the answers?
I’ve answered your questions endlessly, that you demand I do so again is your problem not mine.
You can ask. But just because you can conjure up random questions doesn’t obligate us to answer them again and again. Or even answer them once, our doing so is more than you deserve.
It says that I dumbed the question down even MORE than I had already, to make it even easier for you to digest. It says that you had no rational support for the nonsense claim that I was editorializing.
This is the height of arrogance. You make a clearly unproven, objective, claim and when your bullshit is pointed out you pull this crap.
When I have time I’ll gladly link to an entire post of resources I pulled together to answer one of your questions, of which you engaged with none.
But you’ll continue to make excuses and hide in your fantasy world as you so often do.
You’ll have to cool your jets until I’m not on my phone and busy. At least I can comment under my own name from my phone, unlike some people.
FYI, I knew you didn’t have the self control to stick to one question. Dealing with you is like dealing with a child, impatient, no self control, inability to be responsible for one’s actions, and demanding.
It acknowledges that you had to take your shot at Stan out of the question because it was both editorializing and pointless.
I'm offering to do you a favor. I'm not sure that you quite understand that these sorts of attacks and snark is conducive toward me actually doing you this favor. As is often the case, your lack of impulse control and inability to simply accept that I'm trying to help you find answers is likely to determine my willingness to help.
Craig...
"It acknowledges that you had to take your shot at Stan out of the question because it was both editorializing and pointless."
There was no "shot at Stan." Not on my part. A reminder of my actual words...
"Assuming Stan, et al, think that we can "know" answers to moral questions from reading the Bible AND, at the same time, people of good faith read the Bible and reach differing conclusions on moral questions, then, how do we objectively determine who is understanding it correctly?"
Again...
"Assuming Stan, et al, think that we can "know" answers to moral questions from reading the Bible..."
There is NO editorializing and no shot at Stan. Instead, it is an, I think, accurate summation of Stan's point.
Do you think that Stan does NOT think we can know answers to moral questions from reading the Bible?
This is so strange.
Again, what do you find to be editorializing in that set up to the question?
Deeply weird, friend. Deeply weird.
Craig..
"I'm offering to do you a favor. I'm not sure that you quite understand that these sorts of attacks and snark is conducive toward me actually doing you this favor. "
1. WHAT attacks? Truly, in looking at my words, I see nothing like an attack. I have zero idea of what you're talking about. Help a brother out and be more specific.
2. You consider it, "doing me a favor" to answer a respectful, reasonable question about conservative positions? Really?
"This is an entirely unsupported and frankly, inaccurate claim on your part. You can not point to ANY of your sources that I've ignored, as a point of fact. That I read them and found that they literally did not answer the questions being asked and further, found them lacking in intellectual, rational and biblical vigor, does not mean that I ignored them."
How many of the sources in the blog post linked below did you read in their entirety?
How many specific items in those sources did you point out as things you disagreed with?
https://jsmmds.blogspot.com/2025/02/regularly-complains-that-i-wont-spoon.html
"Disagreeing with you and any "experts" you may or may not cite is not the same as ignoring. Do you understand that?"
I do understand that. Where I have a problem is, as in the post above, I provide you with a plethora of sources and you remain silent. You don't acknowledge that I've done so, you don't acknowledge reading any of them, and you certainly don't point out any specific things you disagree with. Hell, you don't even say that you've read and disagree with them.
"If Dan disagrees with THAT, then he must be ignoring what they actually said..."?"
If Dan took the time to "disagree" (ie point out specific examples of him not agreeing with or proving wrong something or someone) that would be one thing, unfortunately Dan doesn't do that.
"Because, if so, can you see that this would be intellectually dishonest, fallacious and not a bit arrogant?"
Since I don't, your presumptuous straw man is just more of your bullshit.
"More often than not, I'll be asking some reasonable, good faith question, pertinent to the topics we discuss and when you occasionally reference some article/source that touches on nearby topics, they won't be answering the specific questions I'm asking. That's my point. No one is even TRYING to deal with these reasonable questions that are being asked."
Well, as long as you're self congratulatory about it, I can see your point. Maybe the problem is that your questions aren't as amazing as you think. Maybe, the answers are there but they require a bit of digging. In either case, that you choose not to address specifics, but instead offer these excuses, is educational.
"WHAT do we do when people in good faith disagree on moral questions or biblical teachings... can we objectively prove one or the other side is factually correct? If not, then what?"
First, there is no "we", there's you against the majority of Christian thought over the last 2000+ years.
Secondly, when you can't (usually) "objectively prove" your claims you simply act as if your claims are "objectively" True and that any counter claim is "objectively" False, regardless of any actual evidence.
"IF we're appealing to "the Bible" as a source of knowledge about moral or rational questions, and, given that the Bible is NOT a woodenly literal collection of books written in a variety of styles and at least at times embracing figurative language, WHAT is the objectively authoritative rubric for deciding what is and isn't factual in the Bible... OR does such a rubric exist?"
Given how often you appeal to "The Bible" and quickly dismiss scriptural passages as "myth" or wrongly interpreted, maybe you should share your flawless rubric before you demand that of others.
As I've gladly addressed your idiocy for years it seems strange that you'd pretend otherwise.
These are rational questions vitally important to traditional religionists who say the Bible is the sole or primary source for understanding theology and morality. You'd think you'd be glad to address them.
1. That you are so unaware of your attacks and snark, isn't my problem. I point them out regularly, you don't seem to pay any attention.
2. Yes. I do consider it a favor to take your question to some people who have significant expertise in the study of scripture and other relevant areas. You clearly consider years of answers to these sorts of questions to be non existent or haven't (to the best of my recollection) pointed out specific problems with those answers, so I offered to do you a favor. If you'd prefer that I not do you this favor, just say so. Usually, I wouldn't do a favor for someone so graceless and bitchy.
"There is NO editorializing and no shot at Stan. Instead, it is an, I think, accurate summation of Stan's point."
That you, in your arrogance, think that given your history of misrepresenting the views of others, I don't think I can help you. I'll offer you this bit of advice, it comes off as arrogant, snarky, and full of bullshit. If you don't care about the perception of what you say, cool. That you somehow think, after I was explicit in offering to put your question in front of some experts that referencing Stan in the question I asked you to formulate was a stupid idea, I guess that is very revealing.
"This is so strange."
Yes, your inability to ask a single, simple, direct question based on information you want without referencing others is very strange. That your alleged desire to find this information is completely tied to your hunches about Stan seems to undermine your claims about your alleged motivation for asking the question.
At this point, I'll be honest. I'm regretting offering to help you and your attitude is giving me plenty of reasons to change my mind. Your choice. You can be the "respectful" person you imagine yourself to be, or you can consider how others view your bullshit.
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/how-are-morals-objectively-grounded-in-god
https://settecase.wordpress.com/2016/09/03/a-christian-perspective-on-morality/
https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/objective-truth-is-one-thing-but-objective-moral-truth-is-another/
Here are a few things that came up after I put your question, as asked, into a Google search.
I'm sure you'll dive right in and expound on the specific items you find wrong.
Dan,
As I see it you have two choices.
1. Accept that I am going to put your question in front of some people who are smarter and more educated that either of us, and that I will pass along any answers or resources they provide.
2. You can continue with the nit picking, complaining, and bullshit, knowing that you doing so might jeopardize me doing you the favor I told you that I would do.
It's your choice, you do you.
It could simply be that Dan is the only person who insists there must be "objective proof" for something so obviously logical to an actual Christian that God is the source of morality and that questions regarding the moral status or quality of a given behavior can be determined by a reading of His clearly revealed Will in Scripture. That could, then, account for Dan's inability to find what no one else seeks.
---Art
Art,
Excellent point. Dan seems to have an unreasonably high standard of proof, which is simultaneously arbitrary and flexible. Most of the rest of the world realizes that knowledge is a matter of probability and the even objective Truth isn't 100% proven. It's like noting that the probability of producing a protein through random mutation is like 10 to the 75th power or some insanely unlikely probability, yet people insist that life being produced by chance and mutation is "settled science".
Dan seems to demand 100% proof, when most of us realize that nothing is 100% proven.
Ultimately, it's one more example of his double standard in that he expects levels of proof from us that he is unwilling or unable to provide for his own claims.
It seems more often than not that "good faith" is something behind which Dan hides before making a claim or statement or query which is actually counter to the Christian faith. Said another way, he makes these pleas about asking questions "in good faith" to avoid defending his positions which are so clearly...in most cases....in direct conflict with clearly stated principles, concepts or laws of God.
Still forgetting too often to sign my name to comments submitted from my phone...but I'm sure most suggest the author well enough.
---Art
Another good point. Dan does hide behind claims of "good faith" yet his actions don't comport with his words. Someone arguing in "good faith" likely isn't going to be as graceless and vitriolic as Dan is.
That Dan can't/won't defend his positions beyond some version of "This sounds reasonable to me.", is simply a given and it's pointless to expect more.
After the first one, it's pretty obvious.
FYI, it's not that hard to sign in using your Google account from your phone. I rarely post or comment from my phone, and did over the weekend, and once I posted an Anon comment, I figured it out.
If nothing else, it makes me feel slightly superior to Dan who clearly hasn't bothered to try.
While I will still put Dan's question in front of a few people to get their take, I realized something important.
Dan's question is predicated on "knowing" that we've gotten something right. The reality is that whether or not something is objectively right is not affected by our knowing at all. Most of us could probably agree than ending an innocent human life is wrong, yet how many people regularly advocate for ending innocent human life? Clearly ending innocent human life being right or wrong is not affected by their knowing.
Similarly, there have been several cases in Europe where people accused of raping children have argued that they shouldn't be punished for their raping because they didn't know that Europeans considered raping children to be wrong.
I suspect that Dan puts much more emphasis on the "knowing" part than on the actual being right or wrong part, but I could be wrong.
https://jsmmds.blogspot.com/2022/06/like-wk-i-believe-that-this-should-be.html
https://jsmmds.blogspot.com/2025/01/compasses.html
https://jsmmds.blogspot.com/2016/07/morality.html
https://jsmmds.blogspot.com/2020/03/oh-look-more-quotes-and-links-about.html
https://jsmmds.blogspot.com/2024/05/robert-jackson.html
https://jsmmds.blogspot.com/2020/03/i-think.html
Dan says that no one has ever adressed his claims about morality and knowing that he's right, or addressed his questions. Above are just a few of the post, just at my blog, doing exactly that.
That there might not be a specific 1:1 answer for the specific formulation of Dan's current version of "The Question", is irrelevant. The reality that his "never/always" claims are generally rhetorical bullshit and merely a tactic to try to gain some sort of upper hand.
https://jsmmds.blogspot.com/2020/02/please-define-specifically-and.html
For all of the effort Dan put into telling us what morality is not, it would be refreshing for Dan to give a one or two sentence definition of what morality is and an explanation as to why anyone else should agree that his version is "right" in any meaningful sense.
And then, by agreeing Truth can't be proven with 100% certainty, it's then and there where he'll force in his lies and self-serving "interpretations" which will then lay protected against logic and reason behind the wall of "less than 100% certainty ".
Yes, I believe that is exactly how he is likely to react. The reality is that, especially with things beyond "My car is blue", we regularly accept things as True/accurate/proven with less than 100% certainty.
Part of the problem is that Dan seems to want two contradictory things.
1. He wants his hunches about what is and is not moral to be accepted and treated as if they are objectively True, and he wants the power to be able to proclaim that other people are immoral.
2. He wants to do #1, while denying that there are any universal, objective moral rules. He continues to insist that there is some sort of consensus, on certain things despite repeated evidence to the contrary.
Up until recently, I truly believed that there was overwhelming agreement on the premise that raping children (hell, having sex with children) was wrong. But between the rapey folx in Europe and elsewhere, Hamas using rape as a weapon, the "justice" systems that let people off because they didn't know raping children was wrong, and the increasing push from pedos to legitimize their sexual orientation, it seems clear that this aversion to child rape/sex is not as universal as I'd thought.
You don't already know? It's all about "do no harm" or "the least of these" or any other vague, undefined or misapplied platitude.
---Art
I'd hope for something with a bit more detail, and a bit less platitude, but you know how that'll go.
Craig...
"it would be refreshing for Dan to give a one or two sentence definition of what morality is and an explanation as to why anyone else should agree that his version is "right" in any meaningful sense."
While I'm reviewing your possible answers - taking my time to give them a fair reading - I'll answer this request from you. For me, just the standard definition works...
Morality:
Morality is the belief that some behavior is right and acceptable and that other behavior is wrong.
I also like what Jesus said to the legalist trying to trap him by asking what he must do to be saved. Jesus asked him, "What do your laws say?" And the legalist answered,
"Love God, love humanity."
And Jesus responded, "Of course, do that."
Love people. Be kind and helpful. Seek the welfare of others and promote a healthy world... this is obvious stuff. THAT obvious stuff IS the stuff of morality.
Do you disagree?
Why "my" "version"* or approach is reasonable (I prefer reasonable rather than "right," because that's part of the problem with some opinions on Morality...) is because I (and others) who note that Not Causing Harm/Golden Rule and Human Rights are the best bases for assessing morality.
* It's not MY version, as if I'm making something up.
Also Craig:
I'd hope for something with a bit more detail, and a bit less platitude
So, if I answer with the definition of the word and by offering Jesus' "Love others..." that's not enough detail and too much "platitude..." BUT, I'm also supposed to keep it to two sentences.
Square the circle for me, dear one.
So, in summation: Morality is being helpful, kind, supportive, loving, forgiving... being a good person in the ways that WE ALL KNOW we should do.
Do you have some alternative definition?
Now, back to reading your links.
Marshal...
You don't already know? It's all about "do no harm" or "the least of these" or any other vague, undefined or misapplied platitude.
Craig...
I'd hope for something with a bit more detail, and a bit less platitude
Seriously, fellas, how are YOU all defining morality? Is it NOT (in your heads) just the basic common sense understanding of being kind to others, helping out, being loving, being supportive, welcoming, forgiving and gracious? And, on the flip side, of NOT causing harm, NOT oppressing, NOT killing, raping, denying rights, abusing or otherwise being unkind and unhelpful?
How complex do you think morality is?
Have you thought through what you're saying?
Back to reading... but maybe you'll answer some of your own questions. Because, frankly, y'all are sounding ridiculous and irrational.
My very brief response to your first source (Dr Craig, in a conversation with Kevin Harris) is this: Do you think he is making the case that he has objectively proven his specific moral opinions? Or that he's objectively proven that God has provided objective proof of morality or the answer to SOME moral questions?
If you think he's provided something like objective proof to ANY moral questions, please point out where. I've read and re-read. I don't see it. He makes claim upon claim but he never even tries to objectively prove that we have authoritative objectively proven answers to any subset of moral questions.
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/how-are-morals-objectively-grounded-in-god
I think what he's clearly doing is making his rational case for why a person might reasonably conclude that morality IS, at some level, objective... what he doesn't do is provide any objective proof of ANY moral questions.
Understand: I allow that there may well be objectively moral right and wrong. I think, clearly, that it is wrong to abuse babies. I think it is obvious. I don't think there is any question about it... BUT, I don't see how I can objectively prove it beyond claims to "it's self evident, duh!" I am not arguing - have never argued - that morality doesn't have definitive right and wrong answers. What I've consistently said is that we can't objectively prove our moral opinions, EVEN IF some action is objectively immoral.
Do you understand what I've been saying all along?
Moving on...
So, the guy leads with an unsupported set of claims:
1. I think of God as the embodiment of the moral good.
2. He is the paradigm of goodness.
3. He defines what goodness is.
I certainly agree that God is good. That phrasing is not how I would put it though.
But on a larger scale: At this point, it's just a subjective claim. He hasn't proven objectively that there IS a god or that this God is good or that this God defines what goodness is. Nor does he explain what HE (the author) means by defining what goodness is.
He continues with distinguishing between values and duty, again with no support, just empty claims.
Values concern the moral worth of something – whether it is good or bad. Duties concern whether something is obligatory for us – whether it is right or wrong. I see moral duties as rooted in the commandments, moral values is rooted in the nature of God.
Says who? Why is it not also reasonable and perhaps likely that morality is simply that which IS good, itself. It's GOOD to offer a hand to someone who has fallen to help them up... it's kind, helpful, something that we appreciate. Just because it is, itself, a good thing to do. WHY is it good? Because it's how we would hope someone would treat us... it's a positive impact on human rights and concern in the world.
At any rate, that's another theory as to why something is good. Continuing to read...
He also makes clear that he's not one of the people who say something is good or bad, just because God whimsically defined it that way. Or at least, appears to.
if God just made up what is right and wrong arbitrarily, then I would agree with you. That would be the ultimate in subjectivity.
So, good for him, as far as that goes. He continues:
His commands to us are expressions of his will, but these are rooted in the divine nature – in his essential moral properties like justice, kindness, compassion, truthfulness, and so forth.
And on and on I read. And re-read. So, as far as I can see, this guy doesn't - doesn't even TRY to - objectively prove morality. The closest that I can see that this guy comes to a serious claim about morality is this:
I think to say that moral values are objective is not to say that they are always clear. Certainly there can be areas of gray. Some things are clearly right or clearly wrong but in between there can certainly be difficult moral questions that are hard to discern what is right and wrong. To say that there are objective values and duties is to say that in any moral situation that you find yourself in there is a right thing to do and there is a bad thing or a wrong thing to do. But it is not to say that that is always easy to discern. So we must not confuse epistemology (which is how you know moral values and duties) with ontology (which is the reality of the moral values and duties). I am not making a claim that because these things objectively exist that they are always easy to discern.
Duh.
That is, he acknowledges it's not always "clearly right..." But then, that seems to be just what I'm saying. That there may indeed be objective moral realities, but do we have any objective way to objectively PROVE our opinions about objective moral realities? I don't think so and this guy doesn't answer that question and SEEMS to suggest he agrees with me.
Instead, he just says, "it's not always easy to discern..." Yeah? So? CAN YOU or can you not objectively prove your moral opinions about specific actions/ideas?
He simply does not say. That's as far as he goes with it. Right? I don't see ANY answers to that question, do you? If so, please provide them.
He goes on to say:
If there were no God, I think there would be no objective moral values.
"I THINK... if there were no God, I THINK there would be no objective moral values..."
Where is the authoritative, objective proof of anything in that? Is he not admitting it's a subjective opinion, not a proven fact?
It looks like to me that this guy, like all the others before him, is simply offering his reasoned opinions which are not objectively supported.
How am I mistaken?
As a reminder, THIS is the question I've asked here and the one you presumably are trying to find an answer for:
IN A WORLD WHERE PEOPLE OF GOOD FAITH HAVE DIFFERING OPINIONS about any moral questions dealt with in the Bible,
how do we objectively determine who is understanding it correctly?
Do you think this Dr Craig has answered that question? If so, can you quote WHERE he answered it, because (as I noted from the beginning) I don't see where anyone is even TRYING to answer it. Unless you're seeing something that I'm not, I'm pretty sure that Dr Craig didn't answer it and didn't even TRY to answer it. Indeed, the closest he came to even addressing it makes it sound like he agrees with me, not with the notion that such questions can be objectively proven.
"Do you disagree?"
Whether I agree or disagree with your subjective definition of morality is of no importance. It's irrelevant.
"I prefer reasonable rather than "right,""
Interesting. So does that mean that when you claim that something or someone is "immoral" that you are not claiming that their morality is wrong, but that you simply don't find their moral choices to be reasonable?
"WE ALL KNOW we should do."
When you say "KNOW" do you mean with 100% certainty?
If there is something that everyone, everywhere, in all times, "should do", how is that not an objective, universal moral standard?
Again, irrelevant. Your definition of "morality" or "good" ( I love how you interchange terms with no apparent reason), is what's at issue.
"Seriously, fellas, how are YOU all defining morality?"
In short, I'd start with Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 6:1-9, and Jesus restatement of the Deuteronomy commandment in Matthew 22, Mark 12, and Luke 10.
"Is it NOT (in your heads) just the basic common sense understanding of being kind to others, helping out, being loving, being supportive, welcoming, forgiving and gracious?"
No.
"And, on the flip side, of NOT causing harm, NOT oppressing, NOT killing, raping, denying rights, abusing or otherwise being unkind and unhelpful?"
Given your insistence that your "my" moral code is not universal and objective, I fail to see how you can claim that those who believe that your above list is a list of moral behaviors can be called "immoral". "Helpful is an interesting one for me, as I don't consider helping someone engage in harmful or immoral behavior to actually be helpful.
"How complex do you think morality is?"
Not as complex as you do. The hard pert is trying to impose your subjective hunches about morality on others who have a different standard of morality.
"Have you thought through what you're saying?"
Yes.
Now I'm done indulging this diversion.
For once you seem to have watched and interacted with at least some of what I've provided for you, that's a good start. Perhaps you could do your own research into Dr Craig's positions all by yourself instead of demanding that I do it for you or answer on his behalf. I suspect, that Dr Craig has dealt with this elsewhere and that a quick search of his previous work will lead you to what you claim to seek.
Yes, I understand what you're saying. I've understood it every time you've repeated yourself. I literally put your question into a Google search and this was one of the resources that came out. Why you can't won't do so yourself is beyond me.
I'll simply note your failure to even attempt to demonstrate that Craig's position is false or offer an alternative.
"The answer is not out there."
This is quite the unproven claim, yet stated in such a definitive manner as if it is objectively factual. Your inability to honestly and accurately talk about these things is kind of pathetic as you seem determined to base reality on your limited and incomplete personal experiences.
"That phrasing is not how I would put it though."
Who cares how you "would put it.". IF, as you claim to believe, YHWH is literally "is good" then every one of those points logically flows from His "good" nature. That you have a problem with YHWH, the creator of all that exists, defining "good" says more about you and your desire to define what is "good" than anything else.
To be accurate, he might not have "proven" those things in this resource. That doesn't provide grounds for your claim that he "hasn't proven objectively" things, nor does your claim account for the arbitrary standard of "proof" you might demand.
That you can ask questions does not mean that anyone is obligated to answer them. I guess I find it strange that one who professes to be a christian would "kick against the goads" of the conclusion that YHWH who created all that is or was, and who's character is described as "good" would be a logical source of information about what is or is not "good".
Are you operating as if "moral" and "good" are 100% synonymous? If you are, provide objective proof, if not pick one and stay with it.
Blah, blah, blah, blah. That all you can do is bitch instead of prove that he's wrong says so much.
That the opinions of someone with a CV that is dwarfs yours, don't answer every single question you can come up with in one place, doesn't surprise me. That you can't/won't/don't even try to prove him wrong or offer an alternative isn't really my problem.
For the third time, I literally copy pasted your question into Google and these are a few of the options that were offered. That you are too lazy or unmotivated to search for answers on your own, but instead demand that others provide you with the answers that you claim to seek, simply makes me question your integrity and sincerity.
The object of this exercise was to point out how easy it was to search for answers, instead of demanding that others do your work for you.
Beyond the fact that I promised that I would put your question in front of an "expert" or experts and pass on the resources they provided, why should I bother given your clear prejudice and bias?
Craig...
"For the third time, I literally copy pasted your question into Google and these are a few of the options that were offered. That you are too lazy or unmotivated to search for answers on your own, but instead demand that others provide you with the answers that you claim to seek..."
?
Dear friend, I don't think you are understanding the situation.
Of course, it's easy to search for answers to questions. Of course, it is. And so, as I've literally told, I HAVE asked the questions and done the searches and read the material that has popped up.
Searching for answers is easy and I've done that. As I've told you repeatedly.
But, FINDING answers with objective proof of your collective positions, THAT is what I have not found.
And you illustrate this reality yourself, when you did searches and have found no objectively proven answers. You are confirming my point.
Do you see?
I DO look forward to you asking an expert directly to see if he (it WILL be a he, won't it?) will have to say.
Here's a guess... if they are an expert in ethics or or morality, I suspect that either...
1. They will agree with me that questions like mine can't be proven objectively... or,
2. He'll say, Yes, it can be answered with objective proof, but he won't do it.
What do you think will happen?
Thanks for being willing to try.
Craig...
"why should I bother given your clear prejudice and bias?"
What prejudice and bias do you think I have and based upon what?
I have learned a great deal from conservative teachers over the years and I always stand ready to learn more.
But perhaps the greatest thing I learned was to love and respect the teachings of the Bible and, thus, don't use it to say things it doesn't say or, worse, to say that God has said things that God has not said.
Craig:
That the opinions of someone with a CV that is dwarfs yours, don't answer every single question you can come up with in one place, doesn't surprise me. That you can't/won't/don't even try to prove him wrong or offer an alternative isn't really my problem.
This has nothing to do with degrees or intelligence or schooling. He just literally didn't try to objectively prove the answer to my question. I'm just noting that. What's wrong with that?
You talked about finding an answer to my questions and you used the same google search as I did and you came up with no one providing an objectively proven answer to my question - and indeed, this guy literally is NOT saying that he's trying to prove anything. He's literally simply providing his reasoning for various positions and theories.
But I've done that. Offering "Here is my reasoning for holding these positions" is NOT objective proof that he's objectively correct (or that I'm objectively correct.) I could be mistaken but I THINK if you asked him he would be glad to acknowledge he hasn't tried to objectively prove the answer to my question, right?
So, my question in this comment, which you ignored, was:
Where is the authoritative, objective proof of anything in that? Is he not admitting it's a subjective opinion, not a proven fact?
I'm gathering, by your refusal to even address it, is that, NO, he is NOT attempting to answer my question at all, and certainly not in an objectively proven manner.
Is that correct?
And a note: Me merely asking a reasonable question (again) that you skipped past, that is NOT "bitching..." It's just a question.
And, I haven't SAID that he's objectively wrong, NOR has he said he's objectively right. I'm just noting that he has not said he's said that he's objectively right AND that he literally did NOT answer my question at all, much less with objective proof.
Right?
What is wrong with asking reasonable, respectful questions about an important topic? Why does it make you all flustered and emotional (ie, complaining about me "bitching" for merely noting the reality of what was and wasn't said)?
"Is that correct?"
No. Unlike you I don't presume to speak for others, nor do I assume that because something (that you want) isn't present in the one place you look, that it does not exist.
Ask away, demand away. I simply don't care that much. I don't need your bullshit, and don't have time to chase down answers to your questions.
Not flustered or emotional, just tired of your bullshit.
"Dear friend, I don't think you are understanding the situation."
If I was, in fact, your "dear friend" you presumably wouldn't treat me with your history of vitriol, condescension, and ad hom attacks. So please stop the condescending pretending that I am your "dear friend" or "brother" or "son", you've been asked multiple times yet can't quite figure it out.
"But, FINDING answers with objective proof of your collective positions, THAT is what I have not found."
That you haven't "found" answers is your problem, not mine. Given how you've responded in the past to being presented with things that don't fit your preconceived notions, and you lack of an actual standard of proof (at least not one that you've articulated), I've simply stopped caring. Your reflexive negativity toward anything that doesn't fit in your box or meet your arbitrary standards of "proof" is annoying. Your dismissing of people much more educated and knowledgeable than yourself is insufferably arrogant.
"I DO look forward to you asking an expert directly to see if he (it WILL be a he, won't it?) will have to say."
Look forward all you want. Your behavior has closed that door. I know that you get pissed when your actions have consequences, but too bad.
Besides why would I bother. You've already predetermined the answers, what's the point of going through the motions when you've already decided. Not only that, but the (false) conclusion you've jumped to seems to indicate some sexism on your part. But hey, if asking a guy (among others) automatically disqualifies their expert opinion, again why bother.
Your performative "Thank you" is too little to late.
What I think would happen is the following. I'd get multiple resources that could bear on the answer to your question.
Based on your regular and frequent dismissal of anyone who comes from a "conservative" background or worldview (your biased definition of conservative, not mine), and your reflexive dismissal of so much because you "read" something several decades ago and are certain that there is nothing new to be gleaned, the only logical conclusion I can draw is that your past has biased you against anyone that doesn't hold the same worldview you do.
Again, the performative, platitudes are too little too late.
The fact that you cannot or will not point to one, single, specific piece of work that has failed to answer your question, and your commitment to a subjective system or moral hunches (an unproven assumption), really is very suggestive of the amount of energy you've put into this theoretical search.
From now on, you search alone. I'm node answering the same questions over and over again, and I'm done providing you with material from those much more expert than you.
If it's so important to you, search for it yourself.
Maybe ask your groupie.
This is, of course, just factually incorrect. I can be swayed with data, with objective proof. Whoever it's from.
You shouldn't be angry at me that you can no more find objectively factual answers to my questions than I have, in my decades of research/looking.
And, of course, I'm not talking about what I read from the 60s to 1990. I'm talking about all the literature/articles I've read over nearly six decades.
And, dear man, I call you that respectfully and sincerely, assuming you are a fellow human, dear to our great God of Grace, just as I assume you are a brother, beloved by the same God who loves me.
I'm sorry that polite terms of endearment upset you so. That is not my intent... although, it does remind me of Brother Paul's admonishment to treat even our enemies with love and kindness... how it burns like a bucket of hot coals over their heads... to them. That's something to consider.
?
I JUST addressed your own first source and pointed out how he doesn't even claim to be trying to address my question with objective proof. Right?
And I'm certain I've done the same for years with you all when you all occasionally offer a link to try to answer my question/similar questions. I'm not about to go back and try to find those, though.
Regardless, the reality is that I HAVE for literally decades looked for objectively proven answers to questions like this and EVERY TIME, the person is making their reasoned case, but it is not objectively proven. Rather, it's more like, "Here's why I THINK it's the right answer..." An appeal to their own reasoning.
And this is not one or two articles. It's dozens or even hundreds of articles over certainly three if not four decades. I'm NOT leaning into what people were saying 40 years ago, no matter how many times you express that silly false claim.
And of course, it is fine that they're expressing their opinions about why they think their case is compelling. That's what I'm doing and have done with y'all for decades. The difference is that I'm not claiming to be able to objectively prove my opinion.
AND NEITHER IS your Dr Craig. There's a huge difference between saying, "Here's why I think the case is rationally and/or biblically compelling" and saying, "My answer is objectively proven to be factually correct."
Right?
But look, I can do it yet again. MORE people who offer their reasoned opinions in response to the question I'm asking (how can we objectively know our interpretation is factually correct?)... and NONE of them are saying they've proven it objectively. Not one.
John Piper, for instance, who offers what he thinks are rational biblical "keys" to help us have confidence in our biblical understanding. But he's not saying he's objectively right...
https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/can-i-really-trust-my-interpretation-of-the-bible
Or any of these guys. In case after case, they offer their opinions, but do not objectively prove it or even TRY to do so. Offering a reasoned case is not objective proof, right?
http://www.bibleanswers.ie/qa/298-is-it-possible-to-interpret-the-bible-objectively
https://ses.edu/what-is-objectivity/
https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/varying-interpretations-of-the-bible/
https://www.equip.org/articles/how-to-interpret-your-bible-correctly-part-2/
https://biologos.org/common-questions/how-should-we-interpret-the-bible
How many articles must I read and review for you to allow that, "Yes, Dan HAS read many people - people I trust as experts - on the topic..."?
Grace, friend.
By all means, provide one instance where "objective proof" from a "conservative" has swayed you to change a position.
I'm not angry at you at all. I'm frustrated and annoyed by your behavior. Nothing else but your behavior. I know that's hard to accept from one who considers himself a "good person" because of all of the "good works" he does, but I can only deal with the behavior and attitudes you display here.
What part of "STOP" with the "dear, brother" crap do you not understand. I don't need excuses, or bullshit, I need you to stop. Do you understand that simple request, or do I need to delete your posts until you do?
"And, of course, I'm not talking about what I read from the 60s to 1990. I'm talking about all the literature/articles I've read over nearly six decades."
Not one single title of this vast amount of reading can you recall or reference. I know you've come up with a random list of authors you claim to have read, but not once do I recall you referencing a single specific work.
As "nearly six decades" only goes back to the mid sixties, and the "60's to 1990" is included in that time frame, one wonders why the redundancy.
It's so refreshing to see you proof text to cover your condescension. Almost as good as you proof texting Jesus as your excuse for the vitriol you've directed at me over the years.
I'll try to speak clearly, as if to a child, and say stop with the "Dear, brother..." bullshit. Either you demonstrate some of the grace and respect your prate on about, or your comments will disappear until you figure it out.
That you're conceited enough to have convinced yourself that nothing new or different has been written by anyone remotely "conservative" since 1990 and to delude yourself into thinking that you know all, speaks volumes.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Same old shit. Maybe, just maybe, the problem is you.
By all means, misrepresent what I've said when I offered you some resources, if it makes you feel better.
Where, exactly have I claimed anything about anything I've offered as even insinuating "My answer is objectively proven to be factually correct."?
Given that you haven't "reviewed" any articles in any real sense, (cherry picking what you don't like without offering a counter isn't really a review), but whatever.
You've made it abundantly clear that continuing to accede to your demands for "answers" is a waste of my time, and lord knows I've already wasted plenty of time here.
I do have to give you credit though, you've managed to totally derail the actual point of the post into this self aggrandizing bullshit.
Craig...
"You've made it abundantly clear that continuing to accede to your demands for "answers" is a waste of my time, and lord knows I've already wasted plenty of time here.
I do have to give you credit though, you've managed to totally derail the actual point of the post into this self aggrandizing bullshit."
I know you probably don't see it, but the irony of you ending a post on Accuracy with multiple objectively false/inaccurate claims is at least a little funny. If sad.
1. I've made ZERO demands.
I've asked reasonable questions in a respectful way.
2. Giving reasoned, direct and accurate answers is never a waste of time if truth is your goal, as it is mine.
3. Asking rational questions and noting that they have not been answered is not self-aggrandizing, nor is noting the reality of having looked for these answers for decades.
Laugh at yourself sometimes, my man. It's good for your heart and soul.
1. If you say so.
Reasonable is a subjective term/measure, as long as you alone evaluate your questions, of course you'll find them subjectively reasonable.
2. This is absolutely hilarious coming from someone who's stock in trade is the indirect, misleading, vague, non specific answer.
3. You're both correct and wrong at the same time. Of course, I've not said that your "questions" are self aggrandizing, merely your repeated assertions and pride in the fact that you read something decades ago and have enough total recall too conclude that there's nothing new for you to learn since 1990.
I'd prefer to focus on YHWH, not myself. I don't reference everything through my hunches and feelings.
Again, excellent job of ignoring the topic of the post.
I've presented what I know is true many times. In a nutshell, what is "moral" is that which pleases God, and what is "immoral" is that which displeases God. Which is which is not at all hard to determine by even a cursory understanding of Scripture...given the understanding is of an honest person.
Art,
I want to start with a reset regarding the purpose of this post before Dan hijacked it. Dan's quote below is simply false, it's inaccurate, and if lying is immoral then it's immoral. The rest is just bullshit.
"I just have to ask questions that always - always - go unanswered and even unacknowledged."
I finally realized why these conversations are so difficult this morning.
It's that Dan has been quite clear the the most important thing in determining what he believes is Dan. He can call it his Reason, or opinion, or whatever but it boils down to what (as Dan has said many times) "sounds good to" him.
I believe that this phenomenon (grounding all truth) in oneself, explains why Dan passionately believes things which evidence simply doesn't support. Whether its "Islam is a peaceful, happy religion", "a pre-born human child isn't...", "that all gays just want a monogamous marriage", "that transing doesn't permanently harm children, or whatever the Global Warming hoax du jour is, the reality is that he cannot "prove" any of his beliefs to be True. Certainly not the the level he demands of us.
You'll note that is complaint (as someone who claims to be a christian) starts with his demand that Craig (in this case) "prove" the existence and "goodness" of YHWH, both of which he claims to believe to be True.
Finally, for someone who insists that there can be "multiple truths", it seems strange for him to get hung up on stuff like this.
Post a Comment