tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post8647720372632999821..comments2023-11-22T09:00:59.909-08:00Comments on Atheistwatch: What's Love got to do With it?Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-49441857546881407882009-04-04T13:19:00.000-07:002009-04-04T13:19:00.000-07:00se at this tells us more about you than it does ab...se at this tells us more about you than it does about atheists, I think...in my experience most atheists agree that ethics and morality are subjective; it's god-believers who insist in absolutes and make the claim, as you do here with your insistence on "oughts", that only a belief in God provides an objective, reliable grounding for ethical behaviour.<BR/><BR/><B>you and most atheists do a knee jerk reaction thing to over interpret what I'm saying because of you expect Christians to say.</B><BR/><BR/><BR/>"provides an objective, reliable grounding"<BR/><BR/>that's going further than I have gone. I don't believe in objectivity remember? so I don't talk about it. I don't say you can't ground your axioms as an atheist. I say your grounding is as firm as mine.<BR/><BR/><BR/>But in my experience there are as many kinds of god as there are believers in god(s), so I just don't see how this is any less subjective than human feelings, needs and behaviours.<BR/><BR/><B>you really need to learn that concept any asiety is all asiety. there is o such ting as "many kinds of gods" that concept doesn't even make sense.</B>Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6538255877506581515.post-56904215216329222252009-04-04T08:45:00.000-07:002009-04-04T08:45:00.000-07:00This is just a Saturday-morning-after-the-gig reac...This is just a Saturday-morning-after-the-gig reaction to your comments, not an attempt at a formal response, so please be patient if I ramble a bit...<BR/><BR/><B><I>'The dialogue partners with whom I have been confabulating, Hermit and Dave Ellis, are exceptional. Both have grounded their axioms in love. I find that unusual for atheists because most times when I have this discussion with atheists they avoid "the subjective.""</I></B><BR/><BR/>Your surprise at this tells us more about you than it does about atheists, I think...in my experience most atheists agree that ethics and morality are subjective; it's god-believers who insist in absolutes and make the claim, as you do here with your insistence on "oughts", that only a belief in God provides an objective, reliable grounding for ethical behaviour.<BR/><BR/>But in my experience there are as many kinds of god as there are believers in god(s), so I just don't see how this is any less subjective than human feelings, needs and behaviours.<BR/><BR/><B><I>"I still I think without a larger connection to love as the foundation of all things (ie from God) then they are just grounding axioms in personal tastes and they can't really arbitrate between other personal tastes that compete with their own."</I></B><BR/><BR/>I think it's better to have an honest recognition that love is not, in fact, the foundation of all things. Nature is neutral, nature does not love us, love is human thing and we have to make a choice to embrace love and compassion. We can of course choose to embrace some other grounding for our behaviour, and some choose narcissim, or nihilism, or hatred, but I'm not defending <I>their</I> ethics, I'm defending <I>mine.</I> And I think I can demonstrate pretty objectively that a compassionate morality based on human needs and human empathy and human love is less destructive and produces happier lives than selfishness or hatred. <BR/><BR/>You're saying that I can't make the case that any of this is enough for us to say that our morality is really better; that any other ethical choice is equally valid without God, but I disagree. Morality is always about making choices. You have chosen to value love in the form of a God the existence of which you freely admit you cannot empirically demonstrate. How is that more solid grounding for morality than my choice to value my own natural human empathy, compassion and love? <BR/><BR/>We would both like to persuade others that love is better than hate, but in the end all either of us can point to in the end is the result of those choices and hope that others will value those results as we do.<BR/><BR/>And I think this brings us to what I really object to in theistically grounded morality, which is the separation of human moral behaviour from humanity itself. If we make something other than humanity the ground of our ethics, whether it's some idea of God or political theory or economics, than humanity itself becomes less important and to some extent disposable.<BR/><BR/>The love of God can, and often has, been used as a justification for great cruelty toward humanity. If furthering the cause of God is the primary value than human suffering and human needs become secondary. Since I see morality as a uniquely human thing I can't agree that any morality which places humanity in an inferior position can ultimately be a superior form of morality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com