True Horizon

Comment by Koko

May 6, 2008 @ 10:54 pm

Bob - “Who determines which “evil” is greater or lesser? Who determines what is evil at all? The question is not about the degree of evil/suffering but about its existence and origin.”

Good questions Bob, we are getting to the reality of ethics/morals… RELATIVITY. Something that is bad or ‘evil’ for one being, can be good for another. “Who determine what is evil?” Beings themselves.

Bob - “The ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil’ presupposes the possibility of evil prior to the choice Adam and Eve were given.”

Then this may support your argument that evil was needed in order for there to be a choice.

Bob - “I would be interested in your explanation for the existence of evil in the absence of God. How do you explain it and what is your solution for eliminating it?”
This might put it into better perspective: Would there be ‘evil’ without people? If God was just by himself, would there be evil? Likely you would agree with me in saying, “No”

Would there be evil if there was no God? This particularly means, would there be choices against God if there was no God? Clearly we’d both agree No.

My point is that we are talking about choice. Evil doesn’t exist in and of itself. It is not some cloud-like gas floating out in the universe. Evil is determined by the individual being. What hurts mankind must be ‘evil’, in terms of mankind.

So to get back to your excellent questions; “How do you explain [evil without God]?” Simple, there is no evil toward God if there is no God. But there is certainly evil, harm and suffering of humanity, who actually exist.

Bob - “What is your solution for eliminating it?”
Suffering, evil, and ‘bad things’ can NEVER be eliminated. It is silly and impossible to think that they could. Is it evil when a wolf attacks and kills a lamb? In terms of the lamb, Yes. In terms of the wolf; lack of food to eat is evil and bad. Does this shed a little light on where I’m coming from?

-Koko

Comment by Bob

May 7, 2008 @ 12:29 pm

For those who may be wondering where we’re coming from here, this comment dialogue started over at “Pereginations,” (http://antiochapologetics.blogspot.com/2008/04/faith-effects-of-911.html)

Rick Gerhardt’s blog on his post that referenced my post (above). You can catch up if you want by going there. In a nutshell, “koko” has challenged me on the problem of evil and a good God. Koko thinks any God who would allow evil is a “malevolent monster.”

Here’s the latest …

“Good questions Bob, we are getting to the reality of ethics/morals: RELATIVITY. Something that is bad or “€˜evil”€™ for one being, can be good for another. ‘€œWho determine what is evil?’ Beings themselves.”

koko,
First, “Relativity” is a physics term referring to Einstein’s General or Special theories. “Relativism” is quite a different thing. I don’t say this to be condescending but many people believe these are synonymous and that we are therefore free to say “everything’s relative”! But nothing could be further from the truth.

The concept of light’s velocity being constant regardless of the frame of reference from which it is measured has no similarity to the claim you have made here: That moral questions are only decided by “being’s themselves.” That claim is a relativism claim and all claims to relativism are self-defeating and incoherent.

In saying what you said, we have no way to differentiate the morality of anyone else’s action. You have no right to judge Hitler as being a monster and, in your specific case, no framework to label God as a “malevolent monster.” Both God and Hitler just do what they do because, to quote YOU again, “Something that is bad or ‘evil’€™ for one being, can be good for another.”

I don’t think so.

The very fact that you want to make moral judgments about anything presupposes the existence of a morally absolute standard of good by which you judge which is “better” or “worse.”

If your aim is to reject the existence of absolute good I don’t think you want to go there.

You also said, “My point is that we are talking about choice. Evil doesn’t exist in and of itself. It is not some cloud-like gas floating out in the universe. Evil is determined by the individual being. What hurts mankind must be ‘evil’, in terms of mankind.”

You are correct in saying that “evil doesn’t exist in and of itself.” Thanks for proving the point I made earlier. Evil is the privation of good. You can’t define evil unless you first define good. That’s my whole point. God did not “create” evil. He created a world in which the POSSIBILITY of evil exists because, by human free will, we chose to violate God’s goodness.

Comment by Koko

May 7, 2008 @ 4:22 pm

Bob – “Relativism is… everything is relative. But nothing could be further from the truth.”

Bob – “That moral questions are only decided by “being’s themselves.” That claim is a relativism claim and all claims to relativism are self-defeating and incoherent.”

Or perhaps the claim is coherent and relates directly to the conversation we are having.

Bob – “In saying what you said, we have no way to differentiate the morality of anyone else’s action. You have no right to judge Hitler as being a monster and, in your specific case, no framework to label God as a “malevolent monster.” Both God and Hitler just do what they do because, to quote YOU again, “Something that is bad or ‘evil’ for one being, can be good for another.”

Did you seriously pull Hitler out? (Koko rolls eyes)

Actually, according to my system of morals, the genocide of thousands of Jews is something a monster would do. I think others might have similar moral understandings of the world. God and Hitler were both genocidal maniacs in their exterminating Jews, and other peoples. God killed many more than Hitler. You can read about it in a collection of mythical books called the bible.

How Many God Has Killed

Bob – “The very fact that you want to make moral judgments about anything presupposes the existence of a morally absolute standard”

How is that? Bob, I didn’t say morals don’t exist. I said they are relative. I can make any moral judgment I please. There is no absolute moral standard for relative beings. As I said earlier, I have moral/ethical beliefs. God and Hitler both satisfy my understanding or definition of bloodthirsty tyrants.

Bob – “If your aim is to reject the existence of absolute good I don’t think you want to go there.”

What is absolute good? Is absolute good positive for every form of life? Or are you talking about absolute good… RELATIVE to humanity?

Bob – “Evil is the privation of good.”

Just the same, you could say, “Good is the privation of evil”. Same thing.

Bob – “You can’t define evil unless you first define good.”

If you really think about it… when you define one, you are defining the other. I could define something that hurts a person as ‘evil’. It goes without saying that there could be the opposite of hurt. We would call that ‘good’.

Bob – “That’s my whole point.”

I thought your ‘whole point’ was going to be demonstrating that morals/ethics are absolute. So far, you have said nothing in this regard. You have simply blindly asserted it. And asserting something, no matter how much you passionately insist on it, does not make it true.

Bob – “God did not “create” evil.”

There is something God didn’t create? I thought he created everything!? You’re saying there was something outside God that came into being without God’s power or knowledge? Did God know it was going to ’spring up’ without him creating it?

Bob – “He created a world in which the POSSIBILITY of evil exists because, by human free will, we chose to violate God’s goodness.”

Bob, we’re not children here. An all-knowing, all-powerful God creating a world with the ‘possibility’ for evil… is the same thing as creating evil itself. I can understand if you reject this reality. It contradicts your belief that God is all-good. Yet the concept of God and all-good (even before you link them together) are both ‘incoherent’ ideas.

-Koko

Comment by Koko

May 7, 2008 @ 4:24 pm

The link didn’t seem to work:

How Many Has God Killed?

http://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2006/08/how-many-has-god-killed.html

Comment by Bob

May 8, 2008 @ 12:36 pm

koko,

You said: “Actually, according to my system of morals, the genocide of thousands of Jews is something a monster would do. I think others might have similar moral understandings of the world. God and Hitler were both genocidal maniacs in their exterminating Jews, and other peoples. God killed many more than Hitler. You can read about it in a collection of mythical books called the bible.”

You can “roll your eyes” all you want, but this makes my point. The key phrase you used is this: “in MY set of morals.” Correct. If you want to define your own set of morals you have to allow everyone else to do the same. In that case (as I’ve already said at least 3 times) Hitler created his own set of morals and you have no basis to judge them. His “set of morals” is just as legitimate as “your set of morals.” Under your understanding the ONLY way to decide whose morals are “better” is by force. “Might makes right.” That is what your view leads to — sorry but if you can’t see that simple logic, I don’t know what else to say to you.

As for “how many God has killed,” let’s just say the numbers stated on the link you gave are correct. I don’t know but I’ll give you that. The total given is roughly 2.4 million — over a period of several thousand years.

In the last 100 years, the atheistic system you want us to embrace for our “morality” has killed 50 times that — roughly 100,000,000 people — in a small fraction of the time.

http://truehorizon.org/2008/02/16/naturalisms-worldly-end/

I don’t think it is in your interest to argue body counts.

Comment by Bob

May 8, 2008 @ 2:49 pm

There is something God didn’t create? I thought he created everything!? You’re saying there was something outside God that came into being without God’s power or knowledge? Did God know it was going to ’spring up’ without him creating it? … we’re not children here. An all-knowing, all-powerful God creating a world with the ‘possibility’ for evil… is the same thing as creating evil itself.

OK, for the (4th?) time, you fail to see the difference between creating a thing and allowing the possibility that it could be chosen. Once again, it was humanity that, through free will, brought evil to be manifested in the world. You apparently don’t see that difference. So let’s try this: If I (for the sake of argument) allow that God “created” evil, what does that get you? Why does that matter? How does that argue against anything I pointed out in my original post? Just curious …

“… It contradicts your belief that God is all-good. Yet the concept of God and all-good (even before you link them together) are both ‘incoherent’ ideas.”

I never said that God was “all good.” I said that all good derives FROM God. This is a distinction you fail to grasp. God is not JUST good. He is also omnipotent, omniscient, all-just etc …

Comment by Bob

May 8, 2008 @ 2:53 pm

koko asked: “What is absolute good? Is absolute good positive for every form of life? Or are you talking about absolute good… RELATIVE to humanity?”

This is the point koko! You want to say “your” morality is sufficient to determine what is good and bad. If someone else (Hitler?) claims “their” morality is sufficient, how do we decide which standard is the correct one? Please answer that question.

When you do, no matter how hard you try to avoid it, you will be using a THIRD standard to decide. That standard is the absolute standard I am referring to. And that is why moral relativism is self-defeating no matter how you try to justify it.

Comment by Koko

May 8, 2008 @ 5:46 pm

Bob – “His [Hitler’s] “set of morals” is just as legitimate as “your set of morals.””
No, his violates human rights that our secular government has established. God also would be given life in prison or even the death sentence in most states for his atrocities. Hitler’s and God’s set of morals are not ‘legitimate’ morals when compared to the moral standards of our modern secular society.
Bob – “”how many God has killed,” let’s just say the numbers stated on the link you gave are correct. The total given is roughly 2.4 million. In the last 100 years, the atheistic system you want us to embrace for our “morality” has killed 50 times that — roughly 100,000,000 people — in a small fraction of the time.”
1) MOST IMOPRTANT POINT: It is impossible to kill for a lack of belief. You can kill people for a reason, for a belief (perhaps that your Christian Nazi Arian Nation is better than other races, is threatened by others, for example) but you cannot kill for a NON-reason or NONBELIEF. That doesn’t make any sense.
2) Please give the slightest bit of evidence of your sweeping generalizations. Define an ‘atheistic’ system (I didn’t know there was an adjective for ‘lack of beliefness’). It appears from your link that you are simply lumping all genocides in one and calling them ‘naturalistic, atheist worldview’ systems. This is a very typical mistake made by theists that we see everyday. I completely understand where you are coming from. Most people do not know what atheism is and make this mistake.
Atheism is LACK OF belief in theism. By default, people have a lack of belief in the infinite number of concepts that could be made. For example, you are an atheist with respect to Poseidon or Zeus right? You dismiss Trolls, Ferries, Unicorns, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, right? You dismiss them or have lack of belief in them, right? You probably had not ever heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster before. Naturally, if you hadn’t even heard of him, we couldn’t say that you believed in the concept, right? You, by default, have a LACK OF belief in the FSM. THIS IS ATHEISM!
Can you act on your DISBELIEF in Poseidon? Of course not! You could take action on the BELIEF that those that believe in Poseidon are a threat and should be killed. But do you see that THAT is your belief that you are acting on; that Poseidonites are a threat to you. You are not acting on you LACK OF belief in Poseidon. Do you see how this is impossible?
One can kill in the name of God. On the other side, one can kill in the name of the belief that believers in God are a threat. But one cannot kill in the name of NONBELIEF. Please attempt to give an example of someone killing for a LACK OF belief. You will not be able to. Any example you give, I will point out the belief or REASON for killing. You can’t kill for a non-reason.
Bob – “I don’t think it is in your interest to argue body counts.”
Actually, there are innumerable examples of people killing in the name of God (9/11 being a recent example). There are innumerable examples of people killing in the name of the belief in racial, political, in-group, economic, superiority or inferiority. But there is not one example of someone killing in the name of LACK OF a belief. This is impossible.

-Koko

Comment by Koko

May 8, 2008 @ 5:58 pm

Bob – “You want to say “your” morality is sufficient to determine what is good and bad. If someone else (Hitler?) claims “their” morality is sufficient, how do we decide which standard is the correct one? Please answer that question.

When you do, no matter how hard you try to avoid it, you will be using a THIRD standard to decide. That standard is the absolute standard I am referring to. And that is why moral relativism is self-defeating no matter how you try to justify it.”

Like a child look for the black and white answer… “Which one is the correct one?” Bob, as adults we evaluate with reason and understanding. Who’s interest are we talking about here? If we are talking about basic human rights, it doesn’t matter that Hitler held the belief that the Christian Arian Nation was supreme. He is violating human rights in exterminating others.

I am not referring to an absolute standard. I am referring to laws made by a secular government. But laws are constantly being changed. There is no ONE RULE for all situations. Every situation has an innumerable number of differences, different people, different motives, different outcomes, etc.

Language itself is another great example of this core understanding of relativism. Words themselves don’t exist like a ‘could of gas’ out in the universe. Words only have meaning when conscious beings give them meaning and use them. When I say a word or phrase to you, there is no way that you can know exactly what I’m thinking and feeling about those words because I am me and you are you. We both have our own RELATIVE perspectives and understandings of everything.

Comment by Koko

May 8, 2008 @ 5:59 pm

I meant to write, “Like a child lookING for the black and white answer…”

Comment by Koko

May 8, 2008 @ 6:01 pm

I mean to say, “Words don’t exist like “CLOUDS of gas”"

I wish there was a way to edit posts.

Comment by Bob

May 8, 2008 @ 7:04 pm

koko,
The assertions you make above are simply absurd. You actually don’t even have a basic understanding of what atheism actually is. Atheism is not a “lack of belief” as you claim.

Atheism is, by definition, a specific belief in the non-existence of God — a positive claim that God does not in fact exist.

You may not like that definition but I didn’t make it up. That’s what it is.

And yes, that belief does lead to several things, among them a lack of grounding for morality (as you repeatedly demonstrate in textbook fashion), and a naturalistic view of how EVERYTHING, including your consciousness, came into existence. Because it is naturalistic it is also, by definition, deterministic. Free will cannot exist and the actions of every one of us is just the result of atoms bumping into one another.

From this fact it follows that statements like this one: “I am not referring to an absolute standard. I am referring to laws made by a secular government. But laws are constantly being changed. There is no ONE RULE for all situations. Every situation has an innumerable number of differences, different people, different motives, different outcomes, etc.” are absurd.

On your view, if a secular government made a law that said gorilla lovers and/or atheists should be executed, you would have no recourse but to submit to that law. None. Unless you want to legislate morality or some quaint idea like that. If you disagree you could move to another society I suppose, but would that action then make it morally acceptable to execute gorilla lovers and/or atheists in the country you vacated?

Do you realize that you just said we should, and do, legislate morality?

Whose morality should we legislate and what gives you a greater right to choose that morality than me?

Comment by Bob

May 8, 2008 @ 7:10 pm

koko says:

“… it doesn’t matter that Hitler held the belief that the Christian Arian Nation was supreme.”

It doesn’t matter? Please explain.

“He is violating human rights in exterminating others.”

So what? That was his “secular government’s” morality and therefore, on your view, it is legitimate.

Who decides what “basic human rights” are?

Comment by Koko

May 8, 2008 @ 8:46 pm

I have seen the things you wrote many times before. I thought you might have different views, but I was wrong. It feels strange to hear the same things, almost the same words, coming from typical American Christians who consider themselves apologetics buffs.

= = = = = MAJOR POINT = = = =
Bob - “a belief in the non-existence of God”. Is non-existence a state of an existent God Bob? Please dwell on that last question for a little while.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Bob - “You may not like that definition but I didn’t make it up. That’s what it is.” According to whom Bob? Not the dictionary. But even if you had written a dictionary definition (”DISBELIEF in the existence of God or gods”) why would that particular dictionary be the absolute source? Tell me, where can I find an absolute source of a definition of a word?

It is like I said regarding WORDS. Everything, including language and morals, is OBSERVER RELATIVE. It requires two different observers that, in their very existence as two different observers, cause relations between them to be relative to one another.

Bob - “[violating human rights] So what? That was his “secular government’s” morality and therefore, on your view, it is legitimate.”
Spoken in true absolutist fashion. What’s with you and establishing legitimacy and absolutes? It seems your worldview will crumble unless, like a stubborn child, you establish a worldview of black and white, or absolutes. You want to have a packaged world. You place the supernatural at the end of questions you don’t have answers to.

Bob - “Who decides what basic human rights are?”
Humans.

Then again, maybe it would be better if gorillas decided what basic human rights are. Better for the gorillas at least.

Comment by Bob

May 9, 2008 @ 1:54 am

koko,

This is your OPINION: “It is like I said regarding WORDS. Everything, including language and morals, is OBSERVER RELATIVE. It requires two different observers that, in their very existence as two different observers, cause relations between them to be relative to one another.”

This is a simple assertion on your part for which you have offered no proof. I disagree with it. So your next comment is interesting to analyze:

“It is like I said regarding WORDS. Everything, including language and morals, is OBSERVER RELATIVE. It requires two different observers that, in their very existence as two different observers, cause relations between them to be relative to one another.”

So koko, you say everything is “observer relative.” I say everything is NOT “observer relative.” You, therefore, think I am WRONG in holding my view. In fact, you label me “absolutist” for holding it.

My question for you is this (please answer this one): Why do you insist that your view is correct?

To do so (and therefore demand that my view is incorrect) sure sounds absolutist to me. You are practicing the same absolutist idea that you berate me for practicing. Interesting isn’t it?

Comment by Bob

May 9, 2008 @ 1:59 am

“Bob asked - “Who decides what basic human rights are?” and koko answered: “Humans … Then again, maybe it would be better if gorillas decided what basic human rights are. Better for the gorillas at least.”

Two points:
1) You say that humans decide what basic human rights are. I am a human. Why is your view allowable while mine is not.

2) Do you HONESTLY think we would be better off if gorillas decided what basic human rights are — because that’s what you said. To follow on that, you say that basic human rights would be better for the gorillas if decided by them. But how would gorillas be affected by HUMAN rights?

Just pointing out the nonsensical positions you are forced to defend when you’re a relativist.

Comment by Bob

May 9, 2008 @ 2:26 pm

koko said: “I have seen the things you wrote many times before. I thought you might have different views, but I was wrong. It feels strange to hear the same things, almost the same words, coming from typical American Christians who consider themselves apologetics buffs.”

koko, I’m not sure where/what you have seen me write but I don’t know why you think the answers I give or the ideas I hold to would be different than others who claim to adhere to the same view of the world. Yes, we disagree about specific issues, but there can only be so many answers to the big questions in life.

This is where I think you and I differ. I think the theistic view (specifically the Christian view) of the world makes the most sense about the way the world actually is. Because of that, I think the answers derived from that view are actually TRUE. And that is the reason you consider me to be “absolutist.” But the problem with your relativistic view is that you have to do one of two things:

1) You have to either hold that different, conflicting views about things are both simultaneously true (an impossibility) or …

2) You have to claim that your view — the relativistic view — is actually the only true view.

The first is illogical. The second proves that relativism is false because it asserts that an “absolutist” claim (yours) is true — a claim that the very relativism you promote does not allow!

This is why I say your relativism is self-defeating. And I honestly feel bad for your trying to defend such a view because it is impossible to do. This is frustrating for me to engage but it has to be more frustrating for you to attempt to defend. Most philosophers have actually given up trying to defend the indefensible. I hope you will see why you need to do the same.

Comment by Koko

May 9, 2008 @ 11:31 pm

I was going to specifically address different things you said, but I’m just not bothered. It is interesting to see the aggression in your tone increase as the dialog has grown.

Bob - “This is frustrating for me to engage but it has to be more frustrating for you to attempt to defend.”

I asked you to give me an example of a WORD that has absolute same meaning to all. You won’t be able to. On the morality side, give one rule or law of morality that is ABSOLUTE for all situations and between all people. You won’t be able to. You know why? Because there are no absolutes when it comes to things requiring relationships.

Communication/language does not exist without two beings to communicate. Morals don’t exist without at least 2 beings to interact. This is why I said earlier that if God was by himself, would there be human morals? Of course not, there would be no humans to be moral. If there was one single human on the planet, would there be human morality? Of course not! But once there is two, they can communicate and they can interact causing harm and good to each other, thus communication and behavior develops. Observer relative phenomena occur because there are observers.

It is quite humors and we should laugh at ourselves about this: You are insisting on absolutes but have the preexisting assumption of absolutes in doing so. I am insisting on the relative and assuming that absolutes cannot be established.

I suppose that I can have an easy time always showing how things are relative. You, on the other hand, cannot demonstrate something that is RELATIVE to be ABSOLUTE. In other words demonstrate something that requires 2 or more sentient beings (RELATIVE) such as language, communication, morals, or ethics, to be ABSOLUTE. The challenge is up to you my aviator friend. Please demonstrate an absolute word or moral.

Comment by Bob

May 10, 2008 @ 1:37 am

koko said: “I was going to specifically address different things you said, but I’m just not bothered. It is interesting to see the aggression in your tone increase as the dialog has grown.”

The aggression in my tone? This is why email/writing comments is difficult. There is not any aggression in my tone and I am honestly sorry if you seem to perceive it. I think you are inferring aggression because it is frustrating to not be able to give a coherent answer to defend relativism. I tried to demonstrate that fact by making this simple observation and asking a question regarding it …

“So koko, you say everything is “observer relative.” I say everything is NOT “observer relative.” You, therefore, think I am WRONG in holding my view. In fact, you label me “absolutist” for holding it.

My question for you is this (please answer this one): Why do you insist that your view is correct?”

I would love to hear your answer to this.

—————-

“The challenge is up to you my aviator friend. Please demonstrate an absolute word or moral.”

OK, I will demonstrate it with your own words …

You believe that relativism allows each of us to decide what is correct. You hold this view (that relativism is correct) believing that I am WRONG for denying it. You, therefore, are insisting that your view is ABSOLUTELY correct in comparison to mine. When you say:

“I am insisting on the relative and assuming that absolutes cannot be established.”

… note that you are INSISTING! In other words, you are making an absolute statement about the fact that relativism ABSOLUTELY has to be true.

So you really aren’t a relativist after all … You are proving my point.

Comment by Koko

May 10, 2008 @ 11:09 pm

Bob, can’t you see that you are presupposing absolutism? You can’t determine that because one can insist on absolutes, therefore that makes absolutes true. This is begging the question. You cannot contain your CONCLUSION as one of your PREMISES. This is a formal fallacy of logic.

Absolutes exist, but there ARE things that are relative: Things like communication, ethics, and values. If you disagree, then please demonstrate how any one of the three is not RELATIVE.

“Why do I insist there are things that are relative?” Because some things in their very nature require two parties to exist. It is ABSOLUTELY true that there is no communication if there aren’t at least two beings to communicate, right? You are incorrectly thinking that I am saying there are no absolutes. This is not what I am saying. You’re getting off track. Please stay right on track and demonstrate that the things I am stating are RELATIVE (such as ethics, language, and values) are ABSOLUTE. This is our argument.

I can demonstrate things that are RELATIVE. I can give examples of concepts that are ABSOLUTE as well. Perhaps to get us back on track; Do you believe there is ANYTHING that is RELATIVE? Once we are both agreeing that there are things that are ABSOLUTE and things that are RELATIVE, we can look at the things I’m insisting are relative and how you propose to demonstrate that they are absolute.

Comment by Koko

May 10, 2008 @ 11:27 pm

Here’s a brief example of the difference between absolutes and relatives:

ABSOLUTES
Maths is an easy way to demonstrate this. The example of 2+2=4. 2+2 will ALWAYS ABSOLUTELY be 4. Even if there was no life at all (just empty planets floating around) 2 planets + 2 planets will equal 4 planets ALWAYS. Math doesn’t require participants to exist. It simply is.

RELATIVES
Language is my simplest example of relatives. Would human words exist without humans? No! Words don’t exist in and of themselves. They are tools used and created to communicate. The word LOVE is an excellent example. The word no only has different meanings to different people, but it has many different meanings to one person (depending on how it is used). We use words to describe other words, but there is no underlying absolute behind words. They are created and die with use by people. There is no single definition of any one word. Language arises from the interaction of two sentient beings. There is nothing ‘holding it together’ you might say other than those communicating. When they are gone, communication between them is gone. It does not exist in and of it self. Heck, do you realize that if language didn’t rely on us but instead existed without us as an ABSOLUTE, how could we disagree? If we meant the exact absolute same thing in each word we used, how could we disagree (as we obviously been doing)?

Comment by Bob

May 11, 2008 @ 1:29 am

koko,

I am heading out of town for 6 days early tomorrow morning. I sometimes do not have access to the internet for long stretches of time. If my responses are lacking (or slow) it is not because I am ignoring you. I WILL address your questions directly but, in the meantime, please answer this simple question …

Do you think I am wrong to say that relativism is false?

Comment by Koko

May 11, 2008 @ 5:34 pm

Have a great trip Mr. Bob.

“Do you think I am wrong to say that relativism is false?”

If you are saying that there is nothing that is relative, I clearly disagree. I have demonstrated that there are things that are OBSERVER INDEPENDENT (Math) and things that are OBSERVER DEPENDENT (language, ethics, valuation). Not everything is ABSOLUTE and not everything is RELATIVE. Are you polarizing one and saying there is nothing relative?

-Koko

Comment by Bob

May 11, 2008 @ 9:11 pm

koko,
Thanks for wishing me a good trip … I was beginning to think you didn’t like me

I wasn’t “saying” anything. I was asking a simple question — which you successfully avoided answering. I just want to know if you think my position is wrong. Will you answer?

I agree (tada!) that there are some things that are “relative” (to use your term). I even agree that words like “love” can be categorized as such — defined by different humans to mean different things. For instance, you demand that if there is a God, that God must be “all loving.” You reject the God I describe because he doesn’t fit your conception. My view is that God IS all-loving in a different (relative?) sense than you mean it. You define an all-loving God as a God who does/stands for things that you find agreeable. I define all-loving in a different way.

I love my kids but I punish them when the break the rules — so punishment is included in my definition of love. I bet you agree with that as defining a loving human parent. So I wonder why you don’t accept that kind of love for the deity?

All that aside however, when you say that values, language etc. are ALWAYS relativistic, you are incorrect. Words mean things. Truth cannot be relative.

In short, two different humans cannot not hold two contradictory propositions to be true at the same time. This is basic logic that you cannot avoid. One of us may be wrong — but both of us cannot be right (if our propositions contradict one another) about the same thing simultaneously. That’s what I mean by absolute truth. To deny that is just plain silliness.

Comment by Bob

May 11, 2008 @ 10:02 pm

BTW koko,
I am not “off track.” It just dawned on me (OK, I’m slow) that the problem with your argument(s) is that they are not arguments at all. Your insistence on my allowing for relativism is what is “off track” because you try to equate preference issues (which are OBVIOUSLY relative) with propositions. Propositions cannot be relative. They are either true or not true. It doesn’t matter what your point of view is on the issue.

Example: Any God who would allow the things you dislike about the Old Testament stories is a “malevolent monster” who could not possibly exist. In this case your dismissal of the existence of God is due to the kind of God you think he is.

You may not like me (or Hitler) but the fact that I am detestable has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REALITY OF MY EXISTENCE. The likability of my character is a preference that is relative. Whether I exist or not is a proposition that CANNOT be relative … i.e.: I either exist or do not exist but your liking me has nothing to do with it.

This also applies to morality. Yes, there are moral preferences — but the fact that we differ on what those preference are has nothing to do with whether morality exists as an absolute or not. The fact that we can debate the issue means there is a standard, external to each of us, that we are both comparing our preferences to.

Comment by Bob

May 11, 2008 @ 10:08 pm

The fact that you refuse to answer the question I have asked (”Am I wrong when I say that relativism is false?”) is a tacit admission that you realize your answer to the question will force you to admit that your doing so would be an absolute truth claim.

If you say I am wrong, you are admitting to an absolute truth claim about the proposition.

If you say I am not wrong, you are admitting that relativism is false.

Either way, relativism ends up being false.

Comment by Koko

May 13, 2008 @ 5:23 am

Bob – “I was asking a simple question — which you successfully avoided answering. I just want to know if you think my position is wrong. Will you answer?”
In order to answer, I would have to claim to know what your position is, and right now it is unclear to me. If you are saying that there is NOTHING that is relative, then I disagree. But further below you seem to state that there are things that are relative. So we agree. However, on the issue of ethics/morals you seem to be saying that it is not relative but instead there is some absolute standard. My response is that I disagree and would ask you to provide evidence of this supposed absolute standard.

Bob - “For instance, you demand that if there is a God, that God must be all loving.”
Actually, most Christians demand this. I don’t really care, it is simply one claim that I take issue with because it is meaningless to say God is all-loving. The concept of God has other problems even if we were to establish that God was not all loving.

“You reject the God I describe because he doesn’t fit your conception. My view is that God IS all-loving in a different (relative?) sense than you mean it.”
God, if he exists in not a RELATIVE concept. His existence must be absolute. It is not determined by what you or I think of him. God is ‘observer independent’ if he exists.

“I define all-loving in a different way.” Yes, demonstrating language and words are observer relative.

“when you say that values, language etc. are ALWAYS relativistic, you are incorrect.”
How so? How can something sometimes be relative and sometimes absolute? There are absolutes and there are relatives. Things do not change or become one or the other.

“Words mean things…” Relative to who is using them.

“Truth cannot be relative.” Do you mean reality cannot be relative? I don’t know if we want to get into defining Truth, a slippery relative slope indeed. There are many truths, but there is only one reality.

“In short, two different humans cannot not hold two contradictory propositions to be true at the same time.”
Case and point: A God that knowingly created everything, is all-powerful, yet has nothing to do with the existence of evil. It does not follow. If God created everything, then he has to do with everything.

“Propositions cannot be relative. They are either true or not true.”
Sure, Claims to reality are either true of false… BUT, words themselves are observer relative. If I made a proposition, “God exists”. This means a different thing to every person. So if the words I’m using to make a proposition are relative to what the words mean to you or me or anyone else, how can any REALITY ever be established simply by using words? The fact is that reality is what it is, regardless of the observer relative words we make up and use to describe reality.

“Whether I exist or not is a proposition that CANNOT be relative”
As I said, you’re using relative words to build a proposition. What do you mean by “I”? I would think you mean the physical body of a man called Bob. But you could mean your soul/ego and not your body. You could, and indeed do, have many different definitions of I or self.

“I either exist or do not exist but your liking me has nothing to do with it.”
I agree. But what if I like you in some ways yet don’t like you in others at the same time? Oh no! ; ) Regardless, you exist. But in what capacity? We have never met face to face. So far we only exist to each other on the computer.

“there are moral preferences” Yes relativism

“the fact that we differ on what those preference are…” means that morals are relative.

“morality exists as an absolute” Morality ABSOLUTELY exists and is RELATIVE. Without humans, human morality cannot exist. Without humans to have preferences, would it make sense to say that there are human preferences? No, there would be no humans to HAVE preferences.

“The fact that we can debate the issue means”… that words and morals are relative.

“Am I wrong when I say that relativism is false?”
With regard to what!? I’m not AVOIDING your damn question. I’m making you clarify the observer relative words you are using. When you say ‘relativism is false’ do you mean that nothing is relative? Because you have already admitted that THERE ARE THINGS that are relative.

“an absolute truth claim. If you say I am wrong, you are admitting to an absolute truth claim about the proposition. If you say I am not wrong, you are admitting that relativism is false. Either way, relativism ends up being false.”
Bob, you are regressing right back to the same nonsensical circular reasoning you started with. Have we gained no progress? I thought we had when you admitted that there are things that are relative. To say ‘relativism is false’ is meaningless. It is nonsensical. Does that mean NOTHING is relative? NO! You have said there are things that are relative. And again, I must remind you that THERE ARE ABSOLUTES. So if I am saying that there are absolutes (observer independents things) and there are relatives (observer dependent things) then where do I fall with your meaningless false dichotomy above?

The core disagreement with you and I is not RELATISM in general. You clearly agree to relativism with respect to language (you sighted the example of the definition of Love). Where you disagree is with MORAL RELATIVISM. You claim that morality is absolute and not relative. I claim that it is observer relative just like language, in which you and I have agreed, is relative. I ask you to demonstrate how morals are absolute. Please back up the claims you are insisting on with evidence. Give me an example of a MORAL ABSOLUTE.

Comment by Bob

May 14, 2008 @ 2:40 am

koko said: “Do you mean reality cannot be relative? I don’t know if we want to get into defining Truth, a slippery relative slope indeed. There are many truths, but there is only one reality.”

OK koko, this is bordering on ridiculous. We began this discussion concerning the morality of a God who is good but would allow evil to enter the world — in other words we were talking about the problem of evil (which I fully admitted is a PROBLEM) and a good God. I have tried to be open to your relativism claims by agreeing that some side issues may contain relative aspects when we consider them from different cultures and backgrounds but that is not the issue for me. In order to quit playing this silly game, I will say this as clearly as I can: TRUTH AND MORALITY CANNOT BE RELATIVE. Period. You can call truth “reality” if you want (seeing how words are always relative to you) but that doesn’t change the fact that truth is defined by propositions about the way the world really is — correspondence to reality if you want to call it that.

As for morality — just because we may disagree about specific examples of morality does NOT mean that an objective standard does not exist. We could disagree about the shape of the earth too, but that doesn’t mean the earth has no shape.

Slavery is wrong. Torturing babies for fun is wrong. Murder is wrong.

I don’t care what goofy “community” you want to try to use an example of differing morality, common human intuition disallows that any of these are morally acceptable. And I believe that is so because each of us were made in the image of the Creator whose character is the standard by which all truth and morality is measured. Is this clear enough for you?

I also find it comical that you accuse me of “circular reasoning” (a term which you obviously don’t understand) and then say things like this: “… you’re using relative words to build a proposition. What do you mean by “I”? I would think you mean the physical body of a man called Bob. But you could mean your soul/ego and not your body. You could, and indeed do, have many different definitions of I or self.”

C’mon. I don’t know if you’re just trying to be cute, or if you are deliberately trying to be contentious, but if you want to have a serious discussion about these topics, posing silly notions like what I mean by “I” is not helpful to the cause. It makes you look silly and you should stop it.

I apologize in advance if this sounds sarcastic. I suppose it is but it’s been a long day and to think you want to debate what “I” means just strikes me as a ridiculous waste of my time.

Comment by Bob

May 14, 2008 @ 3:16 am

Also, I went back to the (long lost) beginning of this discussion and found this gem: “You have to reject reason and reject ‘the way the world is’ in order to have your faith in an all-good God strengthened by such a horrific religious faith-based atrocity.”

“Faith flies in the face of reason.”

Before I try to explain why I completely disagree with your statements here, will you tell me WHY you think that “faith flies in the face of reason.”

I’d seriously like to know because I think your answer will prove that we have differing definitions of what “faith” actually is. And, just to promote geniality here, let me say that I completely disagree with what many Christians say about it too. You can read about what I detail here: http://truehorizon.org/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=102
(teaser )

Comment by Koko

May 14, 2008 @ 5:17 pm

Bob - “I will say this as clearly as I can: TRUTH AND MORALITY CANNOT BE RELATIVE. Period.”
There is your claim, let’s see your evidence…

Bob - “Slavery is wrong. Torturing babies for fun is wrong. Murder is wrong.”
Ladies and gentlemen!!! He finally did what I have been asking for days!!! Finally you have given some examples of your supposed ‘absolute morals’! Let’s see how absolute they really are:

SLAVERY:
How have you determined slavery wrong? Clearly NOT from the bible! Please visit the link to see some verses on what the bible teaches about slavery. http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm
Nowhere in the bible does it say slavery is wrong. So where did you get this notion? Could it be you have a system of morals OUTSIDE of God’s mandate!? ; ) I think so!

BABIES:
Where does the bible say that torturing babies is wrong?

Kids called Elisha names. He cursed them and God sent 2 bears to slaughter 42 kids. God likes killing babies. “And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them”. - II Kings 2:24
Every living thing on the earth was drowned [including pregnant women, and babies. - Genesis 7:23
Thus saith the LORD? Slay both man and woman, infant and suckling. - 1 Samuel 15:3
Joshua destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD commanded. - Joshua 10:40
The LORD delivered them before us; and we destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones. - Deuteronomy 2:33-34
Kill every male among the little ones. - Numbers 31:17
The wind of the LORD shall come up from the wilderness, and his spring shall become dry, and Samaria shall become desolate. They shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. - Hosea 13:15-16
With thee will I [the LORD] break in pieces the young man and the maid. - Jeremiah 51:22
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. - Psalm 137:9
“According to the Bible, God gave orders to kill children and to rip open the bodies of pregnant women. The pestilences were sent by God. The frightful famine, during which the dying child with pallid lips sucked the withered bosom of his dead mother, was sent by God. God drowned an entire world with the exception of eight persons. Imagine how such acts would have stained the reputation of the devil!”
- Robert G. Ingersoll

MURDER:
What is murder? Is capital punishment murder? Why not? It is premeditated ‘retribution’. Is that murder? Is all killing murder? Clearly you would say No. Is all murder wrong? Well, you’re going to have to describe every instance. If a suicide bomber is shot by a sniper saving the lives of 100s, is the sniper a murderer? What if I accidentally kill someone? What if I aimed to shoot a person with a gun, missed and the bullet went into barn, caused the animals to stampede, trample and kill the person I was trying to shoot in the first place? Is that murder? It was an accident and completely not my intention.

CONCLUSION:
Your three examples of absolute morals proved to be less than absolute and in fact relative.

Bob - “were made in the image of the Creator whose character is the standard by which all truth and morality is measured. Is this clear enough for you?”
No, what about babies? What about the mentally disabled? How can they be moral or immoral? Babies are in fact amoral.

“tell me WHY you think that faith flies in the face of reason.”
When reason runs out, faith takes over. You can reason your way to many conclusions. Faith is beyond reason or reasoned belief. There is no such thing as ‘reasoned faith’. There is reason up to a point and beyond that is faith. Oil and water my friend.

Comment by Koko

May 14, 2008 @ 5:29 pm

When we ask WHY something is wrong, to say, “God says so” does not answer WHY it is wrong. If a parent says to their child, “Don’t put your hand on the stove” and the child asks “Why”, if the parent responds “Because I say so”, does that answer the child’s question? NO! The answer to the child’s question is that they will burn their hand. That is the WHY. It is relative to the child and parent’s interests. Is the child in danger when the stove is disconnected and turned off? No, the situation changes doesn’t it. It is relative to the parent and their interests, and the child and their interests.

Comment by Bob

May 15, 2008 @ 3:11 am

koko,

If you go back through the comments we’ve been sharing you will find that I have never said that ANYTHING is wrong “because God says so.” In fact, you will also probably find that the ONLY person who insists on quoting, or referring to, the Bible … is YOU.

I would really appreciate it if you would refrain from addressing arguments I don’t make and then preening about how you’ve “defeated” them. I have never once claimed the Bible as my source for objective truth or morality. Not once.

This is the problem koko … you have heard lame arguments from other Christians and you want to attribute them to me. It is quite obvious in some of your posts that you haven’t actually read or carefully considered what I’ve said. You are responding to the usual things that come from people that you think are just like me. I’m not deluded enough to think that Bob Perry will convince you to change your mind but if you would like to discuss these topics, at least have the courtesy to think about my ACTUAL comments, not the ones you have heard from others.

You came to a blog that obviously stands for things with which you disagree and started offering comments. I didn’t make you do so, but that you did so tells me you either: 1) Came to taunt and disrupt or, 2) Came because you are really seeking answers to some of the things addressed here.

If you came for reason 1) you are wasting both our time.

If you came for reason 2) I just ask that you consider what I actually say. You can discard it if you want, but please don’t argue against what you’ve heard elsewhere.

Let me try to explain a couple things …

MURDER is the intentional, malicious and preplanned taking of innocent human life. I didn’t say killing was wrong, I said murder is wrong. You can make up all the goofy scenarios you want, but those aren’t murder.

SLAVERY is … slavery.

TORTURING babies is just exactly the sick thing it sounds like it would be. It has nothing to do with the moral state of the baby or its amorality.

There are no different views or interpretations of what these things are. To say there are is an evasion and intellectually dishonest.

Here’s where I think I differ from what others you’ve heard might have said. I DON’T NEED THE BIBLE TO ARGUE FOR OBJECTIVE TRUTH OR MORALITY.

That’s the whole point, koko. Objective truth and morality stand on their own because they are part of the fabric of our universe. We all know that each of these is wrong whether we accept the Bible or not. That’s why you believe each of these things is wrong just like I do …

… or would you like to offer a relativistic argument for why any of them may not be wrong?

The question is not about whether such things exist. They do. The question is how these kinds of things (goodness and badness, rightness and wrongness) could have originated. The naturalistic (atheistic) worldview has no hope of offering an explanation. Atoms bouncing off one another in a purposeless dance comprise a deterministic scenario that cannot in any way explain truth or morality. In an atheistic universe, there can be no such thing as good or bad, right or wrong. Things just are the way they are.

Comment by Koko

May 15, 2008 @ 6:45 pm

Bob – “MURDER is the intentional, malicious and preplanned taking of innocent human life.”
What makes it malicious? What is innocent human life? I thought we’re all guilty of sin. None of us are innocent, so what are you talking about? Your definition is not from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=murder How can it be different if it is universal?

Bob – “I didn’t say killing was wrong, I said murder is wrong. You can make up all the goofy scenarios you want, but those aren’t murder.”
You haven’t clearly defined murder Bob. You agreed that words (love is your example) are RELATIVE and have MANY meanings. Why is the word murder different? It isn’t a universal principle. Put a whole bunch of people in a room and have them define murder. You’ll find they all differ. They might even get into a fight about it.

Bob - “SLAVERY is … slavery.”
Ok, that says a lot (sarcastic). Bob, why is it wrong? What is your absolute basis?

Bob – “TORTURING babies”
Why is it wrong?

Bob – “There are no different views or interpretations of what these things are.”
What are you talking about!? Of course there are different views on these things. You haven’t clearly defined ‘these things’ at all.

Bob - “I DON’T NEED THE BIBLE TO ARGUE FOR OBJECTIVE TRUTH OR MORALITY.”
Oh dear. Bob, I was at least assuming that your ‘absolute standard’ existed in physical form. You’re telling me that you don’t believe the bible is the standard for morality? At least you could have fallen back on that in claiming that there are absolute morals. Now what do you have to demonstrate absolute morals with?

Bob – “Objective… morality stand on their own because they are part of the fabric of our universe.”
Can I see and touch them? Where do they exist? Would they exist if people didn’t exist? You keep insisting objective morals exist. Where are they? I’m saying the very notion or morals is a relative thing. Please describe how a moral can exist without the beings the ‘moral’ concerns.

Bob “That’s why you believe each of these things is wrong just like I do”
Wrong for who? It depends on the situation. What if the murder of someone meant that babies wouldn’t be tortured? (Lesser of two evils) Bottom line, there is nothing ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ in and of itself. There is nothing that is ALWAYS wrong or ALWAYS right RELATIVE to humans.

Bob - “a relativistic argument for why any of them may not be wrong?”
I’ll keep repeating myself. WRONG FOR WHO!? In what way wrong? To what degree wrong? WHY WRONG!?

Bob – “The question is how these kinds of things (goodness and badness, rightness and wrongness) could have originated. The naturalistic (atheistic) worldview has no hope of offering an explanation.’
WRONG, Morals are explained beautifully naturalistically. It makes complete sense that they developed. Humans have systems of morality and so do many other animals, including gorillas for example. Do you deny animals have morality? Do you deny that other animals think it moral to protect their young? Or not murder family members?

Bob – “In an atheistic universe, there can be no such thing as good or bad, right or wrong. Things just are the way they are.”
(Bob’s Nihilism rears its ugly head) I am not a Nihilist as you might be. I believe that THERE ARE MORALS and ETHICS and VALUES. They are relative to the beings that use them.

“atheistic” - There is that silly atheist adjective again. It seems like a funny word to invent. ‘Disbeliefness’ or ‘Lack-of-belief-ness’.

Bob, there are clearly are morals, rights, wrongs, etc in this universe. The fact is that they are relative to whatever being is developing them. The universe is not black and white, it is filled with colour.

If you don’t answer anything, please answer this directly: You have said that the bible is not the standard for absolute morality, then WHAT IS!? You can shout as passionately as you want that there is an absolute moral standard somewhere, but this does not conger it into existence. You have to present evidence as to your claim.

I’m claiming MORAL RELATIVISM. Morals absolutely exist, but they are relative to the beings creating them. You’re claiming there are universal morals that apply to all sentient beings. I just wish you’d provide the slightest bit of evidence.

Comment by Bob

May 15, 2008 @ 7:37 pm

koko asks the following:

“What makes it [murder] malicious? What is innocent human life? … You haven’t clearly defined murder Bob.”

Here’s more …

” … Bob, why is [slavery] wrong? What is your absolute basis?” and ” … Why is [torturing babies] wrong?”

Interesting questions, koko. These are the ridiculous ends you are forced to when you are a moral relativist. Those who may be interested in engaging in an exercise in futility can read my (Bob’s) posts (above) and decide which of us (Bob or koko) is serious about discussing these issues.

koko, my contention is that we don’t need a written standard to know these are wrong. If you honestly don’t see why any of these is wrong, I don’t know what else to say to you. You don’t need a Bible or me to explain to you why these things are wrong. And, no, your gorillas don’t have morality. If you think you see it in them it is only because you have read human traits into their actions because of your love and admiration for them.

The truth is that only a psychopath would require an explanation for the immorality of the actions I listed above — or someone who is engaging in sophistry as a pastime.

Maybe you could provide an argument as to how any of those things could possibly NOT be wrong. In the meantime, I will assume that your presence here is defined by the first option I gave you above: “1) … to taunt and disrupt” and, as I also said above, that is a waste of your time and mine — and my time is precious to me.

Thanks for your comments.

Comment by Koko

May 15, 2008 @ 9:08 pm

Our dialog:
Bob, “Morals are absolute”
Koko, “How so? Please demonstrate”
Bob, “Morals are absolute”
Koko, “How so? Please demonstrate”
Bob, “Morals are absolute”
Koko, “How so? Please demonstrate”
Bob, “Morals are absolute you psycho!”
Koko, “I’m not psycho. Please show me morals that are absolute. Please show me where you get them from.”
Bob, “I don’t get them from the bible”
Koko, “Where do you get absolute morals from?”

pause…

Bob, “Morals are absolute”

Comment by Koko

May 15, 2008 @ 9:09 pm

Bob - “If you honestly don’t see why any of these is wrong, I don’t know what else to say to you.”

That is not an argument. Why can’t you tell me why they are wrong? Why can’t you demonstrate your SOURCE of absolute objective morals when I am repeatedly begging you to? I require explanation!

Bob said, “only a psychopath would require an explanation”. So I’m a psychopath for asking you to explain yourself? Very nice Bob.

NO thanks for your comments. As they say, put up, or shut up. Put up some evidence as to absolute objective morality standards.

Comment by Bob

May 16, 2008 @ 2:47 am

“So I’m a psychopath for asking you to explain yourself? Very nice Bob.”

I do believe that the ultimate moral relativist icon is a psychopath — a person who has no basis to declare anything “wrong” and is therefore permitted to take moral relativism to its logical conclusion — a place where anything is permissible. That aside, I in no way meant to label koko a psychopath. Rather, my obvious insinuation was that she was “engaging in sophistry as a pastime.” I think this would be a fair reading of what I wrote to anyone who was honestly assessing my point.

I think it is appropriate to end this fruitless discussion here. As I do so, I seriously do not mean this as a personal affront to koko because I actually feel sorry for her being stuck in the worldview she has accepted as being (’relatively’ of course) true.

But I think the example she offers says more than I could ever say myself about the vacuousness of the moral relativism that has infected our culture. I have read extensively about moral relativism but never actually encountered a person who had bought so deeply into its tenets. It is interesting to see how far some will go to defend things that are so indefensible — frighteningly interesting.

I could not summarize the view any better than koko has with her rhetorical questions so I let them speak for themselves …

“Why is the intentional taking of innocent human life wrong?”

“Why is slavery wrong?”

“Why is torturing babies for fun wrong?”

Moral relativists want us to accept questions like these as constituting arguments against objective morality. All I can say about that is that I am glad I was not the baby of a person who thought that way.

For those who may actually be interested in answers to these kinds of questions, I invite you to order this DVD to hear Dr. Frank Turek address why you “can’t not know” about objective morality.

Cheers …