God and Morality

[Rivers]

I recently watched this interesting conversation/debate with two people whom I both admire.  Michael Shermer who is atheist and Dennis Prager who is  a theist.  The main topic of the discussion was the question of whether God is necessary for true morality to exist. The argues that you can't say that something like murder is wrong unless there's a God to declare it wrong.  The atheist argues that objective morality exists independent of a God.  I know I've recently brought up this topic but this video has me wondering whether Mormons actually are in agreement with the atheist on this subject.

 Shermer refers to God as an unnecessary middle man between us and morality. It got me thinking a out the Mormon view of God and why He is my important to us if not the ultimate source of goodness as Prager believes.

 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2017 by Rivers

[JLHPROF]

Well, without watching the video, I would say that both points are valid in Mormon doctrine.

True morality exists independent of God, but morality as known to man on earth requires a God to reveal it.  Otherwise any morality on earth is purely social norms.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, without watching the video, I would say that both points are valid in Mormon doctrine.

True morality exists independent of God, but morality as known to man on earth requires a God to reveal it.  Otherwise any morality on earth is purely social norms.

Yes, and those social norms may entail nearly anything;  For example, we honor ancient Athens as the fount of democracy, a place where great thinkers like Socrates had a powerful influence.  Yet half the population of Athens was slave, and all young men were introduced by adult male mentors to homosexual sex -- practiced by them for the remainder of their lives.  In ancient Mesoamerica, human sacrifice was a normal everyday need.  These were accepted social norms.  No one questioned them.  Who is to say what is moral and immoral?

[Pete Ahlstrom]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and those social norms may entail nearly anything;  For example, we honor ancient Athens as the fount of democracy, a place where great thinkers like Socrates had a powerful influence.  Yet half the population of Athens was slave, and all young men were introduced by adult male mentors to homosexual sex -- practiced by them for the remainder of their lives.  In ancient Mesoamerica, human sacrifice was a normal everyday need.  These were accepted social norms.  No one questioned them.  Who is to say what is moral and immoral?

Do you think belief in god is necessary for societies to avoid human sacrifice or is it possible for secular societies to avoid such nonsense without god?

[Kenngo1969]

I haven't yet watched the video (I cannot do so at work).  I will comment in more depth once I do so.  On an individual level, if, although you (this is a rhetorical "you," not any specific "you" ) do not believe in God, you are an honest, decent, upright, caring human being who is committed to caring for others, to doing unto them as you would have them do unto you, to loving your neighbor, to doing what you can to alleviate others' suffering, and to making life as good as you can make it for as many people within your sphere of influence for as long as you can before (from your perspective) succumbing to the void, more power to you: "Inasmuch as men [men of whatever religious persuasion, or even of no particular religious persuasion at all] do good, they shall in nowise lose their reward."

That said, I do find the notion of a consistent, coherent morality without some kind of a Divine Being (or at least, without one who is Particularly Enlightened) at its center hard to fathom. But, Vive la difference!

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Do you think belief in god is necessary for societies to avoid human sacrifice or is it possible for secular societies to avoid such nonsense without god?

God is required to label them as truly immoral.  Societies can choose of themselves to change their opinion and redefine their current taboo without God.

A quick google gives the difference:
Morality
- "1. a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society."
- "2. the extent to which an action is right or wrong."

Number one can be a system decided on by anyone, society, individual, whatever.  That doesn't require God.
Number two can be interpreted as an absolutely morality, and absolute right and wrong.  Only God can reveal that.
 

[Maidservant]

I think part of the problem with the debate as conventionally proposed is the use of the term 'morality'.  This is a term I have excised from my vocabulary and worldview as a category set null, except when needed to repeat and bridge such as in conversations like this.

Rather, I speak of harm and oppression.  And harmlessness and justice/freedom.  Or as the Book of Mormon presents it (2 Ne 2:27): liberty and life (versus captivity and death).  In my personal understanding, nothing is served by calling any of these deep realities, 'morality', and a great deal is detracted and distracted.

Also notice that when I speak of liberty and life (versus captivity and death), I am not particularly terming 'right and wrong' and 'good and bad'.  These things might correspond, but might not, and, again, in my understanding, it is best to keep to the language of liberty v. captivity and life v. harm (death).

So having said all this, my next question would be the need for a working definition of GOD for the purposes of those engaged in the debate.  Because depending on the outline of the term 'GOD', I could answer 'yes' or 'no' to the question.

But let me start here, keeping in mind that I am working with my personal GOD definition/s. 

NO, there is not a God needed to understand that, AS HUMAN BEINGS, we DO NOT WANT TO BE HARMED OR OPPRESSED. And therefore to live accordingly to this desire a la the Golden Rule. This is intrinsic to being human.  (Here, God would be defined as sectarian concepts of God including our LDS ideas [where they are ideas and concepts merely]).

However, in the end, I would say that YES, GOD IS LIFE AND LIBERTY.  That, to me, IS the only true God, and so if anyone would be living within life and liberty, I would (under my understanding and definitions) say that they are living IN GOD; while allowing, of course, that they might not be as fond of the term GOD (as it is, in the end, an English/Germanic/Norse syllable; we can stick any definition we want in it, and I get that many are traumatized by some of the definitions that have gone on in vogue).  To me, to be human is to be GOD; and to be GOD is to be human.  There's absolutely no difference to me; so in the end, again, I could say yes, or no, to the debate proposition; or just, yes, to all of it :D.

I would go further and say that human beings quite often cannot find their way out of oppression and harm and darkened minds and emotions, without an example, teacher, persuasion, relaxing from feeling threatened, and just good old-fashioned rescue from the general overwhelm of the world we are in.  We need a little light.  Where can we find that light?  Again, would that light be GOD?  Or can we just call it (human) love?  Or . . . could it be . . . the GOD is LOVE?  hmmmm.

Edited July 16, 2017 by Maidservant

[Honorentheos]

Thanks for sharing the video. It was an interesting discussion, not least of all for how well the participants remained amiable despite clear points in the conversation where I anticipated it may break down. Well done to all three.

My take is that religionists often think of morality as necessarily originating from some executive source, be it God or some other decision-making entity. If someone doesn't believe in God, they must provide a substitute executive entity that explains moral instincts and behaviors. Absent the evidence for this executive elsewhere it's viewed as requiring moral explanations to come from the executive in their belief system.

One of the arguments that Prager makes early is that one can't look to nature for find morality, otherwise all one finds is survival of the fittest which is not moral. Shermer responded that the differences between humans and what we observe in nature have explanatory power here; that the brain development of humans makes a meaningful difference as to why lions can't have a concept for murder as humans do.

I think Shermer right then should have made the more vital point, which is that human morality appears to have real biological value that helped GROUPS of humans compete in evolutionary ways such that GROUP success along with social norms overlap evolutionary selected instincts. Individuals within groups who have the genetic makeup to feel disgust or revulsion at the thought of killing another ingroup member also happen to have better ability to pass on their genes. Free riders and sociopaths may do well as individuals within these groups to a point, but too many in a group and the group as a whole becomes less able to compete against more cooperative groups. Shermer gets to this later but in another context.

IOW, there is competition at work both between individuals in groups and as groups with other groups.

Within this context, I think morality is best seen as a constantly changing function of group success. And it operates under the rules of gradualism where change isn't discrete between definite modes of moral thought, but moves from one position to the next gradually. An example of gradualism in biology might include the evolution of the eye where there were a progressive number of changes over time where progressive series of organisms developed cells that served increasingly eye-like functions until there become distinctly recognizable organs we might call an eye even though the eye didn't just happen all in one mutative change.

Not buying it? Take Mormonism's relationship to race as a moral issue. At some point the LDS history it was socially and morally inconsequential to hold the belief that people with different ancestry and skin color were divided from others by God in meaningful ways. This moral position was claimed to be given by God rather than mankind, and it as a group Mormons did not experience negative consequences for this moral position. But over time, and as other groups (the group of groups we may call Western Civilization) gradually changed the context of belief regarding this issue which began to see in it real harm being done to individuals. At points along the line, one found more and more members of the Church who came to believe that God would change the moral position - one they personally did not hold. And in 1978 the moral change was made official for the group. But there were who continued to hold that view. Some broke off into their own groups, or stopped self-identifying with the body of Mormonism centered in SLC. Others remained in the group but held internal feelings about it that the change was not a change in the moral position so much a change made for other reasons that made it more palatable for them.

IMO, morality does come from something other than the individual, society, or nature in a simplistic form. But my issue with the demand for the executive source is that it ignores how nature seems to really work. Be it creation, invention, moral and social norms, or what have you, nature seems to operate at a range of finite scales aggregated in ways that make the results appear to be by design. But they are better seen as what is achieving the results needed to maximize survival in the current context. As context/environment changes, so do organisms, moral and social norms and any number of things. All of which influences the context/environment.

Morality does, in that sense, require god. It requires something that transcends individuals or groups making top-down decisions. It doesn't demand there be an omnipotent executive and in that sense it does not require God with a capital "g".

Edited July 16, 2017 by Honorentheos

[Nofear]

There are many, many philosophical thoughts on ethics. Far beyond what a little 70min conversation could cover. I confess not being well versed at all in them. But two general ideas are here:

utilitarianism: good and moral is that which gives the most "utility", the trick is defining that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism)
deontoligical ethics: that which is good and moral is based on certain rules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics)

I believe God is basically utilitarian where utility is our eventual happiness. Those actions which create the most utility are moral. Though I quite suspect God has a much greater harm avoidance that strict utilitarianism would call for, but not absolute (e.g. Nephi and Laban). We mortals, on the other hand, must defer to  deontological ethic -- that which God requires is right (see Joseph Smith's quote). Our limited perspective makes it impossible for us to consistently see the bigger picture and hence we have some rules and guidance (e.g. commandments) that help bring about God's/our utility.

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Do you think belief in god is necessary for societies to avoid human sacrifice or is it possible for secular societies to avoid such nonsense without god?

Bertrand Russell owned up to the fact that there are no secular means to determining what is morally right or wrong.  But of course he didn't trust religion either.  The upshot is that ethical and moral issues are fully subjective.  Pure reason just won't get us there.  We are dependent upon the light of Christ and upon the Holy Spirit of truth in all such matters.

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, and those social norms may entail nearly anything;  For example, we honor ancient Athens as the fount of democracy, a place where great thinkers like Socrates had a powerful influence.  Yet half the population of Athens was slave, and all young men were introduced by adult male mentors to homosexual sex -- practiced by them for the remainder of their lives.  In ancient Mesoamerica, human sacrifice was a normal everyday need.  These were accepted social norms.  No one questioned them.  Who is to say what is moral and immoral?

And how well did those cultures survive?

Are either of those traditions still alive in any 1st world culture today?  Why would that be?

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Maidservant said:

I think part of the problem with the debate as conventionally proposed is the use of the term 'morality'.  This is a term I have excised from my vocabulary and worldview as a category set null, except when needed to repeat and bridge such as in conversations like this.

Rather, I speak of harm and oppression.  And harmlessness and justice/freedom.  Or as the Book of Mormon presents it (2 Ne 2:27): liberty and life (versus captivity and death).  In my personal understanding, nothing is served by calling any of these deep realities, 'morality', and a great deal is detracted and distracted.

Also notice that when I speak of liberty and life (versus captivity and death), I am not particularly terming 'right and wrong' and 'good and bad'.  These things might correspond, but might not, and, again, in my understanding, it is best to keep to the language of liberty v. captivity and life v. harm (death).

So having said all this, my next question would be the need for a working definition of GOD for the purposes of those engaged in the debate.  Because depending on the outline of the term 'GOD', I could answer 'yes' or 'no' to the question.

But let me start here, keeping in mind that I am working with my personal GOD definition/s. 

NO, there is not a God needed to understand that, AS HUMAN BEINGS, we DO NOT WANT TO BE HARMED OR OPPRESSED. And therefore to live accordingly to this desire a la the Golden Rule. This is intrinsic to being human.  (Here, God would be defined as sectarian concepts of God including our LDS ideas [where they are ideas and concepts merely]).

However, in the end, I would say that YES, GOD IS LIFE AND LIBERTY.  That, to me, IS the only true God, and so if anyone would be living within life and liberty, I would (under my understanding and definitions) say that they are living IN GOD; while allowing, of course, that they might not be as fond of the term GOD (as it is, in the end, an English/Germanic/Norse syllable; we can stick any definition we want in it, and I get that many are traumatized by some of the definitions that have gone on in vogue).  To me, to be human is to be GOD; and to be GOD is to be human.  There's absolutely no difference to me; so in the end, again, I could say yes, or no, to the debate proposition; or just, yes, to all of it :D.

I would go further and say that human beings quite often cannot find their way out of oppression and harm and darkened minds and emotions, without an example, teacher, persuasion, relaxing from feeling threatened, and just good old-fashioned rescue from the general overwhelm of the world we are in.  We need a little light.  Where can we find that light?  Again, would that light be GOD?  Or can we just call it (human) love?  Or . . . could it be . . . the GOD is LOVE?  hmmmm.

To me it's survival value

This is a first century document that never made the Scriptures, it's called the Didache.  http://www.thedidache.com/

Either you live the way of life and live, or the way of death and die.   Not too complicated.

Quote

1. There are two Ways, one of Life and one of Death, and there is a great difference between the two Ways. 
2. The way of life is this:" First, you shalt love the God who made thee, secondly, thy neighbor as thyself; and whatsoever thou wouldst not have done to thyself, do not thou to another." 
3. Now, the teaching of these words is this: "Bless those that curse you, and pray for your enemies, and fast for those that persecute you. For what credit is it to you if you love those that love you? Do not even the heathen do the same?" But, for your part, "love those that hate you," and you will have no enemy. 
4. "Abstain from carnal" and bodily "lusts." "If any man smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other cheek also," and thou wilt be perfect. "If any man impress thee to go with him one mile, go with him two. If any man take thy coat, give him thy shirt also. If any man will take from thee what is thine, refuse it not," not even if thou canst. 
5. Give to everyone that asks thee, and do not refuse, for the Father's will is that we give to all from the gifts we have received. Blessed is he that gives according to the mandate; for he is innocent; but he who receives it without need shall be tried as to why he took and for what, and being in prison he shall be examined as to his deeds, and "he shall not come out thence until he pay the last farthing." 
6. But concerning this it was also said, "Let thine alms sweat into thine hands until thou knowest to whom thou art giving."

People want to live peaceably and it just "so happens" that living the commandments lead to a more pleasant culture more conducive to making babies and living well.

Quote

V

 

1. But the Way of Death is this: First of all, it is wicked and full of cursing, murders, adulteries, lusts, fornications, thefts, idolatries, witchcrafts, charms, robberies, false witness, hypocrisies, a double heart, fraud, pride, malice, stubbornness, covetousness, foul speech, jealousy, impudence, haughtiness, boastfulness.  2. Persecutors of the good, haters of truth, lovers of lies, knowing not the reward of righteousness, not cleaving to the good nor to righteous judgment, spending wakeful nights not for good but for wickedness, from whom meekness and patience is far, lovers of vanity, following after reward, unmerciful to the poor, not working for him who is oppressed with toil, without knowledge of him who made them, murderers of children, corrupters of God's creatures, turning away the needy, oppressing the distressed, advocates of the rich, unjust judges of the poor, altogether sinful; may ye be delivered, my children, from all these.

V

 

1. See "that no one make thee to err" from this Way of the teaching, for he teaches thee without God.  2. For if thou canst bear the whole yoke of the Lord, thou wilt be perfect, but if thou canst not, do what thou canst.  3. And concerning food, bear what thou canst, but keep strictly from that which is offered to idols, for it is the worship of dead gods.

 

There is a reason Christianity evolved.

It's called Pragmatism.  Its morality works.

Oh and it's also God's way since He knows what works for humans to fill the measure of their creation and have joy therein 

How do you think we got the Council of the Gods?

And for the skeptics, just know that Art imitates life and life imitates Art

What is metaphor and what is "real" in this kind of question is pretty blurry.   So of course theism is compatible with atheism on this question.

Atheists are not dumb and also know what works.

Secularism today is more about poltiics and keeping church and state separate than it is about theism vs atheism.

This is a very important book:  https://www.amazon.com/dp/B006R8PH1G/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

 

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, Maidservant said:

I think part of the problem with the debate as conventionally proposed is the use of the term 'morality'.  This is a term I have excised from my vocabulary and worldview as a category set null, except when needed to repeat and bridge such as in conversations like this.

Rather, I speak of harm and oppression.  And harmlessness and justice/freedom.  Or as the Book of Mormon presents it (2 Ne 2:27): liberty and life (versus captivity and death).  In my personal understanding, nothing is served by calling any of these deep realities, 'morality', and a great deal is detracted and distracted.

Also notice that when I speak of liberty and life (versus captivity and death), I am not particularly terming 'right and wrong' and 'good and bad'.  These things might correspond, but might not, and, again, in my understanding, it is best to keep to the language of liberty v. captivity and life v. harm (death).

So having said all this, my next question would be the need for a working definition of GOD for the purposes of those engaged in the debate.  Because depending on the outline of the term 'GOD', I could answer 'yes' or 'no' to the question.

But let me start here, keeping in mind that I am working with my personal GOD definition/s. 

NO, there is not a God needed to understand that, AS HUMAN BEINGS, we DO NOT WANT TO BE HARMED OR OPPRESSED. And therefore to live accordingly to this desire a la the Golden Rule. This is intrinsic to being human.  (Here, God would be defined as sectarian concepts of God including our LDS ideas [where they are ideas and concepts merely]).

However, in the end, I would say that YES, GOD IS LIFE AND LIBERTY.  That, to me, IS the only true God, and so if anyone would be living within life and liberty, I would (under my understanding and definitions) say that they are living IN GOD; while allowing, of course, that they might not be as fond of the term GOD (as it is, in the end, an English/Germanic/Norse syllable; we can stick any definition we want in it, and I get that many are traumatized by some of the definitions that have gone on in vogue).  To me, to be human is to be GOD; and to be GOD is to be human.  There's absolutely no difference to me; so in the end, again, I could say yes, or no, to the debate proposition; or just, yes, to all of it :D.

I would go further and say that human beings quite often cannot find their way out of oppression and harm and darkened minds and emotions, without an example, teacher, persuasion, relaxing from feeling threatened, and just good old-fashioned rescue from the general overwhelm of the world we are in.  We need a little light.  Where can we find that light?  Again, would that light be GOD?  Or can we just call it (human) love?  Or . . . could it be . . . the GOD is LOVE?  hmmmm.

Easy

God is the Ideal Human.

Works for LDS, works for non-believers.  For non-believers the Ideal need not "exist" except as an Ideal

For us he is a literal exalted Human Being and we verify that in our hearts.  Non believers think we are going to our "unconscious" and getting verification from our own minds.

It's terminology mostly.

Art imitates life, life imitates art.  In complex, non-scientific systems the line between metaphor and "reality" is virtually non-existent

People die for "Freedom"

Do they really?  Does each death actually contribute in any meaningful way?  How many did we lose in Viet Nam for "freedom"?  Gosh it sure is great they are not communist- I mean what would have happened to this country if Viet Nam became communist?

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

There are many, many philosophical thoughts on ethics. Far beyond what a little 70min conversation could cover. I confess not being well versed at all in them. But two general ideas are here:

utilitarianism: good and moral is that which gives the most "utility", the trick is defining that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism)
deontoligical ethics: that which is good and moral is based on certain rules (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics)

I believe God is basically utilitarian where utility is our eventual happiness. Those actions which create the most utility are moral. Though I quite suspect God has a much greater harm avoidance that strict utilitarianism would call for, but not absolute (e.g. Nephi and Laban). We mortals, on the other hand, must defer to  deontological ethic -- that which God requires is right (see Joseph Smith's quote). Our limited perspective makes it impossible for us to consistently see the bigger picture and hence we have some rules and guidance (e.g. commandments) that help bring about God's/our utility.

Really close imo, see above

[Honorentheos]

Shermer makes a good point in the discussion that we can contrast Christianity's influence in the west where the Enlightenment came to influence and largely dominate with those areas in South and Central America where Catholicism has maintained a strong influence. One can't necessarily look to history for a cut-and-dry support or refutation of either position per se, but clearly the Enlightenment made the American experiment possible if the jurisprudence is strongly influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs. Regardless, change is the single constant. One can dig to find eternal moral bedrock and never stop digging if one constrains oneself to the facts rather than fanciful reimagining. In the west, reason has been in tension with religious tradition and I think Hume remains relevant in calling into question reason's dominant role. But he's also right to imagine it's not a justification for the domination of religious authority. Machiavellian is the word that comes to mind when trying to define the success of Christianity as a socially ordering force.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Honorentheos

[Pete Ahlstrom]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Bertrand Russell owned up to the fact that there are no secular means to determining what is morally right or wrong.  But of course he didn't trust religion either.  The upshot is that ethical and moral issues are fully subjective.  Pure reason just won't get us there.  We are dependent upon the light of Christ and upon the Holy Spirit of truth in all such matters.

Aren't you saying that the light of christ is the objective standard to clear up the subjective moral and ethical confusion mortals face? So aren't you arguing for objective ethics and morality?

[Robert F. Smith]

34 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Aren't you saying that the light of christ is the objective standard to clear up the subjective moral and ethical confusion mortals face? So aren't you arguing for objective ethics and morality?

Try reading what I wrote, Pete:  "ethical and moral issues are fully subjective.  Pure reason just won't get us there."

[Pete Ahlstrom]

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Try reading what I wrote, Pete:  "ethical and moral issues are fully subjective.  Pure reason just won't get us there."

I thought I did. If you aren't arguing for objectivity through the spirit of christ, then what's the point of having the spirit of christ? Now, I agree with you that morals and ethics are subjective. I don't think mormonism agrees with you though. Mormonism is about black and white objective morality. Christ is right and the devil is the opposite.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Pete Ahlstrom

[Robert F. Smith]

8 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I thought I did. If you aren't arguing for objectivity through the spirit of christ, then what's the point of having the spirit of christ? Now, I agree with you that morals and ethics are subjective. I don't think mormonism agrees with you though. Mormonism is about black and white objective morality. Christ is right and the devil is the opposite.

You have several problems here, Pete.  You don't understand philosophy and logic, and you don't understand Mormonism (or theology in general).  When someone states that "ethical and moral issues are fully subjective," that does not mean that they are objective.  Simply because someone has strong opinions does not make them objective.  You may need a first year college course in critical thinking, or in introduction to philosophy.  Seriously, Pete.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You have several problems here, Pete.  You don't understand philosophy and logic, and you don't understand Mormonism (or theology in general).  When someone states that "ethical and moral issues are fully subjective," that does not mean that they are objective.  Simply because someone has strong opinions does not make them objective.  You may need a first year college course in critical thinking, or in introduction to philosophy.  Seriously, Pete.

I agree with your opinion that morals and ethics are subjective. I don't think the church and its leaders are there.

Do you think Jesus merely has strong opinions or is he the objective example of perfection? Doesn't the spirit of christ teach objective truth according to mormonism or is it merely strong opinion? Isn't the purpose of having a prophet so he can supposedly give the world God's message, that is supposedly true for all? Do you believe the family proclamation is objectively good advice or merely strong opinion? Seriously, Robert, you may need to attend the new member sunday school course so you can remember what your religion teaches.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Pete Ahlstrom

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I agree with your opinion that morals and ethics are subjective. I don't think the church and its leaders are there.

Do you think Jesus merely has strong opinions or is he the objective example of perfection? Doesn't the spirit of christ teach objective truth according to mormonism or is it merely strong opinion? Isn't the purpose of having a prophet so he can supposedly give the world God's message, that is supposedly true for all? Do you believe the family proclamation is objectively good advice or merely strong opinion? Seriously, Robert, you may need to attend the new member sunday school course so you can remember what your religion teaches.

All human opinion and belief is subjective and fallible, no matter how strongly the claims are made (whether by you or someone else).  That applies to prophets and to sunday school teachers.  Any sort of claim may be made about anything and by anybody, but individual belief in that claim is always subjective.  One can have no more than a personal testimony that a belief is true.  That is the best we can do in the midst of the social construction of reality.  If you don't understand that, then you are clearly stuck in what we call "the first naivete."

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All human opinion and belief is subjective and fallible, no matter how strongly the claims are made (whether by you or someone else).  That applies to prophets and to sunday school teachers.  Any sort of claim may be made about anything and by anybody, but individual belief in that claim is always subjective.  One can have no more than a personal testimony that a belief is true.  That is the best we can do in the midst of the social construction of reality.  If you don't understand that, then you are clearly stuck in what we call "the first naivete."

I understand that well. I don't think the church or its leaders do. They believe in objective truth and that they have it. They believe that the prophet is here to tell us God's objective truth as well. This was my point all along.

[clarkgoble]

On 7/15/2017 at 11:14 PM, JLHPROF said:

Well, without watching the video, I would say that both points are valid in Mormon doctrine.

True morality exists independent of God, but morality as known to man on earth requires a God to reveal it.  Otherwise any morality on earth is purely social norms.

I didn't watch the video for various reasons (I sometimes write at work).

However Shermer has a book on the science of good and evil I've mentioned here before. There's a lot of interesting Evolutionary Psychology there he makes use of. However ultimately there's the old Kantian problem of "is doesn't imply ought." That is even if we're evolved to see things as good/bad that doesn't make them good or bad. Indeed in many ways our ethics is a moving beyond our evolution and instincts. 

I know zero about Prager but the typical mainstream Christian view is that God's being is equivalent to the good. That's the old way of avoiding the Euthypro dilemma of "is it good because God demands it or does God demand it because it is good?" So I assume he's pushing that variant of the old platonic perspective.

So to my eyes neither works (assuming I anticipated their arguments right). But then I've alway been more a virtue ethics type of person. That is God is virtuous and the good is what virtuous people try to achieve but there's no determinative way of doing it. Rather a virtuous person if things don't go perfectly just tries to fix things and make them better. There's a recognition of a fundamental problematic aspect of time in virtue ethics that you don't see in things like Utilitarianism or the variants of Kant's ethics.

Edited July 18, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I understand that well. I don't think the church or its leaders do. They believe in objective truth and that they have it. They believe that the prophet is here to tell us God's objective truth as well. This was my point all along.

I don't get that message from the Brethren or from Scripture.  It isn't so much that many people are naive and confused, nor that Ayn Rand hasn't the foggiest notion of what objective reality might be, but that nearly everybody (including most Mormons) is unschooled in the basics of simple logic.  Thus, you miss the point entirely -- which is that the normal social construction of reality leads people to entertain simultaneously contrary opinions within the same mind, even though those opinions are enabled by very practical interim considerations, and even though most people seem to get by despite their lack of awareness of those incommensurable views.

You have a choice, Pete.  You can continue to wallow in the mire of confusion, or you can rise above it to deal with brass tacks.  I find the latter far more interesting and worthwhile.

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

14 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All human opinion and belief is subjective and fallible, no matter how strongly the claims are made (whether by you or someone else).  That applies to prophets and to sunday school teachers.  Any sort of claim may be made about anything and by anybody, but individual belief in that claim is always subjective.  One can have no more than a personal testimony that a belief is true.  That is the best we can do in the midst of the social construction of reality.  If you don't understand that, then you are clearly stuck in what we call "the first naivete."

This is part of the reason why I don't engage in mormonism beyond this site and others. The leaders claim something absolute when it is merely fallible subjective perceptions and their fallible subjective perceptions are no better than anyone else's.