I would like to know both atheist's and theist's thoughts on this. It is, i believe, a most pertinent piece of information. I for one believe that objective truth does in fact exist and that we can uncover and determine it in many many areas, including in metaphysics.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
What do you mean by objective truth... i think defining it is important before we proceed.
I mean absolute truth. Something that holds for everyone.
That's quite confusing. Can you explain it clearly?
One truth for all people, in whatever context
One truth for all people at all times, irrespective of context
An example of objective truth would be we know child rape is wrong even though many catholic priests participate in it. Even though they are in positions of leadership does not mean it is ok for the population as a whole to indulge in it.
Well yes thats a good example, though i didnt see the need for the pointed barb
Sometimes living examples display the truth of the concept presented. Life is not Sunday school.
I am vehemently opposed to the evil of religion. If the actions of your brothers and sisters in Christ offend you, perhaps you should preach to the choir.
I do in fact preach to the choir, so to speak. And the actions of my brothers and sisters may offend me but that isnt going to make me stray from my path. Its no suprise to me that would be Christians these days set such a bad example. I'll freely admit that its disheartening to be represented by such weak and faithless sheep. But unfortunately thats all anyone seems to notice is "Christians" behaving badly. But all this is foretold in Gods word and is no reason to abandon theism. We know from Matthew 13 that the tares and the wheat will grow together up until the very end, so we shouldnt be surprised to see "Christians" doing all kinds of evil.
“Its no suprise to me that would be Christians these days set such a bad example.”
The fact that their such bad examples is because the fictional god that supposedly represents their role model fails miserably in that role. Lets elaborate on that thought and explore further.
Slavery is an egregious example of this so-called gods failure to provide an ethical model of behavior for followers. Some apologists will attempt to use indentured servitude as a white-wash defense in an attempt to make it sound more palatable. Indentured servitude has been used effectively to enslave people permanently. In the context of the bible, we can examine slavery at a time when we should examine what recourse the person(s) had available to them. For example, did they have a strong contract supported by unbiased legal council? They were going to work for a period of time to pay off a debt or work to receive a reward after a goal was achieved. Now, lets examine the immorality of this kind of arrangement at the time it was agreed for a Hebrew servant:
(Exodus 21:2-6 NLT) If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.
That is not very nuanced, how is the indebtedness determined? Every situation is worth six years of work? How is the indebted’s work effort considered comparable to the debt incurred?
Notice the loopholes to keep the person emotionally attached in an effort to extort him to remain permanently. If given a wife and they have children, the wife and kids remain in bondage if the man goes free. Sounds more like the rules of an immoral mafia boss. What if the man’s wife dies, the kids grow up and leave? The answer is he is still bound to stay for life. The immorality here is appalling.
To this point we’ve covered rules for Hebrew slaves, concerning non-Hebrew slaves:
In Leviticus 25:44-46: “As for your male and female slaves whom you may have-- you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46'You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.”
In Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20 permission to assault slaves with a rod is given:
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Let there be no mistake on what is being sanctioned here: this allows ownership of humans by humans. This is slavery, the same social immorality that the United States had a civil war over. For you to advocate slavery as moral is to sacrifice everything that would make you human. Earlier I saw where you admitted you would kill your son if God told you to do it, if you were convinced in fact that god was actually telling you so. Therefore, I seriously doubt you will think for yourself and decide what is moral when it comes to slavery.
What could be the reason a man that otherwise might make moral decisions concerning other humans fails to do so? Here is the reason: if the door is opened to admit slavery is wrong that also admits the bible is wrong. To be sure, such an immature view of theology and the good book as a source of absolute truth is ludicrous. With such an admission the bible as a source of authority begins to crumble. If the bible says murder, rape and genocide is moral then it is? Such people are desperate to admit the bible is wrong about anything. I predict this to be the case with jimmyslns.
"The fact that their such bad examples is because the fictional god that supposedly represents their role model fails miserably in that role. Lets elaborate on that thought and explore further"
Conjecture. The fact that there are so many bad examples of Christians is because they dont really know the one they supposedly follow, and because they dont know his word as they should.
"Slavery is an egregious example of this so-called gods failure to provide an ethical model of behavior for followers. Some apologists will attempt to use indentured servitude as a white-wash defense in an attempt to make it sound more palatable. Indentured servitude has been used effectively to enslave people permanently. In the context of the bible, we can examine slavery at a time when we should examine what recourse the person(s) had available to them. For example, did they have a strong contract supported by unbiased legal council? They were going to work for a period of time to pay off a debt or work to receive a reward after a goal was achieved. Now, lets examine the immorality of this kind of arrangement at the time it was agreed for a Hebrew servant:
(Exodus 21:2-6 NLT) If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.
That is not very nuanced, how is the indebtedness determined? Every situation is worth six years of work? How is the indebted’s work effort considered comparable to the debt incurred?"
You say we can examine slavery in the context of the bible, but you fail to do so. You use your own preconceived notions and that of other peoples on slavery to make this issue seem less palatable, but this is incorrect. Of course all these things seem outrageous when one thinks of the African-American slave trade, which is where those preconceived notions i mentioned come from, but nothing could be further from the truth. You show zero knowledge of what slavery or serventhood in biblical context really is, or was, rather, so allow me to enlighten.
In biblical times, and specifically in the particular context you mentioned, there were not hundreds and hundreds of jobs available everywhere like today to make ones living from. Basically either you had land and livestock and you worked to maintain that, or you became someones servent so that you can help THEM to maintain it. Now in return for become a servent, your master would provide everything that you needed to live, a place to sleep, cloths on your back and food on the table. All of the servents needs were provided for in return for their servitude.
These slaves were not plucked from their homelands, shipped hundreds of miles away and then treated just like any other beast of burden, as was done in the African-American slave trade. No, they willfully entered an agreement to serve, in return for being given everything that they required to live.
"In Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20 permission to assault slaves with a rod is given:
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Let there be no mistake on what is being sanctioned here: this allows ownership of humans by humans. This is slavery, the same social immorality that the United States had a civil war over. For you to advocate slavery as moral is to sacrifice everything that would make you human."
Again, context is an issue here. What we think of today when we hear slavery is nothing like what went on in biblical times. We cant just say that it was immoral to own someone back then, just because it would be today. There were different practices and conditions which allowed for the technical owning of another person, but i reiterate, it was nothing like what comes to mind when we think of slavery today, and it was not the same social immorality that the US had a civil war over.
"Earlier I saw where you admitted you would kill your son if God told you to do it, if you were convinced in fact that god was actually telling you so. Therefore, I seriously doubt you will think for yourself and decide what is moral when it comes to slavery."
You forgot to mention that i only entertained such a situation hypothetically. More importantly, I specified that God wouldn't make such a request because he neither desires nor requires child sacrifice. You'll say, oh but He asked Abraham to do it, yes thats right He did. But you've missed the entire point of that story if you think He really wanted Abraham to sacrifice his son.
I most certainly do think for myself and am quite strong in my belief that slavery, in the context of the African-American slave trade, was an immoral practice.
"What could be the reason a man that otherwise might make moral decisions concerning other humans fails to do so? Here is the reason: if the door is opened to admit slavery is wrong that also admits the bible is wrong. To be sure, such an immature view of theology and the good book as a source of absolute truth is ludicrous. With such an admission the bible as a source of authority begins to crumble. If the bible says murder, rape and genocide is moral then it is? Such people are desperate to admit the bible is wrong about anything. I predict this to be the case with jimmyslns.
The bible does not say that murder rape and genocide are moral so thats out the window. I've already outlined why the slavery then was nothing like the slavery we think of now so i can then with sound judgement condemn modern slavery as immoral while not doing so with what is mentioned in the bible. Context mr. free.
The good book IS a source of absolute truth. You just have to know how to find and discern that truth, and not be discouraged and discard the whole thing when you find one or two passages which seem difficult. That to me seems ludicrous when there is so much good and beauty and things to be admired about this most special book.
Rationalize all you want, SLAVERY: ONE HUMAN OWNING ANOTHER IS WRONG!!! PERIOD END OF STORY. WE'RE DONE!
Even ImFree's seeming uncontroversial example of an objective moral truth is not so cut and dry. There have been many societies in the past and even some current ones who endorse sexual acts with children that most of us find totally scandalous. For anyone who wants to be scandalized search for: "Etoro people".
Subjective morality would be the opposite of objective morality. An example of subjective morality would be Christian swingers practice of spreading their religious faith personally: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/gone-viral/os-florida-bodybuilde...
Haha, thats so funny. They even seem completely sincere about it.
"Objective reality" might be a better descriptor. I believe there exists an objective reality, although we are incapable of apprehending it directly due to our subjective nature.
Every sensory input I perceive is detected by imperfect organs and processed by my imperfect brain against a subjective interpretation of past experiences and beliefs. When I look at you, I use my sensory input to construct a mental image (an idol of sorts) of you. The more time I spend with you and get to know you, the more accurate my mental image will become. Still, it can never be complete or perfect.
We have evidence that objects exist outside our sensory abilities, such as sounds beyond our hearing range. We can build instruments to detect some of what our senses cannot, but even so, we can only process the output from those instruments subjectively.
The closest we could come to describing an objective reality is an "inter-subjective agreement" about what we observe with others. For example, we can agree that a color we both see is green. That doesn't mean that the color looks the same to both of us, but rather that we have a common terminology for that perception.
Consider "spirit beings" for which there is no detectible physical evidence, only stories from subjective, imperfect people. The likelihood of perceptual accuracy would be so remote that we could reasonably dismiss it altogether. Not only that, but we would have nothing against which to evaluate it in the first place. This is what some atheists are getting at when they ask theists to clearly define god.
I really like what youve written here good sir, im not sure i could have expressed my own thoughts any better. At least until your last paragraph.
"Does objective truth exist?"
From what I understand, truth is a statement or claim that is consistent with and individuals perception of reality, so truth is subject to minds capable of making those claims and statements about a reality it is capable of perceiving. So while objective reality exists, all truth claims are subjective to the beings making them.