@Posty

Hahaha. As dialectically clear as can be.

I expect so, but do you expect it to ever convince anybody to change their view, other than the occasional rare exception?

You sound, from the rest of your post, like a deeply religious person. Are you that way because you were convinced by dry philosophical arguments such as this, or because of personal experience and feelings, or that you were brought up to believe what you do? — andrewk

Please forgive the delay in correspondence.

1) Yes, emphatically so! So very many have been convinced or had their minds changed. The history of the world points to thousands of examples. Perhaps not many professional academic philosophers of religion, but college students, working men and women, and others who listen to hortatory or lay versions of the argument from design, compatibility, contingency, etc. do change their minds. Two dear friends of mine became practicing Muslims this year. Another two have ceased becoming ardent atheists and are now sincere agnostics.

But that is not to say people don't change their minds in the other direction. I have seen a few believers doubt or leave their faith when hearing arguments from evolution or evil.

2) I didn't mention it until now, as it seemed cheap, but I myself became religious as I studied the arguments! Of course it was not long after that I began actually practicing prayer and religious morality. And only after I experienced glimpses and glimmers of God's friendship through solitary reflection was I convinced. As Mortimer Adler so beautifully mentions, arguments are only a bridge, your soul must walk across.

The God of the philosophers is the only interesting God. — StreetlightX

Speaking honestly, it was for me too, for a few years when I discovered philosophical theology and the joys of exploring the metaphysics of God, his substance, being, and essential nature. But this never ending intellectual endeavor changed and warmed my heart very little.

"The knowledge of God is very far from the love of Him." (Pascal)

At the risk of comparison, after years of 'interesting' ratiocination I had an exactly Augustinian moment: “Nor did I now desire to be more certain of You, but more steadfast in You.” (St. Augustine)

I had explored descriptions of God and his general being well enough. I knew of him, but I did not know him. One cannot remain coldly logical about such matters forever. As in a romantic relationship, there's time for detached reflection on the object of your desire (philosophy) and then there's the relationship itself (mystical union).

My personal feeling is that people should refrain from telling others whether they do or don't believe in God, but far too many of us seem unable to do so, thus inducing others to say yea or nay and perpetuating this tiresome debate (such as it is). When, oh when, will there be a respite? — Ciceronianus the White

True faith is mystical union with our Creator, where light from His grace shines onto and off of a true believer's face. It's not proselytizing or philosophical theology. So in that much I agree with you, the god of the philosopher is a stuffed animal.

Yet to treat the question of God's existence and His relationship to material existence as a kind of apathetic ball practice is revealing and embarrassing. Your languor and lethargy reminds me of Socrates' interlocutors who sighed: 'enough already, give me rest from such questions'. You caution others to 'refrain from perpetuating this tiresome debate', but you've only shown the numbness and stillness that resides in your soul. The debate itself will forever be on fire.

Almost every colossal thinker from every civilization confronts the question of God and transcendence with seriousness and awe.

"Everyone with the least sense always calls on god at the beginning of any undertaking, small or great'. (Plato, Timaeus 27c)

The reasons may be many of course, for instance: being born into a religion, or cultural reasons, national, or other incentives. No matter the reasons, how does one justify one over the other? — InfiniteZero

It always amazes me when I hear this line peddled, as though no philosophic or scientific tests can be applied to falsify a religion. But to hear this on a philosophy forum is especially disheartening.

There are numerous publications which deal with precisely the question of truth in religion. Starting with Mortimer Adler's book, 'Truth in Religion'! After evaluating over eight of the largest world religions, he argues that the three monotheistic faiths (Islam, Christianity, Judaism) are the closest to truth in their orthodoxy and orthopraxy. He gives thorough reasoning for this conclusion, which you can look up for yourself.

Speaking autobiographically, I was an agnostic for some years and chose to practice Islam precisely because I found it to be the least rationally problematic and most sound of the faiths I surveyed. Of course my ascension to Islam was not absolute certainty, but pretty strong certainty.

Is it failing? It has failed, utterly and completely. Take a glace at public discourse, popular culture, politics, entertainment. The word that always comes to mind is misosophic - the hatred of wisdom.

I agree, however, the teachers the world needs aren't the teachers you find in academic settings generally (there are of course exceptions). — Agustino

This is exactly right. There are a zillion life coach/mentors/instructors/teacher online which barely have any grasp of classical logic, rhetoric, and grammar, for example. We need more sagacious and enlightened teachers. Many teachers today contribute to the wisdom-less culture we live in.

P.s. there exists an egregious paradox which we all see as plain as day. That is that a degree is both very important and very unimportant. It's important to show to the HR person to hire you, but completely useless (with some exceptions) for the actual work you do on the job.

We need to return to classical liberal arts which equips every student with critical tools with which to learn effectively anything they choose to set their mind to.

Education has absolutely lost its way. See Dorothy Sayers' essay, 'The Lost Tools of Learning'

http://www.gbt.org/text/sayers.html

Also check some of the ideas of Ivan Illich.

? I can't make sense of your statement

This still does not answer the ethical problem of my being condemned on behalf of another. And my eternal need to be saved thereafter.

As visitors will notice, we have, as exemplified above, at this forum, a few people whose referentless angry-noises are a reminder of our grunt-animal evolutionary heritage. — Michael Ossipoff

Brilliant

God, in graciously condescending to save a fallen and lost humanity through revelation of Himself is truly "Sir2u". Remember that and be grateful. And If you lack faith, then pray for it. — John Gould

The notion of original sin is silly. Add to it the fact that God ‘condescended’ to sacrifice himself (as Christ) for our lost and fallen selves is sillier still. For God created us deformed and made us ‘born sinners’ from the start. Yet He was kind enough to save us from ourselves? God cannot be that wicked or arrogant. God doles out mercy when and where He wills. But to condemn the human race collectively (original sin) and then swoop in later to save the human race is not glorious, its illogical.

What does it mean that "God is neither the architect of goodness nor is he the expert on goodness, He is the foundation of goodness"? — Πετροκότσυφας

It means that God is not constructing moral laws or designing the contours of what is normative arbitrarily, He is himself that standard, that locus. It emanates from His nature (necessarily)

My thoughts exactly. Solid response to OP

There are some terminological ambiguities ("objective", "law-like", "constructivist" etc), which make it difficult to discuss the issue, without firstly getting rid of these. But, if you're ok with it, we can also start by discussing the exclusion of theism from your question. So, let me ask: why don't you include theists in your question? Is theism somehow free of this problem (by "theism" here, I understand some form of divine command, correct me if I'm wrong)? I'm asking since someone could level a "euthyphrean" critique, arguing that divine command is just another sort of ethical subjectivism. Just with a godly flavor. Nothing is objectively good or bad, in themselves things are not moral or immoral, what makes them such is that God commands them or forbids them. In being extrinsic to things themselves, theistic morality is not objective. So, why the distinction? — Πετροκότσυφας

My response to Euthyphro is stolen from Aquinas. That it is a false dilemma, in that God acts consistently with his essential character, which is the foundation of goodness. God is neither the architect of goodness nor is he the expert on goodness, He is the foundation of goodness.

I don't know how moral facts are discovered by reason. But they are. And yes, "moral laws are...part of the rational/epistemic enterprise itself". Insofar as something is intelligible, it is grounded in the rational enterprise. Thus all of morality stems from reason. This is my understanding. — Brian A

Well wait a minute, I think we have come back round to the beginning again. In a weak sense, 'rational enterprise' sounds like something humans do 'create' and are responsible for. But 'rational enterprise' could be interpreted in a stronger ontological sense, namely, as the underlying structure of thought/reality itself.

The latter is something we humans simply participate in but are in no way responsible for - logic and its laws being the main example. So, to go back, if morality is part and parcel of Logic with a capital L then we are mere participants of morality in the same way we merely participate in using logic.

It seems like we pushed the problem back one step! How do we ground logic itself? I think this isn't a problem for most people, as we are comfortable with the thought that logic is necessary and axiomatic. But Morality with a capital M does not feel necessary in the same way.

There's a lot of modern work on virtue ethics which began from Elizabeth Anscombe's paper of 1958, 'Modern moral philosophy', which you can find online. The major work I've read and thought about is 'After Virtue' by Alasdair MacIntyre, which tries to construct a virtue ethics for the present era. Pardon me if you know all this — mcdoodle

I am aware of this great revival of a great moral theory! - indeed the most sound and flexible secular moral theory on offer. I say I am 'aware', but only as someone who follows, in a peripheral way, the trends in modern ethics, but have not read either Anscombe or MacIntyre, yet! I'm still reading & understanding the ancient/medieval positions before I grapple with their modern iterations.

virtue ethics, a process of learning good action grounded in the interplay between your reason and experiences with the social practices you find around you — mcdoodle

I'm a big fan of virtue ethics. Studied it lightly, but still retain the fundamentals I think. You're right I blatantly missed the option. However, does virtue ethics go beyond describing what the good life is / what is truly good for man qua man - to answer the question of grounding? If I remember, Aristotle just takes it as axiomatic/self-evident that man truly ought to desire what is good. That it is constitutive of his nature, in a normative way. It is self-evident like 2+2=4 is. Am I correct here?

Many non-non-theists try and take issue with my moral framework by claiming that "it's not objective" even while they assent to my moral propositions because they share basic human desires — VagabondSpectre

But this is perfectly explainable when we distinguish between epistemological and ontological morality. As a theist I agree with many of the ethical habits, desires, and beliefs of my atheist colleagues. There is no problem here. The problem concerns how the atheist can appropriately ground his moral life in an objective (not universal) way.

if you're asking whose reason we're speaking of, the answer is our reasoning; our shared human reasoning — VagabondSpectre

I can understand your invocation of a universal/collective type of human reasoning to apprehend and intuit morality as human persons, but it still seems unsatisfactory for our purposes. Our 'collective reason' is still human, and so by inference: imperfect and limited. Are you speaking of a Platonic 'collective human logic' which has a special ontological status similar to God's ontological status? Unless moral laws are somehow built into the logical structure of thought (in a Platonic kind of way), which is coherent but difficult to articulate.

im sorry this is nonsense

Any tips about comprehending concepts and playing with them would help me! — Abeills

Read and think very slowly. Reject the schizophrenic and hasty reading habits of modern people. Set at least 1-2 hours aside everyday for serious and solitary study. Make this habit religious, do not skip even one day. Begin with approachable works like Plato's dialogues or Boethius' Consolations of Philosophy or Descartes' Meditations. Do not go to Aquinas, or Kant, or Leibniz just yet. Finally, order your life towards virtue - because a life of vice, intemperance, and heated passion destroys ones ability to seriously contemplate and rationally calculate.

trying to rationally justify divine command while rejecting the authority of reason is incoherent. — Πετροκότσυφας

I appreciate this criticism. But I'm not rejecting the authority of reason, reason is all we have to fall back on as philosophers. I'm making the point that placing the building of moral objectivity on the foundations of human reason is constructivist, because surely the moral realm existed before humans did. If morality came into existence with man, how can it be objectively binding (i.e. law-like).

But ultimately Buddhist ethics are grounded in the reality of karma — Wayfarer

This is very new for me. I'm not going to attempt to respond critically, only to ask how does the Buddhist know that 'all intentional actions have consequences'?

Says you. No argument here, only bald assertion. — Wayfarer

But I'm not trying to forward any argument, just explicating and making important distinctions.

Buddhist morality is grounded in the original Buddhist teachings — Wayfarer

Again what your talking about is moral epistemology, not moral ontology. Many moral teachers may teach many different moral doctrines. This does not in any way broach the question of the ground of moral truths.

Very interesting. But how are 'moral facts held to be discovered in reason'? Again, its not that reason can apprehend moral truths, we both agree on that. Its that moral laws are somehow part of the rational/epistemic enterprise itself - viz. a moral law is just a true proposition, say. Am I getting this right?

Interesting. I agree that intuition is how we directly apprehend the moral realm and a SENSE of moral objectivity. Viz. we feel the phenomenological weight of an inescapable moral reality. But I think intuition by itself does not constitute an argument for the reality of an objective moral realm. Intuition gives us a pragmatic case for the rationality of moral objectivity.

On an aside, I think DCT is the closest thing we have to an ontological grounding of morality

Yes, but how can the golden rule, or any moral rule or law, on a non-theistic worldview, be more than an illusion or construct

We've lost the tools of learning, to steal Dorothy Sayer's phrase. We are producing information parrots and research people not virtuous and wise citizens.

You write Happiness can only be a positive emotional state induced by the biochemicals. This is a scientific fact.

False. Happiness is a moral theoretical postulate you superimpose on psycho-biological findings. Happiness is a moral, not a psychological state. What you describe is contentment, something which is fleeting and transitory. Today at work I may get a bonus, and so I feel very content, whereas tomorrow I might lose my wife and so feel very depressed. Happiness is over above these emotional/psychological vacillations. Happiness has to do with having complete virtue, temperance, charity, love, faith, and so on.

Yes, but that doesn't reveal anything. Its a truism.

I disagree. Only relatively recently has relativism about truth come into fashion. The consensus of philosophers in the tradition is that there exists a 'logic of truth' - viz. that truth is transcultural, trans-religious, etc. Certain criteria such as consistency, coherence, simplicity, and logical soundness apply equally to propositions today as they did to propositions in 500 BC

In response to the OP

1) I'm not sure why your 'gut' feelings and subjective/psychological/emotional antagonisms with theism give you anything like a strong epistemic reason for the non-truth of theism.
2) To carry on the theme of your post, I myself operate on the converse notion: not believing in God, or in a transcendent cause of Being is intuitively repugnant to me.
3) What bothers you about exclusivism? Truth is exclusive by its very nature, it rules out or negates falsehood. Of course the term 'exclusive' needs here to be defined, because the Abrahamic religions are all inclusive in one clear sense: God desires and accepts the prostrations of any one of his servants. God is not out to 'get you'. He created us all, theists, agnostics, and atheists alike. He knows why we choose what we choose and he judges us on our authenticity and consistency.