v

[Gianna99]

There is a deep and continuing conversation between science and religion. While science uses reason and factual data to comprehend the natural world, religion frequently uses faith and tradition to investigate issues of morality and meaning. Both fields provide insightful understandings of the human condition and encourage a diverse range of viewpoints.GB Whatsapp download

[The Tanager]

Not sure what you mean with that.
Are you agreeing with me (on the face of it) that biblical Jesus is a mystic without going into details as to how we each think about what being a mystic means/involves?

Yes.

Yet, there is an additive in your opinion which differentiates theistic subjectivists from theist objectivists?

One is a moral subjectivist and the other is a moral objectivist.

From the answer generated by GPT, it appears that the mindless machinery is able to respond in a manner which reflects understanding re what I meant by what I wrote and perhaps it will help you to understand what I meant/am meaning.

From that, I got two things to respond to. Yes, atheists may not recognize the connection of their sense of morality and a Creator Mind. Yes, believing in the existence of a Creator Mind might influence one’s moral subjectivism (either by affecting what they like/dislike or by turning them into moral objectivists).

The "okays" and "not okays" are subjective (like taste) whereas you propose that there is objective evidence that subjective notions have nothing to do with objective morality?

I don’t know what you are saying here, since sometimes you use ‘subjective’ in a sense that moral objectivists/subjectivists don’t disagree on. I don’t know when you are using ‘subjective’ in sense 1 and using it in sense 2. Sense 1 being when a subject has an opinion/belief/view on X, sense 2 being when that subject thinks their opinion is not objectively true/false. Which sense are you using here?

This still depends upon subjective belief that The Creator Mind is as theists claim, and as we have agreed, theism has many ideas on that and not all of them align.

No, good/evil (being something other than a synonym for like/dislike) does not depend on a subjective belief; it depends on if the Creator mind actually exists or not.

What (in objective reality) is there to show us the nature of said Creator Mind and how does this objective evidence then show us that we can align our morality with said objective evidence?

If you mean the Creator Mind’s nature re: good/evil for humans, then we would need to assess the moral argument. Different reasoning would lead us to the belief that we should try to align our moral thoughts to the Creator Mind’s view on good/evil. Different reasoning still would lead us to how we can align our moral actions to those moral thoughts.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #61]

The "okays" and "not okays" are subjective (like taste) whereas you propose that there is objective evidence that subjective notions have nothing to do with objective morality?

I don’t know what you are saying here, since sometimes you use ‘subjective’ in a sense that moral objectivists/subjectivists don’t disagree on. I don’t know when you are using ‘subjective’ in sense 1 and using it in sense 2. Sense 1 being when a subject has an opinion/belief/view on X, sense 2 being when that subject thinks their opinion is not objectively true/false. Which sense are you using here?

I am asking if there is objective evidence which has nothing to do with opinion/belief/view.

This still depends upon subjective belief that The Creator Mind is as theists claim, and as we have agreed, theism has many ideas on that and not all of them align.

No, good/evil (being something other than a synonym for like/dislike) does not depend on a subjective belief; it depends on if the Creator mind actually exists or not.

I was pointing to the nature of The Creator Mind, in relation to this particular created house re assigning a nature with moral agency.
You wrote earlier that "The only way I know of to ground them objectively requires assigning a nature with moral agency, where we are made with inherent value to be treated kindly and called on to treat others kindly. God is the mechanism that does that in theism;"

This requires unpacking in order to determine if there is anything therein which has nothing to do with opinion/belief/view.

My first question to you re that is,.

Q: What do you mean by "We" (as bolded in the above) and now capitalize.?

What (in objective reality) is there to show us the nature of said Creator Mind and how does this objective evidence then show us that we can align our morality with said objective evidence?

If you mean the Creator Mind’s nature re: good/evil for humans, then we would need to assess the moral argument.

Since I do not see The Creator Mind as an objective thing, it would be pointless for me to ask anyone to show objective evidence unless I also thought that the created object showed me the evidence - not only that we exist within a creation thing, but that The Creator Mind which shaped it is unable to be seen (even though it is physical in makeup) so I have no choice but to seek the evidence in the nature of the Universe, and thus be able to show that my thinking that The Creator Mind's nature re: good/evil for humans, was the correct way in which to opinion/believe/view and consequently behave in the perfect manner - and that this process would align my moral thinking to the Creator Mind’s view on good/evil re said humans.

This circles back to my question above (re truly self-identifying) Are we both thinking the same thoughts as to what "we" are?

I think perfecting the alignment involves getting the self-identification part correct as well.
If we don't get that part sorted correctly, then any assessment of "the moral argument" from that perspective, would be subject to critique and likely well off the mark for that.
Even our "gods" would be subject to our perspectives in that they will be "dressed to suit" and in that, assigned faulty attributes which align with the human personalities (faulty) sense of self.
Exploring Morality, Personal Beliefs, and the Nature of a Creator.

[The Tanager]

I am asking if there is objective evidence which has nothing to do with opinion/belief/view.

There is objective evidence which has nothing to do with opinion/belief/view qua opinion/belief/view. But, of course, once one shares the evidence, what they are doing is sharing their opinion. Those are two different senses.

I was pointing to the nature of The Creator Mind, in relation to this particular created house re assigning a nature with moral agency.
You wrote earlier that "The only way I know of to ground them objectively requires assigning a nature with moral agency, where we are made with inherent value to be treated kindly and called on to treat others kindly. God is the mechanism that does that in theism;"

This requires unpacking in order to determine if there is anything therein which has nothing to do with opinion/belief/view.

My first question to you re that is,.

Q: What do you mean by "We" (as bolded in the above) and now capitalize.?

Did I capitalize it? If so, I didn’t intend it. I was talking about all humans there.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #63]

There is objective evidence which has nothing to do with opinion/belief/view qua opinion/belief/view. But, of course, once one shares the evidence, what they are doing is sharing their opinion. Those are two different senses.

It seems to me you are saying that the shape of the earth (flat or spherical) can be evidence shared without adding any opinion. But the shape of the earth is not a question of morality.
If one were to add to that - an opinion that - "the shape of the earth shows us that morality is objective" - then that would still remain opinion until a convincing explanation was given to connect the dots for those one is making the claim to.

Q: What do you mean by "We"

I was talking about all humans there.

Q: What do you mean by "all humans" (re the first question)?

What you wrote earlier can be altered by replacing "we" with "humans";

"The only way I know of to ground them objectively requires assigning a nature with moral agency, where humans are made with inherent value to be treated kindly and called on to treat others kindly."

You further added that "God is the mechanism that does that in theism".

I pointed out the fault in your reasoning because it is left up to humans to dress "God" up in a variety of differing mechanisms.
That is "theism" (dressing up The Creator Mind).

Re that, you also wrote "Different reasoning would lead us to the belief that we should try to align our moral thoughts to the Creator Mind’s view on good/evil. Different reasoning still would lead us to how we can align our moral actions to those moral thoughts."

Reasoning of course, requires the subjective mechanism.

What in the objective world do we identify which helps us in discovering The Creator Mind view?
It is not in the shape of the earth, nor the flavor of ice-cream nor being abused/being abusive.

Perhaps it is within the stories of humans? Even so, and even that we can share those stories (thus make them part of the objective world) they are still sourced within the subjective reality of the individual human.

That is also why I point to the importance of understanding WHO we are, when we say "we" "I am" "human" et al.

For example, one may identify their self as "I am a human atheist" while another will identify as "a human theist".

Re The Creator Mind view/God is the mechanism an atheist is not grounded objectively due to the - not - lack of evidence but lack of a means to connect the one with the other.
Re The Creator Mind view/God is the mechanism a theist has the means (connect the one with the other) but are the particular (various) groundings achieving what is claimed or are these variations falsely parading around as "real/true" et al? (re questions of morality.)

[The Tanager]

It seems to me you are saying that the shape of the earth (flat or spherical) can be evidence shared without adding any opinion. But the shape of the earth is not a question of morality.
If one were to add to that - an opinion that - "the shape of the earth shows us that morality is objective" - then that would still remain opinion until a convincing explanation was given to connect the dots for those one is making the claim to.

I’m not saying the shape of the Earth shows us morality is objective. Yes, one would need to follow reason to the most rational answer here. That wasn’t the point I was making right there, though. My point was trying to clarify your equivocation on ‘subjective’.

Q: What do you mean by "all humans" (re the first question)?

What you wrote earlier can be altered by replacing "we" with "humans";

"The only way I know of to ground them objectively requires assigning a nature with moral agency, where humans are made with inherent value to be treated kindly and called on to treat others kindly."

I mean every single human. Yes, that replacement works.

You further added that "God is the mechanism that does that in theism".

I pointed out the fault in your reasoning because it is left up to humans to dress "God" up in a variety of differing mechanisms.
That is "theism" (dressing up The Creator Mind).

How is this humans dressing God up in a variety of differing mechanisms and not humans discovering that God is the mechanism?

Re that, you also wrote "Different reasoning would lead us to the belief that we should try to align our moral thoughts to the Creator Mind’s view on good/evil. Different reasoning still would lead us to how we can align our moral actions to those moral thoughts."

Reasoning of course, requires the subjective mechanism.

It requires the subjective (sense 1). But there is a sense 2. You’ve got to get a clear handle on this.

What in the objective world do we identify which helps us in discovering The Creator Mind view?
It is not in the shape of the earth, nor the flavor of ice-cream nor being abused/being abusive.

I’ve said, many times, it’s the Kalam, fine-tuning, moral argument, intelligibility of mathematics, etc. These are not subjective; they are either objectively sound or unsound.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #65]

I pointed out the fault in your reasoning because it is left up to humans to dress "God" up in a variety of differing mechanisms.
That is "theism" (dressing up The Creator Mind).

How is this humans dressing God up in a variety of differing mechanisms and not humans discovering that God is the mechanism?

How is it not? It is one thing to claim "God is the mechanism" and another to explain what the nature of the mechanism is and in what way God shows us that objective morality is this mechanism.

Re that, you also wrote "Different reasoning would lead us to the belief that we should try to align our moral thoughts to the Creator Mind’s view on good/evil. Different reasoning still would lead us to how we can align our moral actions to those moral thoughts."

Reasoning of course, requires the subjective mechanism.

It requires the subjective (sense 1). But there is a sense 2. You’ve got to get a clear handle on this.

Indeed...IF that is something I have to get, THEN where/what et al is the process through which such is obtained and is this process something which can be shown to exist as an objective real thing?

What in the objective world do we identify which helps us in discovering The Creator Mind view?
It is not in the shape of the earth, nor the flavor of ice-cream nor being abused/being abusive.

I’ve said, many times, it’s the Kalam, fine-tuning, moral argument, intelligibility of mathematics, etc. These are not subjective; they are either objectively sound or unsound.

We are speaking directly about a supposed object morality. The Kalam. fine tuning, intelligibility of mathematics et al do not in and of themselves speak to morality. That leaves us with "moral argument" so perhaps therein you might identify an objective morality and share it as an example?

[The Tanager]

How is it not? It is one thing to claim "God is the mechanism" and another to explain what the nature of the mechanism is and in what way God shows us that objective morality is this mechanism.

It’s a bit confusing exactly what your point is here. I said God was the mechanism for making morality objective (in that God designed human nature with moral agency). What do you mean by explaining the nature of that relationship? Are you saying you don’t understand how that provides objectivity? Or something else?

And I never said objective morality was the mechanism. If you are saying it is, what are you saying it is the mechanism for? The mechanism for what I’m saying God is the mechanism for? If so, then you’d be saying objective morality is the mechanism for making morality objective, which would be arguing in a circle.

Indeed...IF that is something I have to get, THEN where/what et al is the process through which such is obtained and is this process something which can be shown to exist as an objective real thing?

It comes through clear logical analysis, which is an objective real thing. Are you saying you don’t think logic exists?

What in the objective world do we identify which helps us in discovering The Creator Mind view?

I’ve said, many times, it’s the Kalam, fine-tuning, moral argument, intelligibility of mathematics, etc. These are not subjective; they are either objectively sound or unsound.

We are speaking directly about a supposed object morality. The Kalam. fine tuning, intelligibility of mathematics et al do not in and of themselves speak to morality. That leaves us with "moral argument" so perhaps therein you might identify an objective morality and share it as an example?

You said what helps us discover the Creator Mind view. By that you meant the “objective morality” view? Surely, you can see that would be confusing. But you are wanting to talk about whether morality is objective or subjective now? Okay. Please define those words, as you understand them.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #67]

It comes through clear logical analysis, which is an objective real thing. Are you saying you don’t think logic exists?

No. My argument is that all things to do with mindfulness (logical analysis too) are naturally subjective. Minds analise.

I said God was the mechanism for making morality objective (in that God designed human nature with moral agency).

We have been over this. If the designer is the mechanism and the human form designed is what allows for morality to be a thing, then it does not matter what one calls oneself (atheist or theist) while one is being human. The mind within the form which enables morality to happen will respond accordingly.

Do you agree with the following;

GPT. It seems both Person A and Person B agree on the existence of a Creator, but they diverge in their views on the nature of morality and its relationship to the Creator.

Person A's perspective suggests that while they acknowledge the existence of a Creator, they see morality as a product of human cognition and societal development rather than an inherent aspect of the universe created by the Creator. From this viewpoint, morality is subjective, varying across cultures and individuals, and shaped by human experiences and rational deliberation.

Person B, however, appears to believe that morality is an inherent aspect of the universe created by the Creator. They may argue that morality is objective and universal, grounded in the nature or intentions of the Creator. From this perspective, morality exists independently of human perception and cultural constructs, and can be discerned through rational inquiry and observation of the universe.

Thus, while both individuals agree on the existence of a Creator, they differ in their interpretations of the nature of morality and its relationship to the Creator. Person A sees morality as a human construct, whereas Person B sees it as an intrinsic aspect of the created universe.

[The Tanager]

No. My argument is that all things to do with mindfulness (logical analysis too) are naturally subjective. Minds analise.

I agree. That’s subjective (sense 1). But you also keep confusing this with subjective (sense 2) when we talk about morality being objective or subjective.

We have been over this. If the designer is the mechanism and the human form designed is what allows for morality to be a thing, then it does not matter what one calls oneself (atheist or theist) while one is being human. The mind within the form which enables morality to happen will respond accordingly.

I agree. I’ve never disagreed (unless our wires are crossed on what those phrases mean).

Do you agree with the following;

GPT. It seems both Person A and Person B agree on the existence of a Creator, but they diverge in their views on the nature of morality and its relationship to the Creator.

Person A's perspective suggests that while they acknowledge the existence of a Creator, they see morality as a product of human cognition and societal development rather than an inherent aspect of the universe created by the Creator. From this viewpoint, morality is subjective, varying across cultures and individuals, and shaped by human experiences and rational deliberation.

Person B, however, appears to believe that morality is an inherent aspect of the universe created by the Creator. They may argue that morality is objective and universal, grounded in the nature or intentions of the Creator. From this perspective, morality exists independently of human perception and cultural constructs, and can be discerned through rational inquiry and observation of the universe.

Thus, while both individuals agree on the existence of a Creator, they differ in their interpretations of the nature of morality and its relationship to the Creator. Person A sees morality as a human construct, whereas Person B sees it as an intrinsic aspect of the created universe.

Yes, I agree with that summary.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #69]

Do you agree with the following;

Yes, I agree with that summary.

I don't agree with the summary.
Person A is saying the same thing as person B

GPT. If both Person A and Person B acknowledge the existence of a Creator and agree that morality is inherent within the created universe, then their perspectives align on this matter. It seems they both believe in an objective morality that is rooted in the nature or intentions of the Creator. From this shared viewpoint, morality is not merely a construct of human cognition but is instead an inherent aspect of the universe, existing independently of human perception and societal constructs. This alignment suggests that both Person A and Person B attribute objective moral values to the Creator's design or intention within the created universe.

Yet, while they both agree, their views are different in that A thinks everything exists within The Creator Mind, while B thinks that at least the universe does not exist within The Creator Mind.

GPT. Ah, I see the distinction now. Thank you for clarifying.

In this case, Person A posits a perspective that everything, including the universe, exists within the mind or consciousness of the Creator. This viewpoint implies a sort of panentheism, where the Creator's consciousness encompasses and transcends all aspects of existence, including the universe itself. From this perspective, morality would be perceived as an inherent aspect of the Creator's mind, permeating all of creation.

Person B, on the other hand, holds a different perspective, suggesting that the universe exists separately from the mind of the Creator. This viewpoint implies a form of theism where the Creator exists independently from the universe and may have created it but does not necessarily encompass it within their mind. From this perspective, morality is still seen as originating from the Creator but may be perceived as existing independently within the universe itself rather than solely within the Creator's mind.

While both Person A and Person B agree on the existence of a Creator and the presence of objective morality, their differing views on the relationship between the Creator and the universe lead to distinct interpretations of how morality is integrated into the fabric of existence. Person A sees morality as an intrinsic aspect of the Creator's consciousness, while Person B sees it as a quality bestowed upon the universe by the Creator but existing independently within it.

Do you agree with GPT's summary above?