Take the question of slavery. The Bible seems to condone it, but many Christians believe that it goes against God’s True Morality. Unfortunately, as you have conceded, nobody on earth can know the status of slavery in God’s True Morality. Therefore, you are unable to measure your moral belief about slavery against the Truth of the matter.

So the mere existence of the Truth is entirely beside the point. Your argument is that atheists cannot have a genuine morality because they cannot measure their ideas or feelings about morality against an Objective Truth. But since you cannot measure your ideas and feelings about slavery against the Objective Truth of the matter—because you don’t know what that Objective Truth is—then that would mean that you cannot, under any circumstances, have any more purchase on the question of slavery than an atheist does. It would mean your morality—as regards this issue, at least, and thousands of others like it—is just as foundationless as the atheist’s.

“… Republicans (no age group breakdown, but it must be less than the 25 per cent for all voters given low party identification in this age group).”

I don’t understand how the author reached this conclusion based upon the data in the study. Maybe I’m just missing something…can anyone explain this to me like you would a five year old? Thanks

I really liked your last post. It really helped to clarify my own thinking.

the whole point is that nobody knows for certain what that single law is, because anyone deriving moral authority from the will of a supernatural being is fumbling in the dark. All you have to go on is your own intuition, (an edition of) the Bible, and the collected exegesis of the last few millennia. None of which are remotely “objective”.

…

How is this situation superior to one which acknowledges the subjectivity of human morality, but makes the premises of moral argumentation available to all? If subjectivity is a deal-breaker for atheism, how can it not be for theism?

You are correct that no one knows for certain the full nature of God’s objective moral law. But we do know that it exists, and we do know that the answer is found in the Bible. And we do have enough of an understanding of that objective moral law to find broad areas of agreement. And where we disagree, we can apply ourselves to Biblical study to try to resolve our disagreements, secure in the knowledge that there is an objective answer.

It is a lot like the famous Quiggon v. Cowen productivity debates. They both know their stuff, and they disagree about the future of social democracy. But the lesson is not that there is no objective truth on the issue. The lesson is that it can sometimes be difficult to know the truth.

This is not the case for subjective morality. Here, the lesson really is that there is no truth. Without an objective standard, all moral viewpoints – including slavery, genocide, and infanticide – become equally valid. If they aren’t equally valid, then there must be an objective moral value that deems some moral principles invalid. Secondly, there is no reason to even act morally. You could just as easily reject the whole concept of morality. Thirdly, anthropologists have shattered our illusions that deep down, all societies have similar moral laws. Here is just a small sampling, from the cultural and ethical philosopher Louis Pojman:

Eskimos allow their elderly to die by starvation, whereas we believe that this is morally wrong. The Spartans of ancient Greece and the Dobu of New Guinea believe(d) that stealing is morally right, but we believe it is wrong. A tribe in East Africa once threw deformed infants to the hippopotamuses, but we abhor infanticide. Ruth Benedict describes a tribe in Melanesia that views cooperation and kindness as vices, whereas we see them as virtues.

Sarkozy is ahead in the polls in France. Harper in Canada. Cameron in Britain. Merkel just won (narrowly) in Germany. And of the 3 top candidates in the US, only Obama is clearly against the US remaining in Iraq.

Do people vote for parties or candidates? Pew believes one thing, but…

As to polls on the environment. People overwhelmingly support the environment-on the way to buying their next SUV or minivan. But at least now some people can buy offsets. If anyone pays me $10000 I won’t buy that Escalade I can’t afford anyways. Anybody?

Speaking of propaganda, that’s probably the Gang of Petrowhores’ greatest strength long-term: a simple message for a confusing world, even if that message is completely wrong and bears no resemblence to actual G.O.P. policy.

And in a society where more and more boys are being raised without fathers, the Republicans’ reassuring father figure image and appeal to violence will never go out of style.

Plus, there are a lot of guys out there who are pissed off because they can’t start a family, can’t even get laid, and can’t make enough money in a world where the gap between rich and poor continues to grow (although those dumb angry guys fail to connect this trend to Republican policies).

Add religion to the mix and you’ve got the final ingredient for a core of die-hard supporters whose political influence will extend far beyond their numbers.

In other words, be afraid. Be very afraid.

Two points. First, that is why I’ve generally specified “If a Christian God exists.

Yes, and I’m saying that the Christian God could well be a psychopath. That’s my interpretation of the Bible and it’s a large part of why I’m an atheist. But like I say, that’s a whole different question.

If Christianity did not have the Bible, you would have a point. But I am not allowed to decide that God has changed his mind about “Do not murder” or “Do not steal.”

Secondly, while Christians do disagree about how to interpret the Bible, that does not change the fact that there is a single objective moral law

But the whole point is that nobody knows for certain what that single law is, because anyone deriving moral authority from the will of a supernatural being is fumbling in the dark. All you have to go on is your own intuition, (an edition of) the Bible, and the collected exegesis of the last few millennia. None of which are remotely “objective”. If Bible-believing Christians disagree on whether abortion is or can be morally justified, how do you “objectively” decide who is right? And are people who wear clothes of two different materials or who eat pork or who “objectively” wrong? If not, why not? What good is it to “know” that one side must be objectively correct, if you can’t know what side that is?

How is this situation superior to one which acknowledges the subjectivity of human morality, but makes the premises of moral argumentation available to all? If subjectivity is a deal-breaker for atheism, how can it not be for theism?

Thirdly, you do not find Christians who disagree about, say, “Do not murder” or “do not steal” or “give money to the poor.”

God could exist and be a psychopath.

Two points. First, that is why I’ve generally specified “If a Christian God exists.” If some other god existed, then Christian morality would not be objective.

The point is that nobody can tell if they really are agreeing with God’s morality, because every Christian has a different conception of God’s morality and each believes their claim to divine revelation is valid.

…

your Truth is by definition based on divine revelation and faith, rather than premises accessible to all, it is hopelessly subjective.

If Christianity did not have the Bible, you would have a point. But I am not allowed to decide that God has changed his mind about “Do not murder” or “Do not steal.”

Secondly, while Christians do disagree about how to interpret the Bible, that does not change the fact that there is a single objective moral law. For example, Christians have disagreed about the morality of abortion, but only one side is correct.

Thirdly, you do not find Christians who disagree about, say, “Do not murder” or “do not steal” or “give money to the poor.” The vast majority of ethical principles are settled doctrine.

If they disagree with God’s morality, then they are simply wrong.

Well, that’s begging the question, but I’ll set that aside for the moment. God could exist and be a psychopath. The point is that nobody can tell if they really are agreeing with God’s morality, because every Christian has a different conception of God’s morality and each believes their claim to divine revelation is valid. Even within denominations there is disagreement, and there are countless thousands of denominations. So your complaint that atheistic morality (which let me repeat is not monolithic) must because of its subjectivity “collapse” applies just as much to Christianity. The objectivity of your system of morality consists of arbitrarily choosing one brand of theism and declaring it to be capital T- true, in the face of billions of people who think their brand of theism or atheism is True or at least valid. And because your Truth is by definition based on divine revelation and faith, rather than premises accessible to all, it is hopelessly subjective. Now I don’t think that in itself is a problem, because objectivity isn’t the be-all and end-all of morality, but you clearly do. If it’s a problem for secular morality it’s far more of a problem for morality derived from an ineffable being’s will.

I believe that includes Jeffeson himself. The first implication is that deism runs counter to the actual text of the declaration: an impersonal God would not endow all men with certain unalienable rights. But I confess to not being familiar with deist thought. Perhaps deists would claim that God set up a certain natural order, including that of an objective moral law, then took off.

In any case, I was using the Declaration as a familiar example to demonstrate that God’s objective moral law can, and should, trump the laws of men.

The only thing that makes your morality “objective” is that you say it is.

Your objection begs the question. If Christianity is true (if the Christian God exists), then there is an objective morality. It doesn’t matter what forms of morality different societies, different people, or even different Christians adopt. If they disagree with God’s morality, then they are simply wrong.

This is why Christians adapted the Greek and Roman concepts of Natural Law. It transcends the law made by men, which is frequently wrong. That is the heart of the colonist’s complaint in the Declaration of Independence – the laws of England were in violation of their God-given natural laws:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

And we (or some of us, anyway) have argued that objective ethical standards, in the sense of standing outside human society, are not possible with any worldview, because one’s worldview is necessarily subjective. The only thing that makes your morality “objective” is that you say it is. So does the person next to you who subscribes to a different brand of Christianity. And the person next to them. And so on for 6bn people. If there is a single capital-T true morality that is timeless, it’s not found in religion, for religious morality is as diverse and variable as secular morality.