re: Why can’t we separate Conservative values from religion?

quote:

---

Common sense and common decency

---

What’s common about sense or decency?

Who decides what common decency means in a society? Common to whom?

quote:

---

you agreed that at least some moral statements are objectively true -- that something can actually be wrong regardless of whether the individual or society approves of it. I'm glad we can agree on that.

---

Yes I agreed that a statement is objectively true… what makes the statement a moral statement?

quote:

---

What makes it objectively wrong?

---

I think you know the answer all of the above

quote:

---

F) Something else. Please explain.

---

The point being is that a person who doesn’t “believe” isn’t more likely to harm a child than a person who “believes”… we have empirical evidence proving this

I'll accept “all of the above” as your answer.

But your last paragraph is addressing a different question.

I'm not arguing that a Christian is less capable of harming a child than an atheist. A Christian can commit horrible acts, and an atheist can behave morally.

I'm asking what makes the act itself objectively wrong regardless of who commits it or what either person believes.

If your answer is that innate moral sense, empathy, harm, social consequences, and evolution together establish that objective wrongness, then that's the part I'm interested in understanding. How do those things turn “humans tend to think or feel this way” into “this is objectively what humans ought not do”?

There are no good values in aetheism/satanism

That's a fair objection, but it's a different discussion than what I'm trying to have with lepdagod.

I would distinguish between whether humans can perfectly know or interpret an objective moral standard and whether such a standard exists at all. Human disagreement or imperfect interpretation doesn't by itself make the underlying truth subjective.

Likewise, the difficult Biblical cases and the question of whether Christian morality is actually grounded in God's nature rather than simply "because God said so" are worthwhile issues, but they take us in a pretty different direction.

For now, I'm just trying to pin down the narrower question: if we agree that some acts are objectively wrong regardless of anyone's opinion, what makes them objectively wrong?

quote:

---

Why can’t we separate Conservative values from religion?

---

Where do you think western conservative moral values originated?
It's the reason for bible verses on and in varying federal government buildings.

Those seeking to steer western society away from those values are, simply put, evil. This should be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain.

quote:

---

For now, I'm just trying to pin down the narrower question: if we agree that some acts are objectively wrong regardless of anyone's opinion, what makes them objectively wrong?

---

Here ya go:

quote:

---

In Romans 2:15 the apostle Paul says that Gentiles “show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences [syneideseos] also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.” Paul makes clear that that Jew and Gentile alike follow the law written on the conscience. The Gentile who does not have the law of Moses nevertheless accesses it through nature and conscience. Thus, all humans, to varying degree, live in accord with natural law

---

No problem — I understand the misinterpretation.

And yes, your last paragraph is pretty much the question I’m interested in. I’m not trying to play an endless game of “but where did that come from?”

You asked what I think makes it wrong. My answer is that the Christian view grounds moral obligation ultimately in the nature of God. Human beings have an innate moral sense because, as I mentioned earlier, Scripture describes God’s law as being written on our hearts. So I wouldn’t expect an atheist to lack conscience, empathy, decency, or an understanding that hurting a child is wrong.

One small distinction: you said decency means “treating others how they would want to be treated.” If you just meant the familiar “treat others as you would want to be treated,” then we’re talking about something very close to the Golden Rule. If you specifically meant “as THEY want to be treated,” that’s a somewhat different moral principle.

Either way, where I think our views may differ is what that innate feeling means. You seem to be saying the innate feeling itself gets us to morality. I think the innate feeling is evidence of our ability to recognize a moral reality that exists independently of our feelings.

That’s why I kept asking the questions. If a principle like “treat others as you would want to be treated” is objectively right, I’m interested in what makes that principle objectively binding — especially on someone who doesn’t share the feeling.

I assume this conversation has run its course, but we can continue if you like.

Yes, absolutely.

Right and wrong didn't begin when Moses received the tablets. The Mosaic Law revealed and codified moral requirements that already existed. It didn't create morality.

That's apparent in Genesis when Cain was accountable for murdering Abel. Sodom was judged for wickedness. Joseph referred to adultery as a "sin against God". All of that came before Sinai.

If the next question is, "Then do people need religion in order to know right from wrong?" I would answer no.

Christianity doesn't teach that a person has to read the Bible, belong to a church, or even consciously believe in God before he can recognize that murder, cruelty, theft, betrayal, etc. are wrong. Romans 2 is part of the reason I brought up the law being written on men's hearts in the first place.

So when I say morality is grounded in God, I'm not saying religion invented morality or that Christians have exclusive access to it. I'm saying that the morality exists independently of us, humans have some natural capacity to recognize it, and revealed law gives additional clarity and instruction about it.

If you believe that people could recognize right and wrong before Moses -- yes. If your point is that an atheist today can recognize right and wrong -- yes again.

The question on the table is what ultimately makes those moral truths objectively true and binding -- regardless of what any individual or society believes?

quote:

---

The question on the table is what ultimately makes those moral truths objectively true and binding

---

What makes it true and binding to said individual is adhering to them, no?… objectively or otherwise