On Objectivity

[BlackSheep]

Then Craig's first step is to prove his Christian theology is objective. That he cannot do.

I am not defending his position. I was explaining it to someone who didn't understand it.

[DonJindra]

And I agree with you, but that means there is no singular objective morality which is what Craig is getting at.

But what I'm saying is this: Craig is spouting nonsense. Morality can be understood only in human terms, just like "blue" can only be understood in human terms. If we step out of our human skin, "blue" becomes just another electromagnetic frequency and "morality" becomes just another set of animal behaviors.

[BlackSheep]

But what I'm saying is this: Craig is spouting nonsense. Morality can be understood only in human terms, just like "blue" can only be understood in human terms. If we step out of our human skin, "blue" becomes just another electromagnetic frequency and "morality" becomes just another set of animal behaviors.

I understand what you are saying and I have said I agree with you, but if you assume there is a god as he proposes then that god he is suggesting is the source of objective morality. Personally even if there was a god, I would call that is subjective morality, but I am just trying to make his position clear.

[Cephus]

No, that is not the case. "Blue" is a secondary quality. It's how our biological sensors react to a certain wavelength of light. "Blue" is in fact somewhat different in each of us. My "blue" depends on the exact frequency of light that fully energized my blue receptors. It is probably not the same frequency as fully energizes your blue receptors. There is no "objective" standard for "blue." "Blue" is a bell curve of blueness. And "blue" will disappear when humans disappear. Then only light frequency remains. Nevertheless, "blue" is objective in the sense that we can objectively measure which frequency of light causes one person's particular biology to sense his pure blue.

You're completely wrong. Blue is defined as a wavelength between X and Y. It exists even if no one is around to see it. The sky is blue, even if nobody is looking up. It doesn't lose that characteristic just because nobody sees it. What you're describing is the subjective experience of the color blue. That is certainly subjective, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of the color blue. Blue was around long before humans evolved, it'll be around long after we're extinct.

[Cephus]

But what I'm saying is this: Craig is spouting nonsense. Morality can be understood only in human terms, just like "blue" can only be understood in human terms. If we step out of our human skin, "blue" becomes just another electromagnetic frequency and "morality" becomes just another set of animal behaviors.

Craig is spouting nonsense, but that doesn't change the fact that blue can certainly be understood by non-humans. Or are you suggesting that, theoretically, if intelligent aliens are out there, they won't be able to perceive light between a certain range of wavelengths? Or how about animals who can see blue? Are you suggesting they can't see it? That's absurd.

Morality is just a set of animal behaviors because we are just a bunch of animals. We happen to think very highly of ourselves, we happen to be relatively intelligent, but we're no better or worse, objectively, than any other animal.

[R.F.]

I should be clearer about how important Craig's claims are to my argument-- they aren’t. I only addressed one thing he said that is clearly untrue.

Despite the confusion about objectivity, it need not be universal to be objective. Refer to the link below and take notice that universal constants are NOT a condition of a thing existing objectively. If certain moral behaviors were intrinsic in humans then that is the objective foundation of morality.

The fact we have evolved to feel good or bad about behaviors and experiences should be enough to show that we needed a way [before linguistic thought] to distinguish between intrinsic right and wrong behaviors. The reason we feed our children instead of throwing them into a blender is because we have been genetically coded to want our species to thrive. Throwing your child into a blender would be an objectively inappropriate behavior. If you disagree and think this is subjective to opinion... then I'm not sure what else I can say because you're apparently just as hopeless as the religious.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

[DonJindra]

I understand what you are saying and I have said I agree with you, but if you assume there is a god as he proposes then that god he is suggesting is the source of objective morality. Personally even if there was a god, I would call that is subjective morality, but I am just trying to make his position clear.

I don't see how God can turn "blue" or morality into a transcendental, non-human "objective" standard. Craig would especially have to explain why sharks, for example, don't follow that transcendent standard. That empirical evidence alone destroys any meaning in a universal outside-of-human standard.

[DonJindra]

Craig is spouting nonsense, but that doesn't change the fact that blue can certainly be understood by non-humans. Or are you suggesting that, theoretically, if intelligent aliens are out there, they won't be able to perceive light between a certain range of wavelengths? Or how about animals who can see blue? Are you suggesting they can't see it? That's absurd..

It's absurd only if you fail to understand what I'm saying. We humans don't feel magnetic fields. Some lifeforms apparently do. We can sense the fields in other ways -- we can build compasses, for example. But we cannot feel the magnetic fields like sharks do. If sharks could communicate with us, how would they explain what those fields feel like? Or how would we explain to a color-blind person what blue looks like? How is it different from green? Those colors are subjective experiences. Only lifeforms that have color receptors can understand what those colors are. Telling a being without those receptors that "blue" is between such-and-such a wavelength really doesn't tell them why we would naturally refer to "blue" as a separate experience than "green".

[DonJindra]

Despite the confusion about objectivity, it need not be universal to be objective.

I agree with you. Craig is trying to muddy the waters with a self-serving definition of objectivity. I suppose he cannot objectively determine humans are bipedal without his god.

[DonJindra]

What you're describing is the subjective experience of the color blue. That is certainly subjective, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of the color blue.

It certainly does. Blue was not around before animals evolved that could distinguish it from green and red. Similarly, love was not around before animals evolved that could feel it.

[grandpa]

It certainly does.
Blue was not around before animals evolved that could distinguish
it from green and red.

You're not taking into consideration how things exist without us knowing it. I understand your argument, and it's fun to wrap one's head around it. However, the elements which create what we call "blue" exist without us.

Grandpa h.

[BlackSheep]

I should be clearer about how important Craig's claims are to my argument-- they aren’t. I only addressed one thing he said that is clearly untrue.

Despite the confusion about objectivity, it need not be universal to be objective. Refer to the link below and take notice that universal constants are NOT a condition of a thing existing objectively. If certain moral behaviors were intrinsic in humans then that is the objective foundation of morality.

Actually if certain moral behaviors are intrinsic to humans then they are the objective foundation of human morality, but he is not talking about human morality. he is talking about universal morality that he claims is part of the universe due to Yahweh's creation of it.

The fact we have evolved to feel good or bad about behaviors and experiences should be enough to show that we needed a way [before linguistic thought] to distinguish between intrinsic right and wrong behaviors. The reason we feed our children instead of throwing them into a blender is because we have been genetically coded to want our species to thrive. Throwing your child into a blender would be an objectively inappropriate behavior. If you disagree and think this is subjective to opinion... then I'm not sure what else I can say because you're apparently just as hopeless as the religious.

You continue to miss my point. While I think much of morality is culturally based, certainly some are likely based in our genes. This would be the objective basis of those elements of human morality.