A response to this set of questions:

1) Can you prove that objective moral facts exists?

2) Can you prove that you are able to properly apprehend these facts through some source?

3) Can you prove that this source is the true source of all objective moral facts?

Simple Model:

• Objective moral fact claims exist;
• One set of moral fact claims is true;
• Objective moral facts exist.

• These facts can be properly apprehended;
• These facts have a source;
• This source is the source of all objective moral facts.

(Conditional)

• The source itself is the means to properly understand these objective moral facts.

Expanded Model:

Objective moral fact claims exist.

• All claims to knowledge of moral facts are qualitative objects;
• Qualitative objects exist;
• Objective Moral fact claims exist.

One set of claims is true, so objective moral facts exist.

• One set of objective moral truth claims is in accordance with reality;
• To be in accordance with reality is to be factual;
• One set of objective moral facts exist.

These facts can be properly apprehended

Facts are apprehensible;

• If a fact is objective, it is intelligible;
• If an objective fact is intelligible, it is apprehensible;
• Objective facts are apprehensible.

Facts are properly apprehensible;

• Objective facts are intelligible;
• Intelligible facts are apprehensible;
• If a fact is apprehended, it is apprehended properly.

(Note: This is axiomatic. You either understand, or you do not. You either apprehend the fact, or you do not. A word which means “understood” leaves no room for “incompletely” understood. It is, or it is not. )

• Objective facts are properly apprehensible.

Objective facts can be properly apprehended.

These facts have a source.

• An objective moral fact would be communicated via information;
• Information must have a source;
• Objective moral facts have a source.

This source is the true source of all objective moral facts.

• If all objective moral facts are contained in a set, this set is objective moral fact;
• If objective moral fact is supplied, it is supplied as a set;
• The set cannot contain any moral non-facts;
• If it is supplied as a set, it has either one source, or multiple sources which agree in all respects.
• To be factual is to be true;
• This source is the true source of all objective moral fact.

Bonus Arguments:

This source is also the means by which objective moral facts are properly understood.

• The source must communicate these facts to others, if others are to know them;
• Understanding is predicated upon knowledge;
• The source is thus the means for proper understanding of these facts.

< < Further Discussion Here >>

As some of you may, or may not know, my father is the NASA Resident Chief Engineer for the Space Shuttle’s External Tank.

Today’s Space Shuttle launch was the culmination, for him, of over two years of grueling work to get the shuttle back into space. It involved the largest troubleshooting tree EVER created, several significant redesigns of the external tank, and an almost completely revamped way of doing business for NASA. My dad was involved in all of those, as well as the endless PR nightmare that was the days following the Columbia disaster. If you read it in a newspaper, saw a response to an allegation respecting the disaster, or saw a response to the various “theories” circulating around that disaster – my dad was probably the person that it originated with, prior to the “official” response from the PR division at NASA.

He was the “man on the spot”, and thus was very much in the spotlight for a significant amount of the investigation, and return to flight activities. He has worked some incredibly long hours, and participated in one of the largest investigations in the history of mankind, with one of the most sophisticated failure analysis schema every devised.

The result of all that work is now visible. You just saw it catapult into space today, atop it’s quintuple pillars of fiery thrust.

I’m one of very few people in the entire world who can say “my Dad is a NASA engineer”. I’m always proud to say it – but this is a day I wanted to publicly say it. I’m VERY proud of my father. He’s the son of a World War II fighter pilot, and the brother of an Air Force maintenance/aerospace technician. I was also an Air Force maintenance tech (but he was/is a lot better than I ever was). Aerospace is a family thing, for me.

This blog exists, because of him. My first video game was “Space Invaders”. I owned the first 3d space simulator – Elite. While playing that game, I came up with the “handle” I still use now as my virtual pilot’s call sign. I was 10, maybe 11. I was fed book after book of “hard” science fiction. Not the space operas – I read those on my own. Books written by physicists, engineers, and people who were closely involved with the space program. That was how I was raised to love science, the hard sciences in particular, and writing especially. Don’t get me wrong – I love Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Dickens, and Melville. Hard SF, like nothing else, gets my blood pumping.

It makes me want to write. It makes me want to read. For every “deep thinking” book of theology I read – I read 1 fantasy/gen. fiction, and at least one volume of historical literature. Then I devour a couple SF books at a sitting. My dad gave me my love of reading – my mom gave me my love of culture (including culture in reading). They both gave me a desire to learn, and taught me how to do that.

Thank you.

I’m SO very proud to say that my Dad is a NASA engineer. I am almost as proud to be a NASA brat – but not quite. Dad, great work – and I’ve enjoyed all the great conversations as you’ve plugged away for the last two years. How many people get to hear about the inner workings of NASA while standing in the kitchen sipping coffee, or jointly raiding the fridge?

That… is so unbelievably cool.

I know NASA is not the supreme object of devotion. Don’t worry, I really do know. It is, however, one of the coolest things humanity has done. Sending someone into space, and doing it in a vehicle that can come back – and be *re-used* is something we should never cease to wonder at.

God’s creation is, indeed, fearfully, and wonderfully made. We are drowning in our sins, this is true. We are also fearfully and wonderfully made. We’d have to be, to dream of – let alone succeed at – something so ambitious. I consider it nothing but a privilege to have a father involved in that fulfilled dream.

Imagine – your dad has a moon rock as his paperweight at work. He’s brought you to see the Space Shuttle land at Edwards. You’ve met astronauts – and they remember you. Your dad talks to astronauts all the time, and has funny (and heart-wrenching) stories to tell about them, and the test-pilot culture they reside in. Never forget – the people that fly in the Shuttle know FULL well what risks they are taking. It is only WE who forget it, and treat it like it’s just an everyday occurrence to send people into orbit in the most complex piece of machinery ever built by human hands, assembled in one of the largest buildings ever built by human hands.

They know. It’s truly a wonderful thing to see that – and realize that they retain that sense of wonder you seem to have misplaced, since childhood, when viewing the truly marvelous. that realization restores it, and brings a smile to your lips once again as you think of your mother chanting “go, baby GO!” as she has for every Shuttle launch you can remember, since the Challenger disaster. She understands. I still get a happy tear in my eye watching those plumes arc up into what seems infinity – and know that once again, we’ve shown that we are truly created in the image of God. A dim reflection, to be sure – but a certain, indisputable reflection of the Creator who gave us the faculties which enabled us to accomplish such a thing.

One final thing. My father, the quintessential engineer – is a believer in Christ. He teaches Sunday School, helps my mother as she runs our church’s music ministry, and is the father of 6 children. He too believes that our own efforts to do such seemingly miraculous things are a gift, bestowed by our Creator. I’m inclined to think that Creator is pleased with our baby steps imitating His majestic creative genius. I’m also inclined to think that He smiles, every time one of our incredibly complex tinkertoys escapes the pull of gravity, and begins to orbit the blue, green and white sphere we call home. The way a proud father delights in the accomplishments of his children. The way my father has never failed to praise my accomplishments, regardless of how infantile they seem in comparison to his.

To him, they ARE something.

To me – he’s a hero.

He’s my Dad.

In the comments to my previous post, I was challenged by Hookflash, who will be quoted from this point on, and annotated as “H“.

H: Even if there are “objective” moral facts, your apprehension of them is subjective (and, thus, prone to error).

The proper response is:

Despite the fact that objective moral facts exist, your apprehension of them is subject to error, and prone to be misinterpreted subjectively, despite their objective status.

From such misapprehensions arise sin – aka “violations of the objective moral standards”.

H: This is why, if you were to ask 10 moral realists to outline their supposedly “objective” moral standards, you’d probably wind up with 10 different standards. 😉

First, that claim lacks specificity. The subject is not “moral realism” – it is “moral objectivism”. What is “real” is another way of saying “what is true”. However, it is not a common conception to all “objective” moral standards, nor are all “objective” moral standards similar, let alone identical.

Thus, by using a non-universal as your universal, you are committing a fallacy of composition. Someone who considers Objectivism to be true, despite the term “Objectivism”, is not akin to a Christian objective moralist, who holds that all truth, all morality, is derived from the person of God. An Objectivist believes that all truth is derived from human reason, and that the primary goal of human morality is to advance self-interest, and self-happiness.

Thus, your statement is no longer universally applicable, as the two are incompatible. By stating something already known as if it is something that is not, you are committing a Fallacy of Exclusion.

We *know* moral realists are not all alike. However, as this is a Christian apologetics blog, assume, always, that I am talking about Christian Objectivism – especially due to my argument above. In Christian Objectivism, the only correct morality is the morality given from God. Misapplications, subjective, or otherwise, are by default, inherently wrong. Truth claims contrary to those given by God are also inherently wrong, and thus, subjective. You are also committing a Broad Definition fallacy, because you are stating what is already said to be excluded from valid truth, as if it is legitimate truth within the system criticized.

Christianity, within it’s basic, necessary premises, says that anything contrary to God’s statements is untrue, regardless of ‘alternate” subjective interpretations. There is one truth, and one truth only. If we are wrong – we are only that – wrong. Only God’s statement on the issue is right.

Whether a hypothetical 10 “moral realists” contradict each other is inconclusive, at best, and irrelevant, at worst. In a logical winnowing of the truth/morality claims, only one is legitimately correct. Plurality has no basis in logical argument.

True/False, not Both.

H: Furthermore, the source one chooses as the basis of their “objective” morality (e.g., the Bible, or the Koran) is chosen subjectively — i.e., you make a decision which is, like all decisions, subjective.

This comes down to your conception of reality, and of the efficacy of logical thought. If things are knowable, and truth can be distinguished from untruth, then the choice is anything but subjective. It is once again, objective. Only one religion can be true, or no religion is true at all. Those are your choices.

Jesus cannot be both God and not-God. This is a logical violation. Christianity, by that simple logical proof, excludes all inclusion in pluralistic thought. Jesus’ claim to deity defies logical inclusion with any religion which denies His deity.

A cannot be both A, and Not-A.

So, we now have Christianity, and every other religion. Islam, for example, thinks Him to be a prophet, but decidedly not God. it cannot be true, while Christianity is also true. The converse is also logically necessary.

Atheism is also incompatible, as a truth claim, with Christianity. A philosophy which states “there is no god” cannot co-exist, pluralistically, with a religion which claims that there is not only a God – but that a specific historical, verifiable person in history was, in fact, God.

It also cannot co-exist with weak atheism, or agnosticism, which says “I have not enough evidence to believe in a God.”

It runs directly into Christianity’s Romans 1:20, which states:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Once again, incompatible.

The choice is made logically, whether you consciously realize it, or not. things are subject to others things until you run out of subjects, yes. To a point. However, Reason is derived from objective principles governing it (logic) – or Reason ceases to be trustworthy. Truth claims are winnowed by logic, and logic by the actual veracity (truth) of logic’s premises.

If you choose which Truth is “correct” the same way you choose which breakfast cereal to buy – you take the process of arriving at, and coming to an understanding of, Truth far too lightly. You don’t “choose” what is true. You arrive at the doorstep of truth via reason, and logic. Reason takes you only so far. Truth is truth, no matter what you choose to consider as true. There is no “Atheism is True for you, but Christianity is True for me”. If A =/= C, (they are by definition antithetical) then A = T and C = T is, by definition, and by logical proof – false. Thus, there can be only one “T” – and only one thing can be correct.

The same thing applies for every claim to truth which differs. There is NO “this truth is correct, and so is this truth – despite the fact that the two “truths” contradict each other. Either one is true, or neither are true. Those are your only options.

Let’s put it another way. If nothing is objectively true – all of the logical proofs above would be meaningless. I could say “A =/= C – yet A = T and C = T are both correct – and this is true for me.” I would be absolutely correct – because there is no objective, absolute, outside-of-myself truth. Unless there is an objective standard to say “No, inequal statements BOTH equaling a third statement is absolutely impossible.” This is not paradox, but impossibility, unless we have an explanation which negates A =/= C. There is no such negation, and there is such a standard (the laws of logic) which says that the above is, indeed, the truth. Contradictory statements just can’t. This is immutable. Absolute. Objective.

Objective Morality holds to the same principle. Morality is a standard defined outside of the person whose behavior being measured against the standard. Morality is NOT a standard defined by the person whose behavior is being measured against the standard. This is subjective morality.

Subjective morality denies “standards” altogether. A standard is a measurement by which the measured are measured BY. The measured do not maintain the standard – or they could move it whenever they wished, willy-nilly. it ceases, at that point, to be a standard. It is then a “personal goal” – which can be adjusted whenever the person in question sees fit.

He is now the only person judged by that standard – and a judge cannot judge himself. In law, a judge would have to recuse himself for a case involving his own personal interests. Do you honestly think moral law is any different? Or do you think a judge should judge himself?

H: You can then stamp your feet and declare vehemently that your source is the objective one, and everyone else is wrong, but the fact remains that you’re using moral standards which are, at bottom, subjectively chosen.

The choice of which objective moral standard which I believe to be logically (and actually) true is not the issue. The issue is whether the standard chosen is itself objective or subjective. That is the question, not whether the choice of which objective standard to choose is subjective. Of course it’s subjective. However, the principles by which we arrive at that choice are objective – unless we are wrong. In which case we’re wrong. However, we are objectively wrong, not subjectively so. Only one objective truth claim is objectively true. If all objective truth claims are compared, only one will be actually true. Several may be logically true – as in, logically valid – but only one will be actually true. The principles of logic are objectively true. Therefore, by objective principles, we choose which objective truth claim has the best claim to be, in fact, true.

The fact that we make a choice may be subjective – but, the process of making it will be objectively valid, or objectively invalid. True, or false. This is objective. With two antithetical truth claims there is either one true claim, or none. Both cannot be true.

H: In short, “objective” morality solves nothing, especially when its supposed objectivity is based entirely on a subjectively-motivated assertion (whether made by a group or an individual).

Does Objective Truth exist? If not, why should I believe you when you say it doesn’t? In that case, my claim that it does is just as valid as yours, since I subjectively defined it myself.

If so, then there is such a thing as a truth undefined by man, and true regardless of what any man thinks, as to it’s truthfulness. Truth may be Atheism, Christianity, or neither. but what we think about it doesn’t have any affect on whether it is, in fact, true.

Thus, either you, or I, or neither are correct. There is no highway option.

The standard is objective. Whether I choose to believe it to be true or not does not affect it’s actual truth one iota. It is either true, or it is not, regardless of my choice to believe it is.

You are mistaking a subjective action for a standard. You are changing subjects, and proclaiming that the Scarecrow hereby defeats the Tinman – when the fight was between the Lion and the Tinman to start with. I could quibble with you about whether the choice actually IS subjective or not – but it’s still irrelevant. it isn’t about the choice. It’s about whether the standard by which morality is defined is mutable, or immutable. Subjective, or Objective.

When and how we choose to believe which is correct has nothing to do with the properties of the standard itself. Unless you deny Objective Truth. In which case I no longer recognize the validity of your claim, state my claim to be lord and master of humankind, and decree that all my subjects shall henceforth be referred to as “Elvis”. Oh, and I’m right. Because I say so.

And there ARE beezelflobbits on Jupiter – and their name is Sam. Just Sam. I’m right then, too.

Subjective morality, just like subjective truth, is self-contradicting. It’s still fun to be 2 years old again sometimes, though.

“That isn’t your toy!”

“MINE!”

“No, it isn’t.”

“MINE!”

2 year olds are inveterate subjectivists. Everything, regardless of the *objective* truth of their claim – is subjectively theirs. They say so, after all.

A logical form modeled by a two-year old doesn’t hold much appeal to me, however.

UPDATE: Joe posted on the same basic subject today.

I’ve posted about Subjectivism before. I’m happy with the post, but it didn’t cover all of the aspects of Subjectivism that I wanted to cover, and I’ve had an epiphany of sorts.

If: Subjectivism is the belief that the individual conscience determines the morality of the decision;
Then: The individual conscience is determined to be more important, or more valid, than objective moral truth, or its standards.

Contrasted with:

If: The Biblical Account is true;
Then: God’s Word is Objective Truth.

So, we have two antithetical statements.

If:God’s Word is Objective Truth,
Then: Jesus Christ is Objective Truth, per John 1:1.

If: Jesus Christ is Objective Truth;
Then: God the Father is Objective Truth, as Jesus stated that His Father who sent Him was true.

If: Father and Son are Truth;
Then: the Spirit will also be truth, as is shown in John 14:17

Thus; God, in all three Persons, is True.

If: Moral Wrong is called Sin by God
Then: God is telling the truth.

If: Sin is deliberate disobedience to the known will of God;
Then: Sin is morally wrong, as it violates the standards God has set forth.

(Which are dictated by God’s nature, not arbitrarily created. God is not subject to these standards – His very self is implicit in these standards.)

If: Violation of these standards is objectively sinful;
Then: Violation of these standards is a transgression not just of standards, but of God’s very self.

If: The act of violation stems from a personal choice;
Then: The act of violation is an act of subjective moral choice

If: The act is a subjective moral choice;
Then: The individual is, in essence, saying that their individual moral choice is of more importance, or more valid, than God’s very self.

If: Subjectivism is the act of proclaiming one’s own choice as more important, or more valid, than God’s very self

Furthermore…

If: Pride is an excessively high opinion of oneself;

Then: Subjectivism is Pride

If: Pride is the beginning of all sin (Vulgate, non-Protestant Apocryphal book)
Then: Subjectivism is the beginning of all sin.

If: Subjectivism is the beginning of all sin;
Then: since Money is the root of all evil, Subjectivism is the root of all evil.

Thus; Subjectivism is the Root of all Evil.

Slightly tongue-in-cheek… but, really. To be more serious – Subjectivism is simply Pride. It is a Pride in one’s own decisions, that supercedes your respect for Objective Truth – thus, God.

It’s inherently sinful. As we broke down what sin is – it is thus inherently morally wrong to follow a so-called system of Subjective Morality.

What a post to wake up to.

I am going to pose a question and ask you to think for a minute or two before answering. Stop for a moment before you continue reading this article and answer this simple question. Who is the worst sinner you know? Chances are that you know hundreds of people. Perhaps a thousand. Think of all those people and ponder which one is the worst sinner of all.

I’ll wait.

Who is it you saw? Do you know who you should have seen?

Who do you know better than anyone else? Whose heart is laid before you in its entirety, so that you cannot escape the evil bubbling just beneath the surface and the far greater evil buried deep within? When I stop and think about the greatest sinner I know, I really have no choice but to admit that it is me. I am the greatest sinner I know. It feels good to say it. Good but humbling. I am the greatest sinner I know. I may not sin as much as the guy next door, but I see only a few of his evil deeds, so he cannot be the worst winner I know. I see every single one of mine. All day long, in everything I do and in every word I say, I see my own propensity towards evil.

Don’t you agree? If you are truly honest with yourself – if you think, truly think, on the subject – you cannot do anything else.

It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.

Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life. ~ 1 Timothy 1:15-16

Thank you Tim. I needed to read that this morning.

So – go read the whole thing.

Hrmm. God’s trying to tell me something 😀

Something’s been bothering me lately.

I’ve been chatting in James White’s IRC channel on apologetics – and the main topic there seems to be Catholicism.

I had someone ask to be in the aggregator recently, yet I find that a large, large number of his posts concern the “apostasy” of Catholicism, and refer to Roman Catholics as “Romanists” and “Papists”. Now, I won’t say that I disagree that RC theology is erroneous, or even flat-out unbiblical (because, actually, I think it is) – but I asked a question in #prosapologian, James’ chat channel, and the answer took me aback, considerably.

The question was: “Does Roman Catholicism deny salvation to it’s adherents?”

The answer was: “Yes.”

So, I have a question for you, my readers.

If the Roman Catholic believes that Jesus Christ died for their sins, adheres to the Apostles’ Creed, and has accepted Christ as Savior and Lord – what doctrines within Catholicism, then, “deny” salvation to such a person?

I’m genuinely confused by this attitude. Do Calvinists really think that Roman Catholics who adhere to that doctrine are really not Christians at all?

I know Rand does, but we’re not talking about him…

The second question:

If some Protestants think that – do Roman Catholics believe that Protestants, because they believe in so many things that are pronounced “anathema”, are not Christians either?

If we really think that – then there’s a WHOLE lot less Christians out there than we like to admit, should we take that to it’s logical conclusion. For Calvinists, who insist (correctly) that Arminianism is a faith + works salvation – are they Christians? Does that deny them salvation?

For Catholics – is anyone outside the RCC a non-Christian?

We haven’t even reached the Orthodox churches yet.

Troubling subject, and it’s been weighing on my mind quite a bit. What do you think?

7/16

Mommy Brain, Keer Unplugged, My Own Thoughts, Gigowski Gibberish, and The Common Room have also weighed in.

7/15

Carla Wolfe, Chris, and Sal have all posted on this topic as well.

After reading blestwithsons’ post, and the post that inspired it, I’ve mulled over some of the conclusions, and I’m forced to say that I agree with some, disagree with others.

This post, due to it’s title, will now get some interesting traffic, I’m sure – which is fine. That’s why I titled it as such. Better me pulling search engine traffic for this than an actual pedo photoblog… so, neener.

When we post picture of our kids online, we should worry about pedophiles. To an extent. To another extent, I don’tthink the risks outweigh the benefits.

So, what rules should we set, when we post them?

Read the rest of this entry

Like clockwork, that forum zings the “irregardless” I left in on purpose.

How did I know that was going to happen…

I said it was my last post there…

When we are challenged to a debate, what should we look for?

Here’s an example of one I was offered, via hookflash, who you can find on my blogroll under “Ripostes”.

Chaoslord and Todangst Vs. Theists

The post/replies from the topic starter were interesting – if condescending. What do you think, concerning my response? I’m curious to know.

I think his “requirements” were over the top – if not insulting. I may have read too much into them, but that’s the impression I got. Anyone else?

This one deserves it’s own post.

At “NoGodBlog,”Dave, of American Atheists, says:

Our thoughts and support are extended out to the families and friends who lost someone today in the name of a god. This is primitive and barbaric behavior.

The number of people who have died in the name of a deity is unimaginable. I look forward to watching the human race as it evolves out of the need for religion.

Now, that is just the usual atheist vitriol, of course. Until you look closer. It is a post about the 7/7 attacks on London.

Jihadist terrorists are equated with all believers in God – and the ubiquitous “killings in the name of a god” is brought up.

Even terrorist attacks are just fodder for advancing their rhetoric, and their agenda.

It is not a direct connection within the posts – but he makes it crystal clear in the comments.

You may learn a lot, including the remarkable and predictable similarities between Islam and Christianity.

…

Indeed, you’re exactly the same — religions filled with a broad spectrum of followers, all looking at the same book but finding different passages which justify their actions.

How difficult would it be for you to justify mass murder with the Bible?

And later…

As an aside, I’ve been chided for saying that Atheism is perfect, but this is the perfect time to defend that assertion. EVERY religion has problems like this because EVERY religion is open to interpretation. You can defend love, hate, terrorism, slavery, incest, hard work, and murder using the “perfect word of god”, which is darn imperfect if you ask me.

Here’s the link.

Congratulations, NoGodBlog – you’ve won the “Scornful Skeptic” award – for posting one of the most calculated attempts to use a tragedy for ideological “point scoring” that I’ve ever seen.

That made me sick.

Kudos to Steve Hanson and Tim in the comments section, for doing their best to stand for Christ in the face of such an appalling statement.

I’m looking for a graphic, to “award” to these blogs. If anyone has an idea, or a graphic to offer – let me know. I’ll credit you.