Philosolosophy time! Absolute truth, morality, Nazis and God

Something that frequently annoys me is that staunchly religious (read: usually evangelical) apologists tend to argue that there are absolute moral values, that something is either objectively wrong, objectively good or objectively morally neutral. This is flawed, for reasons I will address in a moment. But something else that irritates me is that they call it "absolute/universal truth".

I feel that they consistently fail to make a distinction between different types of "truth". Some things are absolutely, objectively true. That the Earth is round is an example of this kind of truth. I acknowledge that. But other things are seen differently from person to person. That stealing is wrong is an example of this. Care should be taken to distinguish one type of "truth" from the other.

I hold that moral questions should not be considered to hold absolute answers. I hold that no answers to moral questions should be considered "truth" in any way. Rather, they should be considered and referred to as "opinions".

Let's use emotionally charged examples to show what I mean.

Is murder wrong? The obvious answer is "yes"-at least, it is in most circumstances. The question is incomplete. There still might be circumstances in which murder is objectively good or objectively bad. So let's use a better example:

Were the Nazis justified in the systematic extermination of six million Jews?

Obviously, your answer is "no". I share your sentiments. I consider the Holocaust to be one of the worst crimes committed in human history. If you do not feel the same way, I invite you to jump off a skyscraper and rid the rest of the world of your barbaric views.

And yet, I still hold that the question does not have an objective answer. If that sounds appalling then allow me to explain myself.

Did the Nazis themselves think they were justified? If the answer is "yes", if even a single Nazi considered the holocaust justified, then the answer to this moral question is subjective. In fact, all it takes is the capacity for someone to consider it justified and it becomes subjective. All of morality is like this. One cannot experiment on a moral question and find it true or false. It is open to variation from one person to another. All moral truths are in fact just opinions.

But the other kind of truth is objective. Scientific truth can be tested, observed and determined one way or the other. Probably. Scientists are always careful that nothing should be considered definitely true. But not because it is a matter of opinion. Opinion does not affect how true something is in science. But there is always the chance that the scientists have got it objectively wrong, or at least, objectively not quite right.

The Earth is shaped like a slightly squashed sphere. That is a fact. It does not matter if you believe the Earth is flat. A flat-Earther cannot walk walk to the edge of the world, not matter how hard they try.

The Earth is orbiting the Sun. That is also a fact (although actually, the Sun also orbits the Earth, but the Earth is so small that the Sun just wobbles a bit as the Earth zooms round once a year). It doesn't matter if you are a die-hard geocentrist.

The universe is probably about 13.72 billion years old. That is once again a fact. It will not be 6000 years old just because you might be a creationist.

Et cetera, et cetera.

Does God exist? Is it the god of the Bible (definitely not, I'm afraid) or some being that bears some aspects of the Biblical God? Or is it a Deist god, that made the universe, then let it do its own thing?

Whatever the case, I hold that this is a scientific question. Either God exists or he doesn't. Either he/she/it is like this, or like that. There is no middle ground. Claiming it as a theological question is just a way to dodge the issue. Trying to prove it one way or the other just by logic is fallacious.

We must do the scientific thing. When a scientist wants an answer, they look for positive evidence. They experiment. A being that can create Quasars and galaxies should leave a trace of its existence. If there is no physical, tangible evidence, then one should dismiss the hypothesis and formulate a new one.

There is no physical, tangible evidence for the existence of any kind of god, spirit, higher power or life force. The religious should, in my opinion, move on.

Two exchanges between myself and others on Facebook

Posted on the off-chance some people might find it interesting:

On the Facebook group "Smashing up your own city because you have the IQ of a ham sandwich" someone called Wayne Lush posted the following:

Wayne Lush: "Vote BNP this stuff won't happen"

My response was:

Me: "What, because the BNP would have sent in the SS by now and gunned the rioters down? Because they would have sent them to concentration camps? Fucktarded though the rioters may be, the BNP in power is by far the greater of the two evils."

I then received a private message from someone else called Mary Kingdon (not "Kingdom"):

Mary Kingdon: "Hey, I don't like this comment. Please remove it. [she then posted a copy-paste of my comment] Link to content:

http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=175989085806344&id=175743665830886"

'Ooh!' I thought. 'A chance to argue with a stranger on the internet! I must respond.'

Me: "With all due respect, I wouldn't take it down even if the Prime Minister, the Dalai Lama and the Archbishop of Canterbury said together that they were offended. One right we do not have is the right to not be offended.

You could perhaps persuade me that my comment is inappropriate or disproportionate-in which case I will still leave it up for historical purposes, but add a disclaimer in the same comment section rather than take it down and pretend I never said it.

In any case, I can't see why a reasonable individual would dislike my comment. It is an attack on both the stupidity of the protesters and the policies of a far-right, neo-Nazi political party."

Her response then baffled me slightly:

Mary Kingdon: "Bullshit. I have been offended by your arrogant and childish comments. I abhor your nazi tendencies as would all right thinking Brits. You just jumped on a bandwagon and followed the pack mentallity which is what the youths were doing. Because you lack respect for others in the same way. Oh and don't waste time replying because I will have blocked you from doing this."

So I replied, with no real idea what the fuck they were talking about at this point:

Me: "Nevertheless, I shall reply, for there is some chance you shall read what I have to say.

I feel you may not have actually read what I said. What "nazi tendencies" did I exhibit? I am the one opposing the BNP. The BNP are the ones with Nazi tendencies.

I am not sure what you mean by "pack mentality". When I typed my original comment, it appeared to my screen that there were no other comments below. I did not know that others would post.

In what way do I "lack respect for others"?"