It's not turtles all the way down, of course. Any honest skeptic will admit it (or any true Scotsman, I'm sure). It can't be turtles all the way down because nobody has ever lived like that. All morality is subjective until someone steals your wallet.
I do, of course, recommend a true pizza buffet. Toppings all the way up.
I think a very basic problem comes down to the human ability to know what is moral. The usual way we do this is simply to accept G-d's morality *as taught by human beings.* So are you not, in fact, accepting a human definition of morality? If one persuasive preacher tells you that X is right, and an equally skilled preacher tells you that X is wrong, what objective means do you use to decide who is correct?
Now it seems to me that there are least two reasons to care:
1) the impact on human society (thus, "love your neighbor as yourself") and
2) whatever reward G-d plans for us.
The second one is a bit trickier, as we don't have any way to observe that we've chosen correctly; it all comes down to he said/he said. I have a bit trouble accepting that something that is so subjective could actually be His means of deciding - that all that matters is believing the correct authority when it comes to belief. I therefore suspect that the first reason needs to be more important to Him; otherwise, it's like playing the lottery.
But even the first has its issues, as we see all around us. People disagree to the extent that they believe that murdering somebody who disagrees with you earns Divine favor, and they can rationalize it by pointing to claims about revelation.
My own expectation is that multiple faiths must be "true" in the sense that they lead their followers to behave in ways consistent with the Divine Will - even though they have a lot of difference.
1) The conscious. Is there a more direct way of determining God’s Will than via human teachers? The typical Christian answer is yes. Now that doesn’t rule out teachers, since it, too, is fallible (see ‘sin’). But it does give an alternate path. I use the metaphor ‘Sashimi’ for that, but it doesn’t fit the story, really.
2) There is still the issue of the existence of the ocean itself. If someone denies the very existence of the ocean (see my current discussion with the atheist) then they will, perforce or at least in great probability, reject all moral teaching which purports to come from that ocean.
So, to answer your question about turtles… we avoid it by recognizing that, out of our sight, there is an ocean. That God exists. That morality consists of doing His will, however imperfectly we understand it.
You may not be able to see what is underneath the turtle, but it does make a difference if you think it is there.
Again, that’s a different issue than the one I’m dealing with here. One of the things I’m dealing with here is the consequences of not believing that it exists.
It's not turtles all the way down, of course. Any honest skeptic will admit it (or any true Scotsman, I'm sure). It can't be turtles all the way down because nobody has ever lived like that. All morality is subjective until someone steals your wallet.
I do, of course, recommend a true pizza buffet. Toppings all the way up.
Good word Von!
I think a very basic problem comes down to the human ability to know what is moral. The usual way we do this is simply to accept G-d's morality *as taught by human beings.* So are you not, in fact, accepting a human definition of morality? If one persuasive preacher tells you that X is right, and an equally skilled preacher tells you that X is wrong, what objective means do you use to decide who is correct?
Now it seems to me that there are least two reasons to care:
1) the impact on human society (thus, "love your neighbor as yourself") and
2) whatever reward G-d plans for us.
The second one is a bit trickier, as we don't have any way to observe that we've chosen correctly; it all comes down to he said/he said. I have a bit trouble accepting that something that is so subjective could actually be His means of deciding - that all that matters is believing the correct authority when it comes to belief. I therefore suspect that the first reason needs to be more important to Him; otherwise, it's like playing the lottery.
But even the first has its issues, as we see all around us. People disagree to the extent that they believe that murdering somebody who disagrees with you earns Divine favor, and they can rationalize it by pointing to claims about revelation.
My own expectation is that multiple faiths must be "true" in the sense that they lead their followers to behave in ways consistent with the Divine Will - even though they have a lot of difference.
So, how do you avoid the infinite turtles?
There are a couple of problems with this.
1) The conscious. Is there a more direct way of determining God’s Will than via human teachers? The typical Christian answer is yes. Now that doesn’t rule out teachers, since it, too, is fallible (see ‘sin’). But it does give an alternate path. I use the metaphor ‘Sashimi’ for that, but it doesn’t fit the story, really.
2) There is still the issue of the existence of the ocean itself. If someone denies the very existence of the ocean (see my current discussion with the atheist) then they will, perforce or at least in great probability, reject all moral teaching which purports to come from that ocean.
So, to answer your question about turtles… we avoid it by recognizing that, out of our sight, there is an ocean. That God exists. That morality consists of doing His will, however imperfectly we understand it.
You may not be able to see what is underneath the turtle, but it does make a difference if you think it is there.
Sure the more direct way exists - but just knowing it’s there doesn’t tell you how to get there.
Yes. That is another post. With FF we are discussing if it exists; not specifically how to understand it.
My discussion on contraception would be a little more on point to that… special vs natural revelation and the like.
But, as I say, a different discussion.
If you can’t observe it, you can choose to believe it or not, but not know that it is there, much less what it actually is.
Again, that’s a different issue than the one I’m dealing with here. One of the things I’m dealing with here is the consequences of not believing that it exists.