Upon further reflection, there are at least two possible objections to this, but both have the same resolution.
One might therefore conclude that no external moral standards exist, since morality is solely the product of imaginative minds. Since imagination is unbounded and unique to each individual, there is no fixed external standard. The next part will deal with a possible objection to this.
The first objection is to consider another product of mind about which objective statements can be made, namely, language. There is no a priori reason why a Canis lupus familiaris should be called a "dog." In German, it is a "Hund." In Russian, "собака" (sobaka) and in Greek, κυον (kuon).
I heard somewhere that the word for "mother" typically begins with an "m" sound, since that it the easiest sound for the human mouth to pronounce. This is true for French, German, Hindi, English, Italian, Portugese and other languges. But it isn't universal.
So language is like morality; both solely a product of minds that have creative power. Morality is a subset of language, being the language of value.
So the first objection is that we certainly make objective statements about languages. There are dictionaries, grammars, etc... that describe what a language is. So why isn't morality likewise objective? In this sense, it is. We can describe the properties of hedonism, eudaemonism, enlightened self-interest, utilitarianism, deontology, altruism, etc. What we can't do is point to something external to mind and say "therefore this is better than that."
The second objection comes from the theist, who might say, "God's morality is the objective standard by which all other moral systems may be judged." God's morality can be considered to be objective, since He can communicate it to man, just like I can learn another language. But this begs the question, "Why is God right?" Certainly, Dr. Flew claimed that the Christian God is not what He ought to be. On the other hand, this earlier post noted that Christianity makes the claim that only God is what He ought to be.
Both objections are resolved in the same way: the objectiveness of morality must refer to its description -- not to its value.
So now we are ready to answer the question if an external moral standard exists and what might be.
On 3/15, I had a conversation with an atheist in which he wasn't able to handle a question about intelligence.
On 3/23, I had almost the exact same converstation in this thread on Fark. It's 576 comments long; look for the exchange between "poundgrayly" and "Epicedion".
Today, the same thing happened on this thread on Vox Popoli with "Nicholas_Gascoine".
Because the Fark thread is so extensive, I'm working on diagramming it for presentation and further analysis. But the short form is that those who claim that science is the only means for obtaining "true knowledge" have trouble with these questions:
- What is the scientific definition of intelligence?
- What is the scientific test for intelligence?
- Are you intelligent?
- How do you know?
As a certain pointy-eared green-blooded epitome of rationality would say, "Fascinating!"
In this interview, regarding the problem of evil, Flew stated:
HABERMAS: In God and Philosophy, and in many other places in our discussions, too, it seems that your primary motivation for rejecting theistic arguments used to be the problem of evil. In terms of your new belief in God, how do you now conceptualise God’s relationship to the reality of evil in the world?
FLEW: Well, absent revelation, why should we perceive anything as objectively evil? The problem of evil is a problem only for Christians. For Muslims everything which human beings perceive as evil, just as much as everything we perceive as good, has to be obediently accepted as produced by the will of Allah. I suppose that the moment when, as a schoolboy of fifteen years, it first appeared to me that the thesis that the universe was created and is sustained by a Being of infinite power and goodness is flatly incompatible with the occurrence of massive undeniable and undenied evils in that universe, was the first step towards my future career as a philosopher! It was, of course, very much later that I learned of the philosophical identification of goodness with existence!
Back in December, I wrote some preparatory remarks toward a formal article on evidence for God. I haven't had time to work on it, but this discussion at Vox Popoli gives the sketch of one approach. One commenter remarked on the atheist's demand for scientific proof of God's existence. I wrote that science is self-limited on what it can know:
The scientific method is only applicable to a subset of things we know about. For example, it can tell us about what is, but it cannot say anything about what ought to be. It also cannot prove itself. So, their epistemological foundation can't support them.
To this, I should add that I suspect that Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem can be applied to the scientific method. What this means is that there are things which can be known to be true, but which cannot be proven true by science.
I then wrote:
Having said that, the scientific method can still be useful. How can one test for God? What science isn't good at, right now, is testing for intelligence. At best, the Turing test can be used. But intelligent beings are not things that respond in predictable ways. How does one test an intelligent computer that doesn't want to talk to you, but will talk to someone else? When scientists have an answer to that, they can then try to apply the scientific method to God.
The discussion picks up where "Victorian dad" uses Occam's Razor in an attempt to exclude God on philosophical grounds. "Victorian dad's" words are in green, mine are in blue.
In his brief run from 1960-61 and 1965-67 there were nine variants of his costume. Here are the first three.
The blue and mauve costume and ginger hair is from his first appearance in Space Adventures #33. It's likely this was a coloring mistake, as his costume is orange and gold on the cover. The next issue shows the familiar orange and gold and the Captain has his trademark silver hair. The blue in the belt lasted one full issue and alternated between blue and black in Space Adventures #35. With Space Adventures #36 the blue was gone for good as typified by the third picture, from Captain Atom #80. The uniform is made from "Diulustel", which contains his radioactivity. Note the pointed boots. Read More...
Fark featured a discussion on the 10 most ridiculous costumes in comic books. Someone posted a picture of the Rainbow Raider, a nemesis of the Flash. The Rainbow Raider's costume looked somewhat familiar. Compare the costume of the Raider, who first appeared in 1980, with the costume of Dr. Spectro, an opponent of Captain Atom, who first appeared 14 years earlier in 1966.