I’m no expert on Eastern religions, but I always thought there were both theistic and non-theistic streams of karmic religion. Vedantic Hinduism is theistic; Buddhism or Jainism is non-theistic, holding karma to be analogous to natural law, reducing morality to an economy of “cause” and “effect,” effectively.

In a western context, it all becomes very convoluted very quickly and confuses the lex talionis with quantum mechanics and bumper stickers where “karma runs over dogma,” etc.

Two cents.

I’m not expert on eastern religions either. That said, you are right—various sects of Hinduism hold that karma is superintended by a supreme God. This would seem to alleviate the problems I’ve raised so far, and in that respect these sects certainly seem to have a more rationally defensible view of karma.

“On the face of it, it seems impossible to account for the existence of objective moral laws in the absence of an objective moral lawgiver. Since morality only applies to persons, where would such rules originate, if not from a personal, moral being?”

this seems like a rather arbitary assertion, first of all there is no such thing as an objective moral lawgiver, all law givers are by definition subjective, so if moral rules come from a personal, moral being it would be subjective, you might try to dance around this problem Dominic but there is no avoiding it, claiming “God is objective” doesnt work because it doesnt make any sense its an inchoerent statement like saying “this Rock’s favourite colour is blue”

I think you need to explain what you mean by “objective” and “subjective”. It sounds like you’re using very idiosyncratic definitions.

dont worry i am not by objective i mean something that is NOT RELATIVE to a individual SUBJECT. Isnt that the type of morality you are always critizing athiests for having? It’s hardly the fact that i am just redefining words to suit my own benefit

Tony, I’m not sure what you mean by “not relative to an individual subject”. Do you mean that something objective exists independently of a given person’s perceptions or conceptions?

If so, then we agree. But what you need to show is how this definition fails if morality is grounded in God.

A morality which is ontologically grounded in a necessary being whose essence is his existence, is a morality which exists independently of any particular person’s perceptions or conceptions.

Now, certainly that morality does not exist independently of God (that was the whole point of my argument). How could anything exist independently of existence? That’s a contradiction in terms. But God is not the kind of person taken for granted under the definition of “objective”. You can insist that he is, but then you’re just trying to impotently impose an idiosyncratic definition on me. I’m using the term as philosophers and theologians use it when they are discussing morality, and frankly I don’t care how you’d prefer to use it.

“Do you mean that something objective exists independently of a given person’s perceptions or conceptions?”

yes

“If so, then we agree. But what you need to show is how this definition fails if morality is grounded in God.”

you believe that this morality cannot exist if God doesn’t exist so its not objective

“How could anything exist independently of existence?”

I thought you are a christian not pantheist

“A morality which is ontologically grounded in a necessary being whose essence is his existence, is a morality which exists independently of any particular person’s perceptions or conceptions.”

Even God’s? According to you nothing exists independent of God……

You need to re-read my previous comment. You’re trying to refute my argument by fiat. Taking an idiosyncratic definition of “objective” that just isn’t what I intended by the term, and forcing it into my argument, does not prove anything about how wrong I am.

but i didnt invent my own definition of “objective” to suit my benefit, you said objective meant something that exists independently of a given person’s perceptions or conceptions, and i showed you that God cannot fit this definition of “objective”

Tony, I already answered this. God is not the kind of person taken for granted under the definition of “objective”. You’re beating a dead horse that, even if alive, wouldn’t get you anywhere.

i re-read your comment many many times over many many weeks. And i used “objective” the way you intended still doesnt really work to say it just sounds really awkward, even if god was nesseary for exsistence ( all it would mean that exsesitnce itself is subjective!). As well you have yet to prove god is ontologically nessesary for anything (and we all know how awkward that argument is)

Tony, is existence subjective in the sense of being dependent on God? Sure.

Is that the sense philosophers and theologians have in mind when they talk about the subjective/objective distinction? No.

Yet you continue to beat the dead horse.

“Is that the sense philosophers and theologians have in mind when they talk about the subjective/objective distinction? No”

prove it, i have looked high and low yet the sense of subjective/objective distinction that you claim philosophers and theologians use doesnt exist.

If you keep trolling I’m just going to ban you. I don’t need to prove a commonly-held definition. Indeed, having told you the sense in which I am using the words, it is even irrelevant as to whether they are commonly-held.

if you want to interpret that question as “trolling”, fine its your blog, at anyrate are you talking about this definition “exists independently of a given person’s perceptions or conceptions”