>Bald assertion. That's all your arguments consist of. You claim that
everything
>is meaningless under materialist philosophy because materialist philosophy is
>subjective, but Judeo-Christian philosophy is just as subjective. If you were
>intellectually honest, you would apply the same standard to your own
morality.
Russell believes there is no God. Jim believes there is. If Russell is
right then the Judeo-Christian philosophy is subjective. If Jim is right
then it is objective. I think the confusion arises in the fact that
Russell is not granting Jim's presupposition that God exists. The
Judeo-Christian philosophy is only subjective if God does not exist. This
argument will go nowhere if those presuppositions are not granted. (You
may want to argue the validity of those presuppositions but that is an
entirely different argument.) If Jim is right, and God exists, and He will
reward those who follow him and punish those who disobey His law, then this
IS a transcendant, objective moral law whether we like it or not and
therefore superior to any subjective, human convention.
Darrin