This piece really made me think, particulary about the 'retained and quietly redeployed' metaphysical structure. I'm curious: could you elaborate on how this underlying framework informs our current understanding of objectivity within secular domains, perhaps even in areas like AI's ethical grounding? Very insightful.
Thank you for commenting! For a fuller account of how this metaphysical structure relates to our secular understanding of objectivity, I’d recommend this essay:
With respect to AI, the key point is that science progressed not by escaping metaphysics, but because its metaphysical foundation was settled and left alone. AI ethics implicitly exposes the tension that arises when this framework is not allowed to operate openly. We demand that AI systems be fair, unbiased, and consistent; requirements that implicitly rely on invariance, universality, and independence from preference, while denying, at the philosophical level, that objective moral facts exist. The structure is imported implicitly but refused explicit recognition. As a result, ethics collapses into policy, optimization, or consensus rather than truth. We don’t ask whether an ethical claim is objectively correct, but whether it is acceptable or approved. In effect, we want AI to behave as if moral objectivity exists, while insisting that it does not. Making this structure explicit could fundamentally reshape ethics and rights discourse, and AI ethics has the potential to become the test case for whether we are willing to be consistent about what objectivity actually means, but that all depends upon spread objective awareness first.
You are correct in that I didn't fully address your remarks. I would like to know who I'm talking to first. So I'm not wasting my time. Trying to explain a possibility to someone who doesn't even want to know that possibility. Who are not searching for a possible new understanding, but are just focused on defending a belief.
The fact that you might have tied your identity to a belief in god, and not in sesrch of understanding no matter where it takes you, may make it a waste of time talking to you, for me.
I’m not interested in proving my motives or credentials as a precondition for discussion. I’m clearly defining the conditions that constitute objectivity and grounding. That claim stands or falls on its merits, not on assumptions about my psychology, identity, or openness.
If you want to engage the argument, I’m open to that. If not, that’s fine, but questioning my intent doesn’t address that definition.
Do you have an interest in being a good honest human, searching for the truth and nothing but the truth?
Or are you simply defending a view, not because it is true, but because your identity, or economy is tied up in it, and as such it might be better for you personally?
Not because it's actually better for humanity?
If god exists, god want people to know that there is a objective truth out there independent of that god. One that the good god can be compared with in order to be revealed as the true good god, separated away from any false gods.
If there is a good god, that god wouldn't fear an objective morality not depending on that god.
The questions you’re asking about my motives, commitments, or posture toward truth are all addressed openly in my work. You’re welcome to read it and engage those answers there.
If you’d like to discuss the argument I raised about objectivity and grounding, I’m open to that. Otherwise, I’m comfortable leaving the discussion here.
For any domain to be truly objective, it must align with a reference that is singular, external, independent, universal, non-derivative, and invariant. Atheism, by rejecting or lacking such an external grounding, cannot provide this reference. Without it, moral claims remain contingent and derivative. They reflect perspective, power, or convention, not objective truth. Objectivity is not merely internal consistency, it requires alignment with the underlying structure that makes truth and coherent facts possible in any domain.
You’re changing the subject. You argued that morality can be objectively grounded under atheism, not when moral reasoning becomes applicable. Explaining that morality involves intelligent agents does not address the grounding of moral truth. The original point, that atheism lacks an external, non contingent reference required for objectivity, remains unanswered.
I'm not changing the subject. I'm establishing what morality is, and therefore what it requires in order for you to see that objective morality doesn't require a god. That it's possible to get to objective morality without a god.
And a good god, if existing, would probably even want humans to know this. So that they could separate him from false bad gods.
I wrote a long reply but it disappeared, so I didn't have the motivation to rewrite it.
Oh, btw. Before I eventually continue. Do you believe that you are god?
I think where we’re misaligning is that you’re treating intersubjective functionality, i.e. intelligent agents understanding consequences, as equivalent to objective structure. Modern discourse often uses “objectivity” interchangeably in this way, which is precisely why distinguishing objective structure matters.
I’d suggest looking more closely at my work on this distinction. If you have questions about it, I’m happy to respond.
You still aren’t addressing what I said. I outlined the structural requirements for objectivity in any domain and explained why atheism lacks such a grounding. Explaining when morality is applicable doesn’t respond to that, and neither does introducing theological remarks. The issue of objective grounding remains unaddressed. Until that structure is accounted for, the claim of “objective morality” under atheism hasn’t been defended.
Thank you for the compliment on the essays. And no, I don’t consider myself to be God; this Substack is about the convergence of God and human reason.
This piece really made me think, particulary about the 'retained and quietly redeployed' metaphysical structure. I'm curious: could you elaborate on how this underlying framework informs our current understanding of objectivity within secular domains, perhaps even in areas like AI's ethical grounding? Very insightful.
Thank you for commenting! For a fuller account of how this metaphysical structure relates to our secular understanding of objectivity, I’d recommend this essay:
https://godobjectively.substack.com/p/the-gatekeeping-of-objectivity
With respect to AI, the key point is that science progressed not by escaping metaphysics, but because its metaphysical foundation was settled and left alone. AI ethics implicitly exposes the tension that arises when this framework is not allowed to operate openly. We demand that AI systems be fair, unbiased, and consistent; requirements that implicitly rely on invariance, universality, and independence from preference, while denying, at the philosophical level, that objective moral facts exist. The structure is imported implicitly but refused explicit recognition. As a result, ethics collapses into policy, optimization, or consensus rather than truth. We don’t ask whether an ethical claim is objectively correct, but whether it is acceptable or approved. In effect, we want AI to behave as if moral objectivity exists, while insisting that it does not. Making this structure explicit could fundamentally reshape ethics and rights discourse, and AI ethics has the potential to become the test case for whether we are willing to be consistent about what objectivity actually means, but that all depends upon spread objective awareness first.
I explored a similar question in an essay recently - this reminded me why I wrote it https://ahlamk.substack.com/p/faith-without-a-framework-a-framework?r=77p2lv
Thank you for sharing.
Good to hear you don't consider yourself god.
You are correct in that I didn't fully address your remarks. I would like to know who I'm talking to first. So I'm not wasting my time. Trying to explain a possibility to someone who doesn't even want to know that possibility. Who are not searching for a possible new understanding, but are just focused on defending a belief.
The fact that you might have tied your identity to a belief in god, and not in sesrch of understanding no matter where it takes you, may make it a waste of time talking to you, for me.
I’m not interested in proving my motives or credentials as a precondition for discussion. I’m clearly defining the conditions that constitute objectivity and grounding. That claim stands or falls on its merits, not on assumptions about my psychology, identity, or openness.
If you want to engage the argument, I’m open to that. If not, that’s fine, but questioning my intent doesn’t address that definition.
Do you have an interest in being a good honest human, searching for the truth and nothing but the truth?
Or are you simply defending a view, not because it is true, but because your identity, or economy is tied up in it, and as such it might be better for you personally?
Not because it's actually better for humanity?
If god exists, god want people to know that there is a objective truth out there independent of that god. One that the good god can be compared with in order to be revealed as the true good god, separated away from any false gods.
If there is a good god, that god wouldn't fear an objective morality not depending on that god.
The questions you’re asking about my motives, commitments, or posture toward truth are all addressed openly in my work. You’re welcome to read it and engage those answers there.
If you’d like to discuss the argument I raised about objectivity and grounding, I’m open to that. Otherwise, I’m comfortable leaving the discussion here.
I enjoy reading your work.
Will read more of it.
I hope that you get the answers you are looking for as you read, and if you need clarification, feel free to ask.
You can get an objective morality from atheistic worldview.
For any domain to be truly objective, it must align with a reference that is singular, external, independent, universal, non-derivative, and invariant. Atheism, by rejecting or lacking such an external grounding, cannot provide this reference. Without it, moral claims remain contingent and derivative. They reflect perspective, power, or convention, not objective truth. Objectivity is not merely internal consistency, it requires alignment with the underlying structure that makes truth and coherent facts possible in any domain.
The concept of morality is something that requires intelligent life.
Because events can only have a moral dimension in relation to life.
And an act can only be moral if it is done by an intelligent life.
But as soon as intelligent life exists, morality exists.
Because an intelligent life form. Can understand the possible consequences of it's actions.
In a universe without life, nothing that happened would matter.
If a asteroid collided with another asteroid it wouldn't matter. It would neither be right or wrong, good or bad.
Things can only matter for — or in realtion to — living things and life as a phenomena.
You’re changing the subject. You argued that morality can be objectively grounded under atheism, not when moral reasoning becomes applicable. Explaining that morality involves intelligent agents does not address the grounding of moral truth. The original point, that atheism lacks an external, non contingent reference required for objectivity, remains unanswered.
I'm not changing the subject. I'm establishing what morality is, and therefore what it requires in order for you to see that objective morality doesn't require a god. That it's possible to get to objective morality without a god.
And a good god, if existing, would probably even want humans to know this. So that they could separate him from false bad gods.
I wrote a long reply but it disappeared, so I didn't have the motivation to rewrite it.
Oh, btw. Before I eventually continue. Do you believe that you are god?
And also, I like your essays.
I think where we’re misaligning is that you’re treating intersubjective functionality, i.e. intelligent agents understanding consequences, as equivalent to objective structure. Modern discourse often uses “objectivity” interchangeably in this way, which is precisely why distinguishing objective structure matters.
I’d suggest looking more closely at my work on this distinction. If you have questions about it, I’m happy to respond.
Thank you for commenting!
You still aren’t addressing what I said. I outlined the structural requirements for objectivity in any domain and explained why atheism lacks such a grounding. Explaining when morality is applicable doesn’t respond to that, and neither does introducing theological remarks. The issue of objective grounding remains unaddressed. Until that structure is accounted for, the claim of “objective morality” under atheism hasn’t been defended.
Thank you for the compliment on the essays. And no, I don’t consider myself to be God; this Substack is about the convergence of God and human reason.