You capitalize "truth" in other comments and say we should seek it yet you don't realize this endeavor is also prone to the is-ought problem. Because man seeks

You capitalize "truth" in other comments and say we should seek it yet you don't realize this endeavor is also prone to the is-ought problem. Because man seeks truth, does that mean he should morally seek it? The principle you adhere to destroys itself with even the faintest intellectual rigor. The more you try to make logic of illogic, religion, the more it waters down your version of truth. It happened to me also. What I then believed as a Christian became so watered down that it was far and away anything resembling Christianity. >>Materialism cannot point to a source of objective moral values. Period. Yes, it can. Whatever the material is derived from, it's chained to a more objective link. So yes, you can use relative morality to argue that it, in itself, has objectivity. For example, someone higher in rank says Saturday is a day off yet he gives the order to his inferior that he can then order that Saturday can be either. You have relative order coming from objective order. >>In my opinion, based on your given conceptions of metaethics, rather than dismiss this avenue of inquiry with the reasoning "it made some sort of logical sense [but not enough]" you could likely have explored the concept further. Ah, the old 'because you don't believe, you haven't been spending enough decades of your life exploring the religion I want you to believe in'. Meanwhile, hundreds of other religious people want me to explore their hundreds of gods and hundreds of interpretations through hundreds of years of philosophical wankery. I just could as well say you haven't explored atheism enough and that's why you haven't arrived to it.