Niniel: interesting points.

I'll think about that. I could say that it is only a perception (human or duck) that there is a category of things called 'apples' (or 'eggs).
Originally posted by Eriol
And in that case, "reality" is where we find absolute truth... what you are really saying, Snaga, is that WE can't find absolute truth, but that it is out there. You are addressing an inherent flaw in human abilities to apprehend truth. I don't know if you are right; this hypothesis is strictly untestable. But in any case it does not touch on the question of whether there is some absolute truth out there. That is the thing we want to make our statements correspond to...
I believe it was Karl Popper who said that there was absolute truth, but we couldnt 'know' it. This really addresses the central inability for us to prove that anything exists beyond ourselves. Descartes' "I think therefore I am" proved we exist, but nothing else is provable 'ontologically'. But if there is a physical reality, we
assume our senses convey information about it to us, rather than being some form of deception. Once we make that assumption, we can then go on to sift and filter statements based on perception that have a good correspondence with reality (E=MC2) with those that may appear to at first sight, but later prove false (the world is flat). But each statement made is subject to scrutiny, questioning, qualification and refutation. It is worth noting that statements made in science cannot be proven, only disproven. Theories stand up as physical evidence (ie perception) accumulate to substantiate it, and especially when we are able to turn those statements to practical application.
This is a pragmatic manner for the human race to proceed on its exploration of the cosmos. It is cautious and undogmatic: doubting what we believe, questioning everything. But it is also open and curious about the wonder of this world we appear to apprehend.
But I am aware I have introduced my own basis for judging: 'utility' in relation to a telos 'the exploration of the cosmos'. I mean 'exploration of the cosmos' in a broad sense (ie quest for knowledge and understanding). Others will not agree with this. This is perhaps where ethics starts: we apprehend other people, and when we exchange information we discover the possibility of disagreement. But since it is BASED on the possibility of disagreement, how could it be an absolute?
Originally posted by Malbeth
You know, I was thinking about this the other day, and my explanation is that Eriol made a mistake... I think you can believe God exists without believing in absolute ethical laws, but you cannot believe in absolute ethical laws consistently without beliving, in one way or another, in the existence of God... as Dostoyevsky put it "If there is no God, everything is acceptable".
However, someone can believe in absolute ethical laws without believing in God... it would just be inconsistent... I think this was the position of the average non-believing people until about 40-50 years ago (and, existentially speaking, it still is every non-believer's position. They protest against injustice as if Justice was a real, objective thing).
I don't agree. I am certain that people have and do believe in ethical absolutes without believing in God. But, as described above I personally don't agree. Ethics is founded on the possibility of human disagreement.
But as I am proceeding by testing statements against perception to see if they correspond to perception of reality, I find no reason to believe in a god. I find scant evidence for, and little utility in the belief.
In your second paragraph, I am not sure who your 'average non-believing person' would be! Nor am I clear whether you mean that each individual would be inconsistent (which I think is a strong statement needing justification) or that atheist/agnostics would be inconsistent one from another (undoubtedly true). I am compelled to notice there is no single view of ethics within believers, or indeed within individual faiths.
Overall, there is a concept of 'Justice' that exists across belief systems, that allows a dialogue on 'right and wrong' without having to go back to first principles each time. This is certainly essential in any society where there isnt an imposed religious orthodoxy. Otherwise we would have to resolve Bible vs Koran vs Torah vs..... every time we debated a change in the law!