[anakronisM]

Thank you, yeah i might do that terez, will see if time allows me.

[Powder]

This is my ham handed segue:
Thing 1: SO how about that idea powder had earlier about a godless world leading to strict determinism?

Thing 2: That is a neat question, I bet AjS, HD, Terez, or Frook can answer it.


-Powder

(The tetris god is pleased when you shamelessly plug yourself)

[Adjutant Stormy~]

This deterministic world, could you elaborate?

Because I see the world deterministically, just by virtue of my field of study. Physics lends a certain clockwork beauty to the universe, but it certainly can't yet model human decision making and choice.

[Yellow]

How do you see physics as deterministic? I always see it as the opposite, at least on the small scale.

Electrons, angular momentum, position, etc.

I guess I would call myself a scientific determinist, while acknowledging that it's impossible for us to achieve that state. In the absense of that ultimate knowledge, I can't see the world as being anything other than non-deterministic.

I remember having an argument with a mate of mine in the pub a while back. Essentially, I think that if you had perfect knowledge of the universe and all its laws, you would be able to predict the things that theoretically/traditionally you can't predict (e.g. what spin state a particle will assume). He says that you can't do that, because there is no bias towards one state over the other.

My argument was that there is a mechanism by which those states are chosen, but we simply do not understand them. Whether or not we will ever understand them, I don't know, but I'm sure we'll never be able to work out any particular state from first principles, i.e. from the big bang. In other words, determinism may be possible, but we'll never achieve it.

Of course, I can't back any of this up by theory, so I'm probably quite demonstrably wrong.

This post has been edited by Yellow: 05 February 2010 - 09:09 PM

[Yellow]

On the subject of "why do you get up in the morning", I would say that I only have a limited span of consciousness on this earth, and I'm going to make the most of it while I can.

I see life as something like a sparrow flying at night through an open window into a well-lit room. It accidentally flies in, gets overwhelmed by the warmth, the light, the sensations, forgetting all about the darkness outside, and by the time it gets used to it, it flies out another window and back into darkness. Nothing before, nothing after, but the room still hangs around long after it has left. Maybe it dropped a turd or two for the inhabitants to clean up

I can't remember where I got that analogy from, but it always seemed apt.

This post has been edited by Yellow: 05 February 2010 - 09:15 PM

[Terez]

Powder, on 05 February 2010 - 05:19 PM, said:

This is my ham-handed segue:
Thing 1: SO how about that idea powder had earlier about a godless world leading to strict determinism?

Thing 2: That is a neat question, I bet AjS, HD, Terez, or Frook can answer it.


-Powder

(The tetris god is pleased when you shamelessly plug yourself)

I think I have understood your last few posts well enough to know what you mean by 'determinism'. What I don't understand is how you think that religion somehow provides a defense against this sad fate that you have predicted.

Okay, that's not true - I understand why you believe it. You believe that God is real, of course, and you believe that he is watching over you and your fellow real Christians in some way that will prevent it. But you have to understand that this is where the argument breaks down. We can't see this advantage of a God that is actually taking a hand in things, because we don't believe it. This leaves us with the philosophy of Christianity, and Christiandom itself to judge the validity of your argument. Your premise does not support your conclusion, and the premise itself is flawed.

Not only have there been a number of atheists and non-Christians that have shown a higher standard of morality than a good number of Christians, but you present these analogies, such as the one about special needs people draining resources, fully expecting us, the atheists, to understand why it would be immoral to murder people with special needs so that we can have more money (else your analogy would serve no purpose). That you expect us to understand this, and yet expect us to see it as a confirmation of the superiority of your worldview, is a rather strangely contradictory expectation, don't you think?

[Powder]

[/quote]

Not only have there been a number of atheists and non-Christians that have shown a higher standard of morality than a good number of Christians, but you present these analogies, such as the one about special needs people draining resources, fully expecting us, the atheists, to understand why it would be immoral to murder people with special needs so that we can have more money (else your analogy would serve no purpose). That you expect us to understand this, and yet expect us to see it as a confirmation of the superiority of your worldview, is a rather strangely contradictory expectation, don't you think?
[/quote]

Not what I meant. As atheists what I do not understand is why you hang on to morality. As an atheist morality along with God are no longer needed. So what I do not understand is why you all insist on making moral choices as such. I am not trying to win you over to my worldview. I do not think people choose Christianity based on clever arguments I can post on the intrawebs. However, in these posts I am trying to pry open the box a little bit by facilitating discussion between two disparate parties. Again, I do not think you, as an Atheist, should think it would be immoral to do x, y, or z. Morality as I define it is no longer applicable to you as a group. You can come up with some other guiding set of principles (questions as to how to do this), and even call it morality if you want, but it is inherently different from what I am talking about.

As to there being good non-Christians, of course there are! I would not besmirch the name of someone like a Ghandi, or just a kind old woman who helps the poor in her small town (without God). Of course there are good non-Christians. My theology can account for that (if you want specifics just ask). What I am wondering is why bother to do them at all? Morality and Rightness/wrongness are individually defined, or determined as what is best for the group. Could these acts be that in this case--maybe-- it depends on what group you are asking and who is doing the answering and for what reason. I personally like AjS's responses here. Atheism is motivated out of self-interest/preservation, therefore these motivations are what are 'morally right'. How is helping a crackhead off the street in your best self interest?

After reading Nietzsche, one finds that the highest crime in Nietzsche's mind is to tell someone else how to live their lives (he of course would never do such a thing). Clearly in his writing morality, as we know it, goes with God. Humanity needs neither. I am still curious as to why as Atheists you hold on to it? Maybe you disagree with Nietzsche, maybe not. Again my theology has reasons for why you would hold onto it, and so I am not threatened by it, yet I find it curious none-the-less.



As to determinism. Nothing about us is chosen, we are born where we are, given the lives that we are given, and these causes produce an effect in us (our personality, choices, etc). We have no control over our causes, ergo we have no control over the effects we produce. We are the all singing all dancing crap of the world (love that movie), and we have no say in the matter. Everything has been determined before we were even born, and without the 'Soul' we have no ability to override nature. Hope that clears that up some.


-Powder
(Again, I am doing my best to hold my desires in check, by not asserting the rightness of my argument or the wrongness of another. It may bleed through at times but that is not my primary intent, we are debating intellectual ideas {however strange they may be} and over such a medium I find the idea of proselytizing rather comical, and that is certainly not my goal.)

[HoosierDaddy]

Quote

As atheists what I do not understand is why you hang on to morality. As an atheist morality along with God are no longer needed. So what I do not understand is why you all insist on making moral choices as such. I am not trying to win you over to my worldview. I do not think people choose Christianity based on clever arguments I can post on the intrawebs. However, in these posts I am trying to pry open the box a little bit by facilitating discussion between two disparate parties.

Plenty of societies flourished prior to a Christian God, and plenty will flourish if the idea ever disappears.

gets

Quote

Again, I do not think you, as an Atheist, should think it would be immoral to do x, y, or z. Morality as I define it is no longer applicable to you as a group. You can come up with some other guiding set of principles (questions as to how to do this), and even call it morality if you want, but it is inherently different from what I am talking about.

So, Christianity has a monopoly on morality? We've discussed this. You will never convince an atheist that Christians have a monopoly on morality. It might be different, but that doesn't make it lesser than what you are talking about. Despite the fact that you put in little asides such as, "(questions as to how you do this)" and "you can even call it morality if you want" as though you are handing out candy to orphans, when examples and reasoning have been given to you about "morality" by atheists, so I'll just say this does nothing for you in the discussion but undermine and take away credibility from you, rather than take offense.

I'm glad Adjutant Stormy's view of atheistic morality as selfish behavior is accounted for, Powder. Could individual atheistic actions be motivated by selfishness? Yes. So could a Christian's individual actions. I'm atheist because I don't think there is a God. That's it. There you have it. There's no more. You ask "why do atheists do nice things", and I'll ask "why do Christians do bad things?" On the grand scale of things, it's quite worse for a Christian to do something awful than an atheist, because one is gambling eternity in torment while the other is gambling short term gain versus oblivion. Even if you don't believe in Hell, many Christians do. So, why do they sin, knowing what's on the line for them? Just because people aren't perfect (and can't be, thanks Adam and Eve), doesn't mean they can't do nice things for others. Is charity selfish? The same reasons people do charity are why atheists do nice things for another person, it makes the other person happy, and that makes them happy.

As for determinism. Everything has a causal link determinism? Don't buy it, won't sell it. It's scientific predestination, and I think it's bullshit. There is such a thing as chance, and it does have its role to play in everything. The Uncertainty Principle tells me all I need to know about Determinism and science.

[Terez]

Powder, on 06 February 2010 - 06:42 PM, said:

Terez said:

Not only have there been a number of atheists and non-Christians that have shown a higher standard of morality than a good number of Christians, but you present these analogies, such as the one about special needs people draining resources, fully expecting us, the atheists, to understand why it would be immoral to murder people with special needs so that we can have more money (else your analogy would serve no purpose). That you expect us to understand this, and yet expect us to see it as a confirmation of the superiority of your worldview, is a rather strangely contradictory expectation, don't you think?

Not what I meant. As atheists what I do not understand is why you hang on to morality. As an atheist morality along with God are no longer needed.

It's the same argument with a different shirt on. It assumed that the only reason to behave morally is to win God's favor, or for fear of God's punishment. Why do we hang on to morality? The question itself is insulting. (Fear not; I'm not pissed at you or anything....just saying.) It is quite possible to have a sense of morality that is based on both logic and a general consideration for other people, without bringing God into the equation.

Powder said:

You can come up with some other guiding set of principles (questions as to how to do this), and even call it morality if you want, but it is inherently different from what I am talking about.

I don't think so. By Christian philosophy, it shouldn't be. If it were, they why would Jesus bother appealing to logic and the common sense of consideration for others when talking about the rules? Why doesn't he just say, 'BAM BAM BAM because I said so.' ?

Powder said:

As to there being good non-Christians, of course there are! I would not besmirch the name of someone like a Ghandi, or just a kind old woman who helps the poor in her small town (without God). Of course there are good non-Christians. My theology can account for that (if you want specifics just ask).

I am interested.

Powder said:

What I am wondering is why bother to do them at all? Morality and Rightness/wrongness are individually defined, or determined as what is best for the group. Could these acts be that in this case--maybe-- it depends on what group you are asking and who is doing the answering and for what reason. I personally like AjS's responses here. Atheism is motivated out of self-interest/preservation, therefore these motivations are what are 'morally right'. How is helping a crackhead off the street in your best self interest?

I think you like Stormy's way of putting it because it best fits your idea of the stereotypical atheist, but again, you are assuming here that there is no reason for an atheist to have consideration for others, without giving any real reason for that assumption. Stormy is of course mostly right, but the same applies to Christians.

For example: there are several laws in the Bible that are no longer followed. I realize that the 'reason' for abandoning most of these laws has to do with certain things in the gospels that indicate that the Old Testament laws are no longer applicable. I think that the justification for abandoning the commandments, the mitzvah, is pretty weak (always have thought that), and in my religion course this past year, the prof (agnostic Jew) suggested that the Paulian faction tossed these bits in the Gospels as a means of making Judaism marketable to the Gentiles (which I found to be pretty believable), but I digress. There are also some Paulian rules that are no longer observed, such as the indication that women should not speak in church. I realize that some small sects of Christianity observe this particular rule. Does yours? If not, then why not? Jesus said that divorce was permissible only when the wife was unfaithful, not the husband. Do you think it is permissible for a wife to divorce a cheating husband? If so, then why? What reason do you have for thinking that should be allowed? Do you believe that women are inferior to men? If not, then why not? Could it be that your morality has progressed in spite of your religion?

[stone monkey]

It does seem to be a stereotype held among certain believers that, because they are without God in their lives (as all morality has to come from God), atheists must all be up for a life of generalised raping, pillaging and eating babies and whatnot. Arguably this is projection. If you define the desire to please the deity (or at least the desire not to face his wrath) as the only thing that keeps you from immediately satisfying all your basest urges regardless of the consequences to others then it is logical to assume that those who do not share this belief would behave in such an unconscionable manner. The idea that you somehow have to be under the duress of a deity who threatens you with eternal punishment so that you behave in a civilised manner strikes me as a little weird and sad actually. The simple matter that there are those of us who simply choose to do that of our own volition doesn't seem to compute with some people.

There's The Golden Rule, of course, (that is: treat others as you would have them treat you) which doesn't actually require belief in a deity in order for someone to follow it and is the single most sensible piece of advice in the entire Bible, whilst simultaneously being amongst the least original; it's not mentioned in the Old Testament iirc but the idea predates it and was certainly prevalent amongst the philosophers in Greece during the time that some of the books of the OT were being redacted and was also arrived at independantly in many other parts of the world (this reminds me somewhat of a record review I read once that is as apposite to the the Bible as it was to anything else "What is good about it is not original and what is original about it is not good.") The Golden Rule is, of course, a stunningly selfish piece of thinking but that doesn't matter because it works; you apply it and you get nice people out at the end. The reason it works btw is down to Game Theory; it maximises the rewards for more people over the long term than other, shall we say, more self-indulgent types of behaviour. It's pragmatic.

Certain aspects of morality have an evolutionary basis; for example, parents care for their children because they're descended from millions of generations who also did that, the urge to do so is inbuilt. Others are informed by cultural issues; some cultures have many wives, some say that more than one is wrong. Hence I, as an atheist, would argue that the implication that morality comes from belief in a deity (that belief itself a human cultural invention) is putting the cart before the horse; although I wouldn't blame you if you used Mandy Rice-Davies' rebuttal and said that I would, wouldn't I?

Let's talk about an example; we would, I hope, all agree that owning another human being, reducing them to mere property, is an immoral act. The Abrahamic Religions (or at least their founding texts) are somewhat less convinced on the topic than that; both the Bible and the Koran are fine with it and merely prescribe definite rules for how one should treat one's slaves, they're pretty quiet on whether the act of owning slaves is right or wrong in the first place (iirc both of them are dead set against owning slaves who are believers in your own religion, anyone else is fair game though) These are, we're told, divinely inspired texts but it would seem that the moral imperative that says that owning other people is wrong is not in them. It would, in fact, be possible to be a slave-owning Jew, Christian or Muslim and still consider oneself a moral person. This would lead me to the conclusion that this particular moral imperative comes from humans alone.

In reply to the question of why helping a crackhead off the street is in your own best interests; well there are a few answers to that one. One is that, if the situations were reversed, you'd hope that someone would help you. Another is that by helping someone else you improve society as a whole and make the world a nicer place for you to live in. A third might be simply that you don't like seeing other people in pain (it's painful to you) so helping them out of that pain makes you feel good. All of these, you might notice, are inherently selfish motives but, as with The Golden Rule, selfishness can be directed to good ends. One could, if you were in that kind of mood, argue that the religious imperative i.e. do it because God says it's right and therefore won't torture you for eternity for displeasing Him, is an equally selfish motive...

The statement that what atheists have, by way of their code of conduct and personal philosophy, cannot be called "morality" strikes me as sophistry. It would seem to imply that all the good behaviours etc. don't count as being moral unless there is belief in a deity; this would also imply, if we were to push it to a logical conclusion, that the only morality is faith and anything else (like how you actually think and behave, say) is irrelevant. Which would, I suppose, mean that your God could tell you to do anything, no matter how antisocial or downright unpleasant, and you would still be behaving morally; it would still be right. Which I think, unfortunately, is a road that more than a few adherents of various religions have been historically, and still are to this day, on their way down...

[Edit - errant commas. Ask a few people who know me how I feel about those... ]

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 07 February 2010 - 12:11 AM

[Terez]

stone monkey, on 06 February 2010 - 11:39 PM, said:

Let's talk about an example; we would, I hope, all agree that owning another human being, reducing them to mere property, is an immoral act. The Abrahamic Religions (or at least their founding texts) are somewhat less convinced on the topic than that; both the Bible and the Koran are fine with it and merely prescribe definite rules for how one should treat one's slaves, they're pretty quiet on whether the act of owning slaves is right or wrong in the first place (iirc both of them are dead set against owning slaves who are believers in your own religion, anyone else is fair game though) These are, we're told, divinely inspired texts but it would seem that the moral imperative that says that owning other people is wrong is not in them. It would, in fact, be possible to be a slave-owning Jew, Christian or Muslim and still consider oneself a moral person. This would lead me to the conclusion that this particular moral imperative comes from humans alone.

I agree of course, but the slavery bits are in the Old Testament, and therefore don't apply as far as Christians are concerned. Like I said earlier, I think that the justifications for ditching the mitzvah are pretty weak, and it gets even weaker with stuff like this that is referenced outside of the mitzvah in the Old Testament, but ditch them they did. You almost never see them referenced any more unless the homosexuality debate comes up (though I realize of course that they were also referenced in the slavery debates...it no longer seems to be an issue for most Christians). Unfortunately, though, homosexuality=teh eval is corroborated by Paul, so only the Christians who claim that they are 'not Paulian' (they only follow the gospels) have any way of getting around that one. I don't think Paul condoned slavery, and I know Jesus didn't. I think most Christians tend to look on Old Testament slavery as sins being punished to the xth generation, such as the fabled descendants of Cain, so that's why God was okay with it back in the day. But Jesus overturned all of the old whatever, so it no longer applies. That wasn't the prevailing philosophy 150 years ago, but it is now.

I tend to have more respect for Christians who have rejected Paul. A lot of hate came from his general direction; his attitude toward women for example was despicable.

[TheBeetleKing]

@HD
"On the grand scale of things, it's quite worse for a Christian to do something awful than an atheist, because one is gambling eternity in torment while the other is gambling short term gain versus oblivion. Even if you don't believe in Hell, many Christians do. So, why do they sin, knowing what's on the line for them?On the grand scale of things, it's quite worse for a Christian to do something awful than an atheist, because one is gambling eternity in torment while the other is gambling short term gain versus oblivion. Even if you don't believe in Hell, many Christians do. So, why do they sin, knowing what's on the line for them?"


I think you have this wrong. What is on the line for Christians is not an eternity in hell (a topic for discussion all in itself) because they are either covered by the blood or God doesn't exist. Conversely, the atheist is risking an eternity in hell for the possible gain of a few short-term pleasures. Pascal made this argument and though it isn't exactly convincing, it is the way one needs to look at it.


@ Everyone
What Powder is saying is not that you cannot act in moral ways but rather that there is no source or need for it. The idea is that within the atheistic understanding, if there is no ultimate purpose for being moral (judgment from God or god(s))...or if there is no ultimate source for morality, why behave as if there is? What happens if tomorrow we find proof that there is no god and we all become atheists? Get rid of all religious morality and then ask who decides what is right and wrong? The choices become very limited and limiting. Ultimately, it becomes a culturally relativistic morality (I'm sure you have heard this before but for sake of putting it out there...). Either it is culture on the grandest scale we know (all of earth), or a slightly smaller one (choose a hemisphere), or a slightly smaller one (pick a country), etc. all the way down to the culture of a household, parents, individual. Who decides right and wrong? Philosophers? Someone has to. It is obvious that not everyone will agree so what happens then? How do you decide who is right? I could keep going but the point is that it all breaks down into chaos.


Let me put it this way. Assuming that the atheist position is correct, is it morally wrong to do something we would consider awful (ex. cut a child in half)? What if this child's heart is still beating but he/she is brain dead? What if nobody wants this child? A drain on society? Etc. Now...ask the WHY? I am truly interested in this answer so please do not dance around this question....

[stone monkey]

iirc The translators of the KJV had the tendency, when translating from Latin, to translate "servis" as "servant", rather than (as it should be) "slave" which puts a whole different slant on at least one parable...

Pascal's Wager is the wrong argument to use to support religious belief as that says that the only reason for believing in God is fear of the consequences of not doing so. Not any kind of faith. Nor any kind of truth or morality. It's not an argument for religion, it's an argument for living your life in terror.

The atheist who chooses to live what a religious person might, at a stretch, call a moral life actually makes the choice to do so themselves, a religious person does not. They merely obey instructions.

As for the question about dismembering a child. Human beings are wired; biologically (via the fact that we've evolved to want to take care of children - so much so that we also find ourselves wanting to take care of animals with childlike features) and culturally (via the fact that most cultures frown on child killing in the extreme) not to do such things. It's not merely a question of religiously inspired morality. The very fact that, culturally, we would consider such an act awful should give you a clue. Morals are, to an extent, a product of culture, therefore as an atheist (and more importantly, as a human being) who holds to a large proportion of the morals of the culture I live, I would regard this as a morally wrong act. The fact that this particular culture labours under the belief that its morals are primarily inspired by Christianity is pretty much irrelevant (pre- and non Christian cultures, with one or two exceptions, weren't and aren't big on child killing either; and allegedly Christian cultures have been known to go in for it at certain times), I'm merely a product of my genes and upbringing. The why is only tangentially anything to do with God; I suspect that if we lived in a predominently atheist culture the taboo agaist child killing would be as strong.

nb By "child" here, I don't mean foetus or embryo; as that's another question entirely.

An analogous question then arises for the religious in that if you were to receive a visitation from your God, who then specifically instructs you to perform such an act on pain of eternal damnation, would you do it? And would that be a moral act? If the core of your moral compass is that anything God tells you to do must be right and Pascal's Wager applies, then it must be such and you couldn't afford not to. And it's somewhat ingenuous to argue that God would never intruct anyone to perform such an abhorrent act when he has, according to Biblical record, told people to do all sorts of horrendous things and expected (and encouraged) them to obey.

Apropos of this I once had an argument with a Muslim friend of mine where my stance was that Abraham was wrong to sacrifice his son simply because God told him to (the fact that God stopped him doing it eventually is by-the-by, as the point of the exercise was to see whether he would go through with it). I further argued that a God which would instruct you to do such a thing really wasn't worth worshipping, whatever the consequences. Needless to say, she wasn't all that pleased with me.

There does seem to be a bit of a misunderstanding here too. For some reason people seem to be under the impression that atheists are atheists because they want to get up to all sorts of stuff that God tells them not to. Atheists are atheists because they don't believe God exists. It's rather like saying that Christians are Christians because they want to go to church on Sunday rather than that they believe that Christ was the son of God. Or that Muslims are Muslims because they want to pray towards Mecca a few times every day rather than believing the Mohammed was God's ultimate Prophet. It's pretty much beside the point...

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 07 February 2010 - 02:44 AM

[HoosierDaddy]

Quote

@ Everyone
What Powder is saying is not that you cannot act in moral ways but rather that there is no source or need for it. The idea is that within the atheistic understanding, if there is no ultimate purpose for being moral (judgment from God or god(s))...or if there is no ultimate source for morality, why behave as if there is? What happens if tomorrow we find proof that there is no god and we all become atheists? Get rid of all religious morality and then ask who decides what is right and wrong? The choices become very limited and limiting. Ultimately, it becomes a culturally relativistic morality (I'm sure you have heard this before but for sake of putting it out there...). Either it is culture on the grandest scale we know (all of earth), or a slightly smaller one (choose a hemisphere), or a slightly smaller one (pick a country), etc. all the way down to the culture of a household, parents, individual. Who decides right and wrong? Philosophers? Someone has to. It is obvious that not everyone will agree so what happens then? How do you decide who is right? I could keep going but the point is that it all breaks down into chaos.

Let me put it this way. Assuming that the atheist position is correct, is it morally wrong to do something we would consider awful (ex. cut a child in half)? What if this child's heart is still beating but he/she is brain dead? What if nobody wants this child? A drain on society? Etc. Now...ask the WHY? I am truly interested in this answer so please do not dance around this question....

Who decides right and wrong, right now? God sure doesn't. Is the world a little crazy? Yes. Is it sheer chaos? Not in civilized places. I do not understand this theory that you and Powder have that without a belief in God, society will somehow break down. That's ridiculous, and I'll point to the vast swabs of relatively nice and stable atheists all around you for proof.

Edit: Took out a cheap shot. It was uncalled for.

This post has been edited by H.D.: 07 February 2010 - 02:28 AM

[stone monkey]

Who decides what is right or wrong? We do as people, we always have. Religions simply hurry to keep up. As for moral relativism, it's always been there and it always will; religions only survive because they move with it. My example about slavery is a case in point; as recently as 300 years ago, the major religions of the world didn't have all that much trouble with it, nowadays you'd be hard pressed to find even a small one that says it's okay. What changed? The culture changed, the religions weren't the prime movers of this they merely changed their message as the culture at large changed in order to stay relevant. Was slavery right back then? I think not; but I'm a product of my culture so I would say that.

Would you be in a religion that said women were inferior and didn't deserve the same rights as men? 150 years ago I suspect the answer would have been yes, nowadays I expect not. What caused the change? It wasn't the religions, they're about the status quo, but society moved on. In another hundred years I would hope that there's not a religion on earth that espouses that being homosexual is bad (I suspect it may take longer than that, but either way I won't be around to see it) That's cultural and moral relativism in action.

The only way we can judge morals is through the lens of our own experience. And as we all experience things differently then moral relativity is inherent in us being individuals.

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 07 February 2010 - 03:10 AM

[TheBeetleKing]

Quote

Pascal's Wager is the wrong argument to use to support religious belief as that says that the only reason for believing in God is fear of the consequences of not doing so. Not any kind of faith. Nor any kind of truth or morality. It's not an argument for religion, it's an argument for living your life in terror.

If you were to study what Pascal was doing, it was not meant to be an argument...he was simply trying to lay out the options. He was a mathematician. And that is why I said that it was not very convincing (because it is not supposed to be).

Quote

The atheist who chooses to live what a religious person might, at a stretch, call a moral life actually makes the choice to do so themselves, a religious person does not. They merely obey instructions.

This is a misunderstanding of what a Christian is and does. If you truly think that I am not free to act morally because I am simply following instructions, you have never understood what we are about. If your mother asks you to take out the trash, you do it. Not because you are compelled to obey, but because you care for her. It also helps to keep the house from smelling poorly. Same with Christianity. God asks us to not commit adultery not because it is some arbitrary rule he set up but because it helps us to live in right relationship with our wives.

Quote

As for the question about dismembering a child. Human beings are wired; biologically (via the fact that we've evolved to want to take care of children - so much so that we also find ourselves wanting to take care of animals with childlike features) and culturally (via the fact that most cultures frown on child killing in the extreme) not to do such things. It's not merely a question of religiously inspired morality. The very fact that, culturally, we would consider such an act awful should give you a clue. Morals are, to an extent, a product of culture, therefore as an atheist (and more importantly, as a human being) who holds to a large proportion of the morals of the culture I live, I would regard this as a morally wrong act. The fact that this particular culture labours under the belief that its morals are primarily inspired by Christianity is pretty much irrelevant (pre- and non Christian cultures, with one or two exceptions, weren't and aren't big on child killing either; and allegedly Christian cultures have been known to go in for it at certain times), I'm merely a product of my genes and upbringing. The why is only tangentially anything to do with God; I suspect that if we lived in a predominently atheist culture the taboo agaist child killing would be as strong.

Where is that wired biologically? I would like to see a study on that. And how have the morals (which are a product of culture according to you) become a part of our genetics?
Also, on this note, in some ways we are talking past each other. You say that we (humans in general) behave morally because it is ingrained into us (from biology and culture) I say that we feel certain things are wrong because God has written the Law upon our (everyone's) heart. Here lies the dilemma. I have (imo) an understanding of where these moral feelings come from. Many Christians (including myself) do not see where or how these feelings became a part of the human psyche from a naturalist p.o.v. It may be a cop out to say God gave it to us....but it is what the Bible teaches and so we have a legitimate response whereas the naturalist points to some vague idea about how at one point it became part of our biology but gives no evidence or proof that it is in our DNA. Or they point to the idea that it is from our culture. Yet again, this fails to satisfy the Christian because we say "well, duh. God created us and from the very beginning he has told us that things like murder are wrong." Again, from our p.o.v. it makes sense that our culture says certain things because we believe God has told us these things from the beginning.

Quote

nb By "child" here, I don't mean foetus or embryo; as that's another question entirely.

That is how I meant it to be taken.

"An analogous question then arises for the religious in that if you were to receive a visitation from your God, who then specifically instructs you to perform such an act on pain of eternal damnation, would you do it? And would that be a moral act?"

This is basically Euthyphro's Dilemma (from Plato's dialogue Euthyphro) and so I will treat it as such. The argument is...
"Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"
This is supposed to catch God between the horns of two bad choices. What it fails to recognize is that there is a third option. If God is the foundation for all good in the world, then he neither commands something simply because it is moral (morality exists outside God) nor are actions morally acceptable because God commands them (morality can change at the whim of God's command). Part of God's nature is holiness (moral purity). Morality resides as a part of God's nature and therefore, this dilemma is not a problem for the Christian God (though it may be for others...).

Quote

Apropos of this I once had an argument with a Muslim friend of mine where my stance was that Abraham was wrong to sacrifice his son simply because God told him to (the fact that God stopped him doing it eventually is by-the-by, as the point of the exercise was to see whether he would go through with it). I further argued that a God which would instruct you to do such a thing really wasn't worth worshipping, whatever the consequences. Needless to say, she wasn't all that pleased with me.

So God is not allowed to test his children? If he never intended to allow Abe to slay Isaac, why is this a problem. Remember, Isaac is a participant in this as well. When you study the language here, you realize that he was probably not some 9 year old but more like 20....and Abe is an old guy now, he would not be able to simply tie him up without his assent. This is as much a test for Isaac as it is for Abe.

Quote

There does seem to be a bit of a misunderstanding here too. For some reason people seem to be under the impression that atheists are atheists because they want to get up to all sorts of stuff that God tells them not to. Atheists are atheists because they don't believe God exists. It's rather like saying that Christians are Christians because they want to go to church on Sunday rather than that they believe that Christ was the son of God. Or that Muslims are Muslims because they want to pray towards Mecca a few times every day rather than believing the Mohammed was God's ultimate Prophet. It's pretty much beside the point...

You are not misunderstood. Obviously atheists are not into killing kids because they like it or even because it does not go against perceived moral standards. The point in question is whether or not someone (atheist or not) can truly say that something is in fact morally wrong (on an ultimate level).

This post has been edited by Cougar: 07 February 2010 - 03:06 PM

[Powder]

@ Terez - The ideas I am referencing are general grace and Imageo Dei. Essentially saying that everyone is created in the image of God and will inherently want to do well to other beings. IE we all agree that dismembering a child is wrong. General grace is responsible for things such as platonism, confucianism, morally upstanding athiests etc. God reveals himself to everyone (whether they acknowledge him or not) and he provides all humans with reason etc by which they can find out which ways are best. Does that sate your curiosity or like that movie would you like to know more?

Given this, it makes sense that disbelief in God need not necessarily lead to raping/plundering etc. What I am trying to figure out and get a handle on is what it looks like from your end. When I put myself in that frame of mind my decisions change some, they need not go haywire, but they do change. Further without an easily identifiable value placed upon each human individual I find that my motivations to do things like help the poor/needy/etc change as well.

As to atheistic morality, yes it is confusing to me. I am trying to figure it out, but it is hard for me to follow. Admittedly God is at the center of my morality, he is the sun about which I orbit. So when you remove the sun, and insert something else it will take me some time to get to grips with the new system. A teaching attitude on the behalf of those in opposition would be key to my understanding, for all intents and purposes consider me a remedial case (which of course needs extra care and attention).

As to some of the slavery comments. When you read slavery in the Bible it is inappropriate and anachronistic to read American slavery into that world. Chattel slavery as such is not an issue at this time. In Judaism slaves were released every 7 years, their children were not born into slavery, and they could realistically buy their way free. Slavery in the Greek world is also very different, they would be taught how to read, write, manage affairs etc. Were there abuses certainly, but not the type of racial ridiculousness practiced in recent times.

As to Paul. His views on women are debatable. He often acknowledges women in his letters, acknowledges woman apostles, and said things like 'In Christ there is no male nor female, slave nor free, Jew nor Greek' (an egalitarian set up). Are there other areas where he says women should be submissive to their husbands, yes. However just one verse prior it talks about husbands submitting to their wives, and treating their wives as Christ treats the church. Does he say women should be silent/not leaders, yes. Yet as I mentioned before he mentions leaders who are women in other places, and even mentions a woman apostle in Romans. When looking at the cultural context of which women should not be leaders one finds that the church in question was in an area whose main goddess was Diana, in a city which was ruled by 2000 temple prostitutes. The statement he makes in that book is conter cultural to the city he is writing to, and is not a carte blanche against women in general.

On women/slavery, both of the cultural revolutions (empowerment of women, abolishment of slavery) are in thrust with where scripture is headed, and with the greater part of christian morality. They naturally evolve out of the practice of Christian doctrine.

Now as to reason for serving God. Fear of hell/punishment/etc is an awful reason to serve Christ/god(s)/parents etc. This is not my motivation in serving my God. For a long time the church has pushed hell as a motivation for joining up with the faith, and I disagree with that decision every step of the way. Instead, one ought to be motivated out of love to obey anyone. I could go into the reasons behind this, but I fear I may become preachy and do not wish to distract the conversation--so I leave it to your (collective) discretion as to whether or not I continue on this line of thought.

@ Terez again
If I was insulting, my bust, not my intention. Yet I do not think Nietzsche would have found it insulting, instead he would have made up his own morality and the rest of humanity could go elsewhere for all he cared. I read/discussed any and all of my Nietzsche comments in a secular state institution, which gave me a great appreciation for the man even if I do not agree with his premises/conclusions.

@ HD
You really are a lawyer at heart. You dismiss a large portion of what I have to say with the mere waving of your hand--and you do it well. Yet I do not find it helpful. I am invoking the Golden Rule we all seem so fond of quoting, please even if it is redundant treat my posts with a little more care than 'I don't buy it'. If you do not tell me why, if there is no real reason why other than disagreement that is fine but give me a little more info than that if you please.

Oh and as to the KJV that version is lackluster when talking in today's terms. The English is outdated and the translation style and original manuscripts can be a bit questionable. It had a good run (of several hundred years) but it is time to put that pony to rest.

Hope this helps
-Powder

[Trisemigistus]

I believe in God because i once believe in Satan. If one exists, so must the other. -ew i just touched a slug, i think my fingers will rot off now-.

I also like the idea of God and Heaven, and can't really fathom my life just... ending, when i die. Whether i go into eternal Hell or Heaven, I'd like to think life continues after death, that this is simply just a prelude to our true lives.

[Sinisdar Toste]

Powder, on 07 February 2010 - 03:36 AM, said:

Given this, it makes sense that disbelief in God need not necessarily lead to raping/plundering etc. What I am trying to figure out and get a handle on is what it looks like from your end. When I put myself in that frame of mind my decisions change some, they need not go haywire, but they do change. Further without an easily identifiable value placed upon each human individual I find that my motivations to do things like help the poor/needy/etc change as well.

As to atheistic morality, yes it is confusing to me. I am trying to figure it out, but it is hard for me to follow. Admittedly God is at the center of my morality, he is the sun about which I orbit. So when you remove the sun, and insert something else it will take me some time to get to grips with the new system. A teaching attitude on the behalf of those in opposition would be key to my understanding, for all intents and purposes consider me a remedial case (which of course needs extra care and attention).

i can't speak for all atheists, or anyone really, we all come to our own morality in our own way, but lets consider this: morality is basically a way of seeing things. weighing them on internal scales and ascribing value to them. the way i see the course of human history is that religious morality in general can be cast aside with ease when confronted with the unknown, and by extension, fear. so much energy has been put toward eliminating fear and uncertainty, toward destroying those who would destroy us, that i'd rather not buy into any religious system. i'd rather not compromise because some deity - or his earthly avatar - has a problem with other groups.

honest, critical thought can just as easily lead one to the conclusion that it would be best not to kill other people, and that caring for your fellow people benefits yourself. there's no need to deify that impulse. humanity and human potential are just as worthy concepts to inform morality. myself, i just remove god from the equation. a supernatural being is just baggage.

look around at the power of people, their ability to survive and prosper in the harshest environments. thats all that i need to form my morality. the good we are capable of doesn't need a supernatural source. your "sun" hasn't been removed in this system, only translated into something human. humanity is more than the sum of its parts, but that sum isn't a thinking, commanding, fickle, self-aware being. i see it as the limitless potential for good that humans working in concert are capable of.

ok, so that kind of turned into a ramble, but damn if it's not hard to articulate these ideas

This post has been edited by Sinisdar Toste: 07 February 2010 - 07:30 AM

[stone monkey]

First of all - You may have been talking about partial birth abortions, but I was not. As I made clear. I think we probably need to stay clear of the issue because it's a subject that would derail the thread. But I should point out that this particular type of abortion is extremely rare and only usually done when the woman's life is in danger; most abortions are actually spontaneous and require no human intervention. Childbirth can kill a woman; it's rare in the First World, but it still happens. I personally think that forcing someone to go through a procedure that has a chance of killing them is in itself immoral and therefore imposing childbirth on a woman effectively tells women in general that you regard them as merely baby-making machines; that their welfare is less important than the fact they can produce the children you require. The woman's right to choose what happens to her own body is paramount.

If you believe there is an ultimate source of morality, then I see your problem. Atheist's can't say anything is moral as the source of morality is something they have no truck with and as morality is a human trait that therefore makes atheists less than human. I'm personally not interested in the source of another person's morality; it's what they do that counts to me; I'm somewhat utilitarian.

As for slavery - I wasn't specifically getting at US slavery. Slavery is wrong. Whether it's racially based or otherwise. Slavery may not have been an issue at the time, but neither were all sorts of other things and if you apply moral relativism there why would you object to applying it anywhere else?

In the story of Abraham it doesn't really matter that God isn't going to go through with it. Abraham doesn't know that; he's still being required to kill his son. And I don't think it makes it any better that Isaac is an adult; I'm not a parent, but I'd hazard that being forced to kill one's child has got to be equally harrowing whatever age they are. And yes, if God were to exist, I absolutely do not think he has the right to arbitrarily (or otherwise) test his children in such a manner. Respect goes both ways; if we are supposed to respect him, he should respect us. Such petty games of dominance are demeaning to both sides.

I suspect the answer to this is that God can do whatever he wants. Which, as he's supposed to be omnipotent, is trivially true. But, as I said, a God that behaves in such a manner is not a being worth worshipping.