quote:So it would be ok, then, to stand aside during an ethnic cleansing, on the grounds that you yourself weren't taking any evil action?
Inaction is a choice of mine just as much as action is. But we are not talking about something I am standing aside and watching. We are talking about something done by God thousands of years ago that I can neither influence nor prevent. On such a matter, my fallible judgement about who was right and who was wrong is entirely irrelevant to all parties involved.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So it would be ok, then, to stand aside during an ethnic cleansing, on the grounds that you yourself weren't taking any evil action?
Inaction is a choice of mine just as much as action is. But we are not talking about something I am standing aside and watching. We are talking about something done by God thousands of years ago that I can neither influence nor prevent. On such a matter, my fallible judgement about who was right and who was wrong is entirely irrelevant to all parties involved.
If someone was responsible for a genocide, and still alive, you would refrain from judging him now because that would not help the victims?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's very odd, and quite interesting for me, as a previously religious person and now an atheist, to look at religious discussions between theists and atheists.
When one does not accept things which a Christian takes for granted, it is amazing how so much of what it is to be a Christian falls like a house of cards. There are so many assumptions, beliefs, faith, and acceptance or complete disregard of seemingly contradictory ideas tied up with Christianity, it has a hell of a time standing up to logical reasoning.
Looking back, from the outside as it were, I see arguments, many similar to those I made myself back in the day when I had the BBS handle Knight of Faith, and they are so illogical and contradictory, I can hardly believe how strongly I held to them back then.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taking things (any things) for granted was THE main repellent for me, that prevented me to "grow into" a theist (a Christian in my case). I was “forced” to be an atheist (by elimination), and that was only the beginning of the search of my personal system of (moral) beliefs.
Discussing with theists and atheists always finds me somewhere "in between", and that is because even if I reject the factuality of theist religions, I do value their "good lessons"
Well, keep the good lessons. I do as an atheist. I even quote scripture from time to time (not that those words have any special authority or power, I am just more familiar with them). But, I also am paying more attention to the wise stories and words from other traditions: Confusius, the Dali Lama, great philosophers and scientists.
I still find that there is wisdom in some religious stories and passages, but they are not above other moralistic stories like "The boy who cried wolf".
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If someone was responsible for a genocide, and still alive, you would refrain from judging him now because that would not help the victims?
I could come to some judgement about his actions if I wanted to, but I would have no moral duty to do so. Why would I? Do you think all people in the world have a moral duty to judge Saddam Hussein, now that he's in jail and can do no more harm, even when they were not in any way related to anything he did, or do not know understand the facts of his case, or do not understand what motivated him to do it? I certainly don't.
And that's just a person. Attempting to judge God is far more absurd proposal, because he presumably knows far more than any of us do. It is akin to an 8-year-old basketball fan judging Phil Jackson's coaching strategy while watching the Lakers on T.V., except to an even greater extreme. Is the 8-year-old acting immorally by assuming Phil Jackson knows better than he does and letting him off the hook for things he, personally, thinks Jackson did wrong? Such a judgement would be entirely academic anyway - the 8-year-old in no way can control what Phil Jackson does. And we can in no way control what God does.
You are trying to suggest Christianity is "inherently" immoral because it doesn't attempt to judge God's actions, and assumes God knows better than us. But that complaint misses the point of morality. Morality is not concerned with the degree to which we judge OTHER people (or God). Morality is concerned with behaving rightly, ourselves. Thus your complaint has little to do with morality, because whether or not God's old testament actions were all ethical has virtually no influence on my actions. My unwillingness to claim such ancient acts were wrong certainly wouldn't imply that I must be acting immorally in my every day life.
If you want to really make a complaint about Christianity, the question you should ask is what a Christian would do if God asked him or her to act in a way that seems to him or her to be immoral. What would a Christian do if God asked him or her to kill their neighbor? But I don't think you'll find this question to prove anything inherently wrong with Christianity, because I suspect the answer will vary greatly depending on which Christian you talk to. And the problems you do find will not be Christian-specific problems, but rather problems with the entire concept of authority. Should one ever trust an authority if you think the authority knows better than you but the authority asks you to do something you think is wrong? That question exists whether it is in relation to God, the President, one's basketball coach, or even one's school textbook.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by enochville: Well, keep the good lessons. I do as an atheist. I even quote scripture from time to time (not that those words have any special authority or power, I am just more familiar with them). But, I also am paying more attention to the wise stories and words from other traditions: Confusius, the Dali Lama, great philosophers and scientists.
I still find that there is wisdom in some religious stories and passages, but they are not above other moralistic stories like "The boy who cried wolf".
Don't get me wrong, “I value the (religion’s) good lessons" means that I don't dismiss them (just because they come “from” there). As said before, I never take for granted something just because <insert deity here> "said so". Yet I am willing to accept many things if provided with enough proof/evidence/reason. So “religious lessons” have kind of "the same (or even less) priority" as those of other great philosophers, yet "much less priority" than those that come from science (i.e. scientifically based “rules”).
The thing is that science, IMO, gives less than enough "moral lessons"
posted
One of the biggest misconceptions about atheism (and I've seen it held by both atheist and theists) is that if you reject theism, you have to also reject everything associated with it. I've heard this expressed by some theists who ask, "If there is no God, then why not just do whatever you want?" Atheists more often express it though attitude, as if everything associated with religion is tainted.
The thing is, religions are often right about a lot of things. Where they go wrong, in my opinion, is in appealing to mythic authority to enforce their interpretation of morality as a whole. But much of what religion teaches is demonstrably true. Society works better when people don't kill, cheat, or lie. But these things are things we can see without needing an appeal to divine authority.
To me, most of the rest that religion adds seems to have little value outside propagating the religion itself. All the ritual, ceremony, and minor taboos seem to have little real value aside from strengthening a feeling of investment in the religious community and setting its members apart from everyone else. All the arcane dogma seems back-formed - often tortuously - to justify the more uncommon beliefs and practices, or to try to clear up discontinuities in the religion itself.
The thing is, I'm not sure science can give many moral lessons. The natural world is demonstrably amoral. Morality, then, is something apparently unique to sentient beings. It is the glue that holds us together. Back when our very survivability in nature was a more directly pressing issue, when external forces were far more dangerous to us and a tightly gathered community essential to surviving external threats, religion was probably crucial to our survival. Now, though, when threats from within our species are at least as dangerous as threats from without, perhaps a better course is a looser morality, less dogma, less separatism and apartheid. American secular morality, while often an offense to religious conservatives, is actually about the best in the world, so far, at allowing peaceful co-existence among diverse groups of humans. If there is a god at all, it seems to me that if reason is something he values, he'd either come down and show us - individually - exactly what he wants, or he'd just stay completely silent and let us work it out for ourselves. This whole business of whispering his desires for all of us to a few select humans (notoriosly self-delusional, selfish, and suspect creatures that we are) seems to be designed more for chaos and strife than anything else, especially on a scale larger than tribal.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I feel sorry for anyone who has such a weak moral sense that they need that kind of crutch to deal honestly with their employer. Interestingly enough, I have on occasion been faced with the same kind of moral choice, and made the same decision. So it is clearly not religion that is the difference between clocking out, and not doing so.
Congratulations on your self motivated sense of morality. But my example still indicates that for me religion has made me more apt to make moral decisions. I doubt I am the only one.
It almost sounds to me KOM that your desire to live a moral life stems from your desire to prove that you can be moral without the aid of religion. Interestingly enough it is still religion causing you to be moral, because you feel the need to prove your moral superiority to the guidelines religion has already laid out.
Were religion to not exist you would not have that motivation. Thanks for your pity but if you wish to feel pity for every single person who has ever wanted to slight somebody in authority over them to any degree I hope you have TONS of it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It almost sounds to me KOM that your desire to live a moral life stems from your desire to prove that you can be moral without the aid of religion.
While I'm not going to speculate on what makes KoM a decent human being, I can assure you that my motivation to be one does not in fact spring from any desire to prove that it's possible without God. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Interestingly enough, there's a thread going on right now that's talking about how compelled faith isn't true faith. I'd say the same for morality.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Organized religion, for me, is way to remind myself that there is something more to life than what we are in the middle of; that I am more than the sum of my parts; that I am beloved. It can be difficult to hold on to that without being regularly reminded.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
I think most of the disagreements are due to the fundamental nature of God.
For the Christian, his belief is in a God who is perfect in all things, such as wisdom, knowledge, power, goodness, and love. This faith in God allows for a different perspective on events such as Sodom and Gomorrah. If the nature of God as described is a given, then none of your criticisms are valid.
You seem to have two different views of God. The first is that there is none. Therefore most of your accusations against organized religions would be valid. The second is that if he exists, then what you can understand about him from your observation is that he is a being not worthy of any sort of worship. With this view, pretty much the rest of your complaints against organized religion have validity.
Just from what I've seen in this thread, it appears that most disagreements flow out of differing beliefs about the fundamental nature of God: perfect, nonexistant, or evil.
(Note: I used a lot of generalities here, please don't take offense)
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm - maybe it isn't clear from my posts, but when I argue from Biblical events, it is always with the assumption that 'this did not happen', at least for the miracles.
And the whole point I'm trying to make is that the faith you quite rightly point out is itself immoral. Christians assume that their god is good; it's an axiom. From there they reason that Sodom and Gomorrah had to have some kind of greater good behind it. I believe that this is an immoral way to think. The virtuous path is to judge everybody from actions. If, say, an Aztec god were described behaving as Yahweh does in the OT, would people not say "This is an evil god, I will not worship it?" But because it is theirs, they twist things around and make excuses.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that science does not create a moral system. However, it can inform moral systems. For example, I lean heavily on consequentialism. Sociology and Social psychology studies can inform us as to the likely outcome of different actions and attitudes.
In addition, my area of speciality is positive psychology, which studies things like: hope, forgiveness, wisdom, altruism, patience, etc.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: While I'm not going to speculate on what makes KoM a decent human being, can assure you that my motivation to be one does not in fact spring from any desire to prove that it's possible without God.
Would you care to give some “details” about your motivations (for being a decent/moral human being)?
The table below “summarizes” some of the possible motivations, but it is by no means exhaustive. [E.g. The “just in case there really is a vengeful God” motivation is not covered]. So if your motivation cannot be “coded” into the table (e.g. “4B” = “promise to a family member”) then describe your particular motivation
code:
A = Yourself B = Family member C = Friend / loved one D = Someone in particular E = Teacher F = Priest G = Whole Family H = Society I = Everybody J = <deity> +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | MOTIVATION | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | 1.Out of love for | | | | | | | | | | | +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | 2.Because of | | | | | | | | | | | +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | 3.To prove right | | | | | | | | | | | +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | 4.Promise to | | | | | | | | | | | +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | 5.Convinced by | | | | | | | | | | | +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | 6.To disprove | | | | | | | | | | | +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | 7.In spite of | | | | | | | | | | | +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | 8.Out of fear of | | | | | | | | | | | +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | 9.Forced by | | | | | | | | | | | +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ |10.To taunt | | | | | | | | | | | +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ |11.To mock | | | | | | | | | | | +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ |12.Against | | | | | | | | | | | +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ |13.Out of hating | | | | | | | | | | | +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
(Feeling really like I don't even belong on Hatrack lately, like an average joe in an advanced class. )
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, I’ve “coded” TomDavidson’s answer into the table. The idea is to see “the motivation distribution” when more people answer. Will we have the morality “imposed by society”, or will we see that it is a “product of love”? Or what?
BTW, if you see the matrix as a “useless Geek Code”, ignore the “codes”. An answer like “Out of love for society” is also accepted Actually, there is no restriction on the answer; I proposed the matrix for a “condensed view”, but as I said before, It is by no means exhaustive.
code:
A = Yourself B = Family member C = Friend / loved one D = Someone in particular E = Teacher F = Priest G = Whole Family H = Society I = Everybody J = <deity> +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | MOTIVATION | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | 1.Out of love for | | | | | | | | 1| | | +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | 2.Because of | | 1| | | | | | | 1| | +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | 3.To prove right | 1| | | | | | | | | | +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | 4.Promise to | | | | | | | 1| | | | +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | 5.Convinced by | | | | | | | | | | | +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | 6.To disprove | | 1| | | | | | | | | +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | 7.In spite of | 1| | | | | | | | 1| | +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | 8.Out of fear of | | | | | | | | 1| | | +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ | 9.Forced by | | | | | | | | | 1| | +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ |10.To taunt | | | | | | | | | | | +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ |11.To mock | | | | | | | | | | | +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ |12.Against | | | | | | | | | | | +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ |13.Out of hating | | | | | | | | | | | +-------------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
Oh, if you missed it, the “simple” question is: “What is your motivation for being a decent/moral human being?” I think it has a strong connection to the main topic of this thread
posted
In my case a conversion isn't possible. Whenever such matters arise I find myself in the agnostic position. I accept the possibility of God or any other supernatural beings, but having never come across any evidence that would support the theories I feel that it's just far more likely that there's nothing out there.
Posts: 993 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's natural that when people can't agree on ultimate reality, they can't agree on the terms to discuss it!
Atheists don't want to be referred to as having a religion; they say it has supernatural elements and they don't.
New Age people don't like it either. They aren't religious; they're spiritual. Religion implies a firm belief, and theirs are flexible.
I don't think of myself as religious either, because I don't care about religion; I care about God. If religion is useful for connecting with Him, fine.
Zen Buddhists on usenet didn't want to be under soc.religion.zen, because Zen isn't religion, it's life.
We won't resolve this one today, either.
--
If aliens invaded and banned all human religions (and demanded that we worship the Three-Antennaed God), it would have no bearing on what was true about God or me, and I would ignore it completely -- except to hide it if they were going to execute me. But, then, if they invaded and demanded that I stop believing in mathematics, relativity, or in the fundamental repulsiveness of the Drew Carey Show, I'd be similarly stubborn.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The thing is, I'm not sure science can give many moral lessons. The natural world is demonstrably amoral
I think this is a very logical point. Science does not give any philosophical lessons. Though it can inform philosophy - as someone said. For example - the belief that a baby 'quickens' at four months or so. Philosophically it is therefore ok to abort the baby before, and not ok, after. Science shows us that quickening doesn't actually happen. The philosophical premise is still valid, however it doesn't apply as quickening is not occurring. Thus while science cannot affect philosophy (morals included within), it can certainly inform it.
What I always wonder, when I read comments like
quote:When one does not accept things which a Christian takes for granted, it is amazing how so much of what it is to be a Christian falls like a house of cards. There are so many assumptions, beliefs, faith, and acceptance or complete disregard of seemingly contradictory ideas tied up with Christianity, it has a hell of a time standing up to logical reasoning
As MightyCow said. What I wonder is that, once you embrace Nihilism (the logical aspect of which), and do not accept the things most Everyone takes for granted, and particularly Athiests, like existence of the physical world outside your mind, accuracy of logic, cause and effect, the fact you're not just a brain in a jar, hallucinating, Everything falls like a house of cards. Nihilism is the only logical stance, if you require 'proof' for all your beliefs. Cogito Ergo Sum is the only self-proving axiom, and even that does not stand up to scrutiny in an illogical universe with no cause and effect. People believe all sorts of things, religion requires a few extra/difference essential beliefs, as a Nihilist it surprises me that athiests who believe in the real world, see themselves as any less grounded initially in faith than theists who believe in the real God. Also, surely the logical position to take is that of Agnosticism. Where that means, "God may exist or not, there's no evidence either way".
Just a few passing thoughts.
[ August 01, 2006, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Andrew W ]
Posts: 83 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dammit - "it surprises me that athiests who believe in the real world, see themselves as any more logical than theists who believe in the real God"
Should read 'see themselves as any more logical and not reliant on faith than..."
Posts: 83 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do go on... And do actually demonstrate, rather than just claiming you can. It'll shorten the discussion.
And I may not be using the 'official' definition of Nihilism. I'm using it to mean that if you have a position that you need to justify everything with proof or assume it isn't true(as most atheists claim to, for example with God or Fairies), and logic, there is no sufficient proof for anything, thus you must assume nothing exists. That type of nihilism.
Dadaism is really where we should be at.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're not using the official definition of nihilism. Instead, you're just committing a tautology.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, I don't need everything justified with iron-clad proof. I do demand the same level of evidence for gods as for the Invisible Pink Unicorn. If it fails the IPU test, I don't believe in it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:there is no sufficient proof for anything, thus you must assume nothing exists.
I'm an atheist who believes that many things exist. I'm sure I'm not alone. Therefore, atheism does not equal nihilism, "official" or otherwise.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Dude, I don't need everything justified with iron-clad proof. I do demand the same level of evidence for gods as for the Invisible Pink Unicorn. If it fails the IPU test, I don't believe in it.
Why should we go first? You prove that God doesnt exist and Ill prove the pretty pink unicorn does not exist.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The virtuous path is to judge everybody from actions.
Why??
Firstly, why is it virtuous to judge everybody? I don't think you have shown this yet.
Secondly, why would it more virtuous to judge them by their actions? That leads to mistaken judgement - as proven by the fact that two people can commit the same act, but if they do it for different reasons, one might be right and the other might be wrong. Thus in order to accurately judge someone, you must consider more than just their actions. Other knowledge and assumptions about them come into play.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:The thing is, I'm not sure science can give many moral lessons. The natural world is demonstrably amoral
I think this is false. If morality doesn't exist in the natural world, it wouldn't exist at all, because what else is there other than the natural world? But it does exist because some things are right and wrong. Hence, I think it must exist in the natural world.
I think it would be more accurate to say that science defines itself in such a way that it can never see any morality in the world. It is build upon assumptions that prevent it from ever studying something like morality, in any meaningful way. It only studies how things in nature (include humans) behave, not whether that behavior is right or wrong.
Science is useful, but the rules that make it useful also necessarily prevent it from being complete, in terms of being able to tell us everything we need to know about the world. It is very limited in scope.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think this is false. If morality doesn't exist in the natural world, it wouldn't exist at all, because what else is there other than the natural world? But it does exist because some things are right and wrong. Hence, I think it must exist in the natural world.
Can you show me how this is more than a semantic arguement. I think there is much precedent in English discourse for using "natural world" to mean the world discounting human interferance. (Or perhaps merely the physical world rather than the metaphysical.)
Nonetheless, I can agree with this:
quote:I think it would be more accurate to say that science defines itself in such a way that it can never see any morality in the world. It is build upon assumptions that prevent it from ever studying something like morality, in any meaningful way. It only studies how things in nature (include humans) behave, not whether that behavior is right or wrong.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Dude, I don't need everything justified with iron-clad proof. I do demand the same level of evidence for gods as for the Invisible Pink Unicorn. If it fails the IPU test, I don't believe in it.
Why should we go first? You prove that God doesn't exist and I'll prove the pretty pink unicorn does not exist.
You're going at it in the wrong direction. The point is, you cannot prove the existence of either your god, or the IPU; therefore, it is equally irrational to believe in either one. The only difference is that the IPU, poor thing, doesn't have two thousand years of habit backing her up.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The virtuous path is to judge everybody from actions.
Why??
Firstly, why is it virtuous to judge everybody? I don't think you have shown this yet.
I see my sentence was badly formulated. I did not mean you should go about judging everyone; rather, when you do judge someone, you should always use the same criteria. And those criteria should never be solely what they say about themselves; indeed, actions should weigh much more strongly. But Christians, in my view, do not give any weight at all to the actions of their god; instead they go solely by his words. Having judged according to his words, they justify his actions. That's immoral, just as it would be immoral to judge Hitler only by his words. (If you did, he would be a fine fellow! After all, he was only struggling against International Jewish Bolshevism!)
quote:Secondly, why would it more virtuous to judge them by their actions? That leads to mistaken judgement - as proven by the fact that two people can commit the same act, but if they do it for different reasons, one might be right and the other might be wrong. Thus in order to accurately judge someone, you must consider more than just their actions. Other knowledge and assumptions about them come into play.
Yes, but you don't actually have any other knowledge about your god.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: did not mean you should go about judging everyone; rather, when you do judge someone, you should always use the same criteria. And those criteria should never be solely what they say about themselves; indeed, actions should weigh much more strongly.
I disagree. The criteria you use to judge someone depends on what you are judging them for. Are you trying to find out if they are a good person? If they are wise? If they are virtuous? If they have value as a human being? All of these may have different criteria.
quote:But Christians, in my view, do not give any weight at all to the actions of their god; instead they go solely by his words.
So it is not Christianity alone that you think is immoral, but rather the entire idea of trusting an authority on its word? Isn't there any authority that you trust to be correct? Have you ever had a teacher who said things that seemed not right to you but that you trusted nonetheless because you thought that teacher knew more than you?
I think authority does have a place in the virtuous person's judgement. In fact, I doubt anyone could consistently act ethically without the guidance of an authority they trusted - and that warranted trust.
quote:Yes, but you don't actually have any other knowledge about your god.
Yes we do. What do you think we talk about at church?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: did not mean you should go about judging everyone; rather, when you do judge someone, you should always use the same criteria. And those criteria should never be solely what they say about themselves; indeed, actions should weigh much more strongly.
I disagree. The criteria you use to judge someone depends on what you are judging them for. Are you trying to find out if they are a good person? If they are wise? If they are virtuous? If they have value as a human being? All of these may have different criteria.
And all of these depend on their actions.
quote:
quote:But Christians, in my view, do not give any weight at all to the actions of their god; instead they go solely by his words.
So it is not Christianity alone that you think is immoral, but rather the entire idea of trusting an authority on its word? Isn't there any authority that you trust to be correct?
There are authorities that I trust sufficiently not to go about checking their daily doings, yes. There are no authorities I trust sufficiently to accept that a genocide is a good and necessary thing on their mere word!
quote:Have you ever had a teacher who said things that seemed not right to you but that you trusted nonetheless because you thought that teacher knew more than you?
Come now, it must be possible to not consider this an absolute. I would trust your god if it killed off a snake on the grounds that it might otherwise bite someone nearby, even if I didn't know whether the snake was poisonous. Killing off entire cities requires a little more proof of intent.
quote:I think authority does have a place in the virtuous person's judgement. In fact, I doubt anyone could consistently act ethically without the guidance of an authority they trusted.
I disagree completely.
quote:
quote:Yes, but you don't actually have any other knowledge about your god.
Yes we do. What do you think we talk about at church?
I did say knowledge, didn't I? I don't see where theorising about your hallucinations comes in. Talk about a house built on sand.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're going at it in the wrong direction. The point is, you cannot prove the existence of either your god, or the IPU; therefore, it is equally irrational to believe in either one.
You're exactly illustrating my point here. I wasn't saying that Atheism = Nihilism. I was saying Atheism requires you to take certain tenets on faith, such as the existence of a physical world beyond your own Qualia perceptions (the 'effect' of every sensation you have, in your mind. The way your brain interprets colour for example. Which you know happens because you have experienced it. This is more complex than it looks.), or the validity of logic, or cause and effect, etc. So when people are very pround of the logic of their atheistic position, decrying faith in all its forms, they are not really sticking to what you say: "The point is, you cannot prove the existence of either your god, or the IPU; therefore, it is equally irrational to believe in either one"
You can't prove those. You can't prove the existence of the physical world beyond your body. Philosophically. You can't prove the existence of anything except yourself, and you can't even be sure what you are, only that you in some way are. If we must drop God and the IPU because there's no proof, we must drop this belief in the existence of the universe. So as you can see, it's not a faith vs rationality case that it might look like. It's a sliding scale of faith, with both different and shared elements.
Posts: 83 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say you have to have evidence for everything, I said there is no evidence for any gods.
In any case, I can prove the existence of the physical world to the satisfaction of myself and everyone who isn't hell-bent on making a contrived philosophical point.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Man, this thread is heavy. I'd like to jump in, but there's so much. I don't know where to start.
Posts: 97 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:In any case, I can prove the existence of the physical world to the satisfaction of myself and everyone who isn't hell-bent on making a contrived philosophical point.
I can prove the existence of God to the satisfaction of a bunch of Christian fundamentalists. But proving something to the "satisfaction" of people who already believe that thing doesn't imply you've actually proven anything at all. It's often easy to satisfy such people who already believe. But you've only really proven something if you've in fact proven it through logical reasoning and/or direct observations (evidence). I think you cannot prove the existence of the physical world in such a way - although if you'd like to try, we can see....
quote:
quote:I think authority does have a place in the virtuous person's judgement. In fact, I doubt anyone could consistently act ethically without the guidance of an authority they trusted.
I disagree completely.
I suspect this is the heart of the disagreement then.
You do accept at least one authority on faith, though - and that is yourself: your own eyes, ears, and judgement. If you reject all others then that means you place yourself as an authority above all others. I think if you did a study of how such an attitude causes people to act, I believe it would illustrate that those who take this approach end up being much less virtuous than those who don't - and much less happy.
It is reasonable to question authority when it asks you to do something like genocide. But in all seriousness, I don't think God will ask that of us, because I think it is unlikely that that would be the moral thing to ever do, for you or I.
Which raises the question, what if God DID ask such a thing of us? You seem to think the Christian thing to do would be to blindly do whatever we think God wants us to. I doubt you'd find many Christians who actually believe that. The religious do NOT usually believe that doing God's Will is a simple task that one does without questioning. Faith, to Christians, is not equivalent to blind acceptance.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting you should assert that, considering what happens in Numbers 31.
quote:But you've only really proven something if you've in fact proven it through logical reasoning and/or direct observations (evidence).
Right. Now watch closely as I make direct observations. Is there a physical world? Yep. Okay, next observation. Is there a physical world? Yep.
quote:I can prove the existence of God to the satisfaction of a bunch of Christian fundamentalists. But proving something to the "satisfaction" of people who already believe that thing doesn't imply you've actually proven anything at all.
Well, I tell you what. Why don't you find me someone who genuinely disbelieves in the existence of the physical world, and I'll prove it to them.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Right. Now watch closely as I make direct observations. Is there a physical world? Yep. Okay, next observation. Is there a physical world? Yep.
That observation is indirect, not direct. All you actually see is the image of a world. It could be entirely in your imagination. That you assume there is something physical creating it is just that - an assumption. Can you back it up?
If you had said you can prove there exists an image of a world, I would agree that you can. Berkeley would too.
quote:Why don't you find me someone who genuinely disbelieves in the existence of the physical world, and I'll prove it to them.
Unfortunately, proving something to the "satisfaction" of people who didn't previously believe that thing doesn't really imply you've actually proven anything either. Whether something is a valid proof has nothing to do with whether a bunch of people are satisfied by it. It is not democratic. Proof is only proof if it actually has justified premises and valid logic that follows from it. And it could be a valid proof even if nobody whatsoever is satisfied by it, or vice versa.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:That observation is indirect, not direct. All you actually see is the image of a world. It could be entirely in your imagination. That you assume there is something physical creating it is just that - an assumption. Can you back it up?
Well then, kindly define 'direct observation'.
quote:Unfortunately, proving something to the "satisfaction" of people who didn't previously believe that thing doesn't really imply you've actually proven anything either. Whether something is a valid proof has nothing to do with whether a bunch of people are satisfied by it. It is not democratic. Proof is only proof if it actually has justified premises and valid logic that follows from it. And it could be a valid proof even if nobody whatsoever is satisfied by it, or vice versa.
I disagree. The purpose of discussion is not to show off how good you are at logic, it is to arrive at conclusions on which one can base a course of action. If both parties to a discussion agree to a proposition, that's good enough, even if they should be wrong.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kaminari: Man, this thread is heavy. I'd like to jump in, but there's so much. I don't know where to start.
Why don't you start with your answer to the question(s) in the first post of this thread?
- - -
As for the “proving the physical world exists” debate, there is one idea: let’s stick to the practical part of it. What we believe about something that affects us all on a practical level (like “this ticking bomb here”) should be as coherent (and common) as possible. What we each believe about “that possible thing out there” that doesn’t affect somebody else should be a personal business.
The fact that there really is a physical Universe around us, or just “an image” of it, ”pulled before our eyes to blind us from the truth, that we are living in a prison, a prison for the mind” (à la Matrix) is ultimately an irrelevant philosophical debate. The fact that we all see the blue sky, and feel the Earth beneath our feet, and breath some gaseous mix called “air” and all that, that affects us all the same. That is, we all see “the same image”. So, agreeing to its properties would help us communicate and “live/work together”. Anyone can convince themselves (by observation and/or studying it scientifically) that the “ground is solid” and “gravity follows this particular rule”. There are questions that using the same terms and definitions we get to the same conclusions (e.g. logical constructions).
What I need to believe that the laws of Physics are correct (i.e. work in the physical Universe) is a function of my brain called reason. It is useful at the practical level of my life.
The fact that there might be a deity (that didn’t/doesn’t offer enough evidence/proofs of its existence), leads some people to believe in it and others to dismiss it. One interesting point is that different people get to believe in different (such) deities. But as long as that belief doesn’t affect others, it remains useful only at a personal level. And imposing it to others is something that doesn’t have much justification at a practical level.
The debates “physical Universe exists” and “<insert deity name here> exists” are therefore different at a practical level.
The original question in this thread is coming to this: “How much do you NEED religion at the practical level of your life?”
posted
I saw a television show following a tribe of people in Africa. When any sort of big event occured, a death, a potential marriage, herd animals lost to predators, the wise men of the tribe would sacrifice a goat or cow and read the intestines to determine what the tribe should do.
One of the women in the tribe got sick and died. A cow was sacrificed, and a group of the men in the tribe started pointing at the intestines and discussing what they showed.
Eventually, the eldest and most respected intestine reader decided that one of the young women in the tribe, the daughter of the woman who died, would die if she married another wise man. He said that she had to move out of the tribe and couldn't marry the other wise man, or she would get sick and die like her mother had.
To me, and I imagine to most westerners, this is a clear case of superstition. It seemed horribly cruel to me that on the whim of some old man, this young woman would essentially be driven from the tribe and wouldn't be allowed to marry the man she wanted to.
I would guess that there may have been some back story involved, or that the one wise man was simply jealous that the other wise man would be marrying a young woman and wanted to punish him. Regardless of the intentions, it seems really unfair and pretty foolish to me.
The particularly relevant point to this discussion though, is that it is very easy for a non-religious person to apply the same logic to any religion. The people in charge decide what is and isn't "right" and use their power and influence to force their beliefs on the followers.
Seems just as bad to me, no matter what faith is pushing what beliefs. I guess it's just a matter of people with power having their way with people who don't have power, but it's even worse when the powerless people accept it and do it to themselves.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
By direct observation I mean when something is observed to be true, in a way that does not rely on any assumptions in order for the observer to be certain of its truth.
quote:I disagree. The purpose of discussion is not to show off how good you are at logic, it is to arrive at conclusions on which one can base a course of action. If both parties to a discussion agree to a proposition, that's good enough, even if they should be wrong.
Agreement on something does not mean it is a conclusion on which one should base a course of action. I can agree with plenty of people that God exists, but would you say that implies it is definitely the assumption we should base our actions upon? Instead one should base their actions on what they think is TRUE, rather than what they can get people to agree with.
Secondly, you weren't just talking about discussion. You were talking about proof. You didn't just say we can agree in discussion on the existence of the physical world. You said you can prove it. And the reason you said that was to suggest it was okay of you to demand "proof" of God before believing in Him. Now you are saying that if two parties agree on something in a discussion, then that constitutes proof? Wouldn't that imply if I agree with someone about the existence of God then I have proven God exists? If that were the case then it would be rather easy to prove Christianity is correct. I'd just have to discuss it with the right people.
But proof is not a matter of agreement. It is not democratic at all. And it is certainly much more than just being able to determine whether a belief is good enough to base actions on, right or wrong. Rather, it is a matter of being certain something is true, and having a valid logical justification for that certainty. If you have no such justification, you haven't proven something, no matter how many people you can get to agree with it and no matter how practical you think it is.
And if you think such a proof is unnecessary in order to believe things, that's fine with me. I agree with that. But remember that you are the one who said "you cannot prove the existence of either your god, or the IPU; therefore, it is equally irrational to believe in either one."
quote:One of the women in the tribe got sick and died. A cow was sacrificed, and a group of the men in the tribe started pointing at the intestines and discussing what they showed.
Eventually, the eldest and most respected intestine reader decided that one of the young women in the tribe, the daughter of the woman who died, would die if she married another wise man. He said that she had to move out of the tribe and couldn't marry the other wise man, or she would get sick and die like her mother had.
We do similar things in America too, but we call our wise men "doctors".
The real problem here is not that the tribe trusted the authority of their wise men. The real problem is that their wise men weren't nearly as wise as our wise men. (Or so we believe.)
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
)
