What if God quit?
Brian Holtz
devoid of hope, values, and goals. I dare such theists to answer a
hypothetical question: what would you do if in the near future you
came to believe that there are no gods?
If you cannot imagine not believing in any gods, then hypothesize that
your god uncreated itself.
If your god would never or could never uncreate itself, then
hypothesize something like Gen 6:5. Imagine your god "saw how great
man's wickedness on earth had become" and decided to be rid of us.
But instead of drowning us all in a Flood, imagine that your god
simply abandoned us to the uncaring universe. Imagine that he decided
to leave us alone and unmolested, the way all the wicked atheists
thought we were anyway. Imagine too that he had firmly decided and
announced that the few not-quite-so-wicked people like you had zero
hope of salvation, and that upon men's natural bodily death he was
going to uncreate their souls.
What would be your goals and values? How would you decide on them?
Would you guide your actions by the ethical rules of the god(s) you
now firmly believed would never further punish those actions? Would
you lie, cheat, steal, rape, and murder? Would you kill yourself?
Or would you simply pursue the goals and values that you decided were
most consistent with the most happiness for the most people?
I dare you theists to answer this question, but I don't think many of
you will.
--
Brian...@sun.com
Knowledge is dangerous. Take a risk: http://humanknowledge.net
Automort
>I dare you theists to answer this question, but I don't think many of
>you will.
They'd continue to hope God will come back for them.
Jason
wrote:
>Or would you simply pursue the goals and values that you decided were
>most consistent with the most happiness for the most people?
I have never met a person, atheist or theist who lives whole-heartedly
by this statement. We are all selfish and self-seeking.
If this is truly your credo, why do you fail at it? Where does this
creed come from? Genetics? If so, how can you violate your own
genetics? Did we make it up? If so, what validity does it have?
Paul Filseth notwithstanding, after all these years on this group, I
still do not understand an atheist who proclaims an absolute morality
which is not universally followed.
If I became convined there was no God, I would switch from an absolute
moral system to one of conditional morality. The former makes no
sense to me without an indepenent, universal source.
Jason
What good would it do me to be able to explain
the meaning of Christianity if it had no deeper
significance for me and my life; what good would
it do me if truth stood before me, cold and naked,
not caring whether I recognized her or not, and
producing in me a shudder of fear rather than
trusting devotion?
- Soren Kierkegaard
rtu...@my-deja.com
drfries...@homeATALL.com (Jason) wrote:
> If I became convined there was no God, I would switch
> from an absolute moral system to one of conditional
> morality. The former makes no sense to me without an
> indepenent, universal source.
Logically, the presence of a god changes the situation
not one whit. If you say that created beings should
obey the dictates of their creator, from whence comes
that assumption? If you say that your god is good,
then you must have a definition of good that is
independent of your god. The quality of this notion of
good cannot depend on whether your god exists. If your
morality is based on god as judge, then you are simply
responding to reward and punishment. That is prudence,
not morality. If your morality is based on love for
god, then why not on love for fellow man?
A god cannot make morality more absolute than it would
be in his absence. If you morality is based on the
belief that only a god provides absolute morality,
then it is based on a logical error, not on the existence
of god. Of course, you can *choose* to follow a god
and base your morality on that god's creed. But please,
have the honesty and self-knowledge to recognize this
as no less a moral choice than any other, and provides
a morality that is fully conditioned on that choice.
Russell
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Brian Holtz
> >Or would you simply pursue the goals and values that you decided were
> >most consistent with the most happiness for the most people?
>
> I have never met a person, atheist or theist who lives whole-heartedly
> by this statement.
And I've never met a theist who perfectly follows the commandments of
their god(s). The point is: would you switch from imperfectly following
the commandments of your god(s) to imperfectly pursuing your own goals
and values?
> If this is truly your credo, why do you fail at it?
Does imperfection imply failure? If so, then for example all Christians
"fail" to follow the Golden Rule. Surely no human is perfectly moral if
he neither a) is a hermit nor b) has an undemanding moral code. Is this
news to you?
> Where does this creed come from?
People make them up, just like all creeds, even those later mistakenly
believed to come from god(s).
The origin and justification of values is one of the primary topics of
the branch of Philosophy called Axiology, and is summarized in my book at
http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html#Axiology. Here are some
excerpts:
Values derive from intentions and appetites. Appetites are desires
arising from capacities for pleasure and pain. Innate appetites are
usually the result of evolutionary pressure for inclusive reproductive
fitness. However, appetites can conflict with each other, with long-term
inclusive fitness, and with intentions. An intention is a desire for a
chosen goal. Happiness is the tendency of a being to have its appetites
satisfied and intentions fulfilled.
Humans have no evidence that the universe has an inherent objective
purpose, and so the universe has no goal whose desiring could be the
basis of a value. The universe is not inherently either good or bad, and
neither are the appetites of humans and other known beings in it.
In the absence of objective purpose or inherently good or bad appetites,
humans seem free to choose their own purposes and values. Can there be an
objective rational basis for values? It does not seem impossible, but no
human choice of values has been shown to be justifiable through objective
reason alone. Instead, such choices must ultimately be based at least in
part on appeal to appetites rather than to reason. This resort to
arational appeal can be minimized by using it just to choose fundamental
values, or better yet the criteria for choosing fundamental values.
Several criteria for choosing fundamental values seem appealing: [...]
In a universe condemned to inexorably increasing entropy, we value
extropy. Extropy is the amount of a system's intelligence, vitality, and
capability for increasing its intelligence, vitality, and capability. As
autonomous living intellects, we persons value intelligence and life and
the autonomy they need to flourish.
> Did we make it up? If so, what validity does it have?
As I said, values have no objective rational fundamental basis. However,
since values derive from intentions and appetites, people are likely to
consider valid any values that are consistent with their own intentions
and appetites. For example, among the community of humans who intend
cooperation, or who have no appetite to see suffering and torture, the
value of the Golden Rule would be considered to be quite valid. By
contrast, the Golden Rule is probably not considered valid among
sociopaths and sadists, but that doesn't make it any less valid for the
rest of us. Nor would that stop us from punishing harms committed by
sociopaths and sadists.
> I still do not understand an atheist who proclaims an absolute morality
>
> which is not universally followed.
If by "absolute morality" you mean some ethical code that any rational
mind should be able to derive in any possible universe, I tend to agree
(but cannot prove) that no such absolute morality exists.
> If I became convined there was no God, I would switch from an absolute
> moral system to one of conditional morality.
What is "conditional morality"? Is "the most happiness for the most
people" an example?
hackerbabe
> Imagine that [God] decided
> to leave us alone and unmolested, the way all the wicked atheists
> thought we were anyway. Imagine too that he had firmly decided and
> announced that the few not-quite-so-wicked people like you had zero
> hope of salvation, and that upon men's natural bodily death he was
> going to uncreate their souls.
In case you think you've hit upon something new, let me fill you in: You've
described "Deism," which essentially states that God created the universe and
left it alone.
Deism FAQ: http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm
> What would be your goals and values? How would you decide on them?
You'd probably support the actions and beliefs of many of the founding
fathers of the USA (including Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson,
Samuel Adams, George Washington) who were heavily influenced by this
17th/18th century movement and founded the country on Deism's principles.
http://www.deism.com/DeistAmerica.htm
I'm agnostic (undecided), but I found this information fascinating.
Jason
Whatever dude. I love the patronizing tone like I am a six-year old.
I have stewed over this for a long time and I simply have to say I
disagree with you.
Based on your logic, very few decisions are moral. I'd be interested
in a few examples of moral decisions that do not fall to your
exclusions (prudence, worship, love, etc.)
If a being created the entire universe and how it operates, he would
have been responsible for creating morality (as it is at least an
abstract idea contained within the universe). If you can stack a
viewpoint up against this perfect representation of what he created,
you have an absolute morality.
God is good by definition, but by comparison. It is an arbitrary
adjective used to describe what he does and/or represents. If we had
a dual system, then we would have different issues, but we do not. (at
least in the system I'm referring to)
Goldhammer
hackerbabe <hacke...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In case you think you've hit upon something new, let me fill you in:
>You've described "Deism," which essentially states that God created
>the universe and left it alone.
This is a very common distortion of deism.
>Deism FAQ: http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm
The website only states that "some" deists believe that
God stepped back from the universe, not that this
belief is an essential characteristic of deism.
Deism is the belief in god coupled with the rejection
of the trappings of organized religion. Which includes
revelation, religious authorities, caononical scriptures,
etc.
From the website:
"Deism rejects the "revelations" of the "revealed"
religions but does not reject God."
From the dictionary:
"Deism. The doctrine or creed of a deist; the belief
or system of those who acknowledge the existence of
one God, but deny revelation."
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
Brian Holtz
Some person (probably a guy :-) called "hackerbabe" wrote:
>
> > Imagine that [God] decided
> > to leave us alone and unmolested, the way all the wicked atheists
> > thought we were anyway. Imagine too that he had firmly decided and
> > announced that the few not-quite-so-wicked people like you had zero
> > hope of salvation, and that upon men's natural bodily death he was
> > going to uncreate their souls.
>
> In case you think you've hit upon something new, let me fill you in:
You've
> described "Deism," which essentially states that God created the universe
and
> left it alone.
I know what Deism is, and in my book I define it and place it in a taxonomy
of other theories of reality: http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html#deism.
Deism shares the fatal flaw of all the other varieties of supernaturalism,
in that it is unparsimonious.
What I describe is not precisely deism, since it involves God *revealing*
his decision to act as if atheism were true. Deism does not include a
standard answer as to whether or not an afterlife exists and we are judged
in it, whereas in my scenario we know there will be no afterlife.
"Let me fill you in" on the point of my posting (which I thought was
obvious). As I said, many theists say that life without any gods would be an
absurd one devoid of hope, values, and goals. I challenged them with a
scenario in which their god(s) deliberately imposed such a condition, to
force them to realize that life would not instantly become absurd. For
Christians I even showed how God doing this would be similar to the (cruel
and petulant) behavior he exhibited in causing the Flood.
Of course, no theists accepted my challenge.
HawkwoodGG
>fathers of the USA (including Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson,
>Samuel Adams, George Washington) who were heavily influenced by this
>17th/18th century movement and founded the country on Deism's principles.
The principles of Deism; how to behave in reguards to other people, no killing,
no stealing, be exellent to eachother, etc, are wonderful pieces of advise to
live by. But Deism itself (or the existence of God) are not neccessary to live
by these principles.
Hawkwood
rtu...@my-deja.com
drfries...@homeATALL.com (Jason) wrote:
> God is good by definition, but [not?] by comparison.
> It is an arbitrary adjective used to describe what he
If it were an arbitrary adjective, you could just as
well choose to say "god is flawed," look hard to find
the problems in his creation (disease, poverty,
ignorance), and work to correct those. The hole in
your statement is that "good" is no arbitrary word.
It already has meaning in English, and stemming from
your definition, you then proceed to obey, follow,
and take direction from your god. The moral question
is: Why?
There are two ways you can address that question.
(a) You can say that your moral thinking goes no
deeper than your base assumption that the Christian
god is good. That IS the ground source for you, just
as the hymn says. This is what the rest of us call
blind morality. It is the morality that lets every
believer acting fanatically do what they do, since
they have no way of thinking about "good" or "bad"
beyond what they think their god directs. If this
is the sole answer you have reached after "stew[ing]
over this for a long time," all I can say is: it
isn't soup yet. (As a side note, let me point out
that this foundation does NOT create an absolute
morality. It is conditioned on YOUR definition.)
(b) You can say something else. In that case, you
can engage in possibly fruitful moral and meta-moral
dialogue with the rest of the world. But to do so,
you have to move beyond blind morality, which brings
an end to all discussion of what is good.
> Based on your logic, very few decisions are moral. ..
Nay. If you reread my examples, most do not exclude
moral claim, but point out that there is something
behind it BESIDES the simplistic notion that god
defines good. Consider, for example, the following
statement:
"God is good, so let us praise him."
This statement makes absolutely no sense if the first
three words are a definition. Implied by the statement
is not just that we are going to attach some arbitrary
string of characters, g-o-o-d, to what this god does,
but that it is somehow PRAISEWORTHY. That raises the
question: What is praiseworthy about your god? If you
want to explain THAT to anyone who isn't already
praising him, you have to appeal somehow to moral or
aesthetic claims beyond the raw, circular definition.
Michael A. McAngus
news:3a5fa97a.253910@news...
> On 9 Jan 2001 22:47:20 -0700, rtu...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >In article <3a564a9f.327270317@news>,
> > drfries...@homeATALL.com (Jason) wrote:
> >> If I became convined there was no God, I would switch
> >> from an absolute moral system to one of conditional
> >> morality. The former makes no sense to me without an
> >> indepenent, universal source.
> >
> >Logically, the presence of a god changes the situation
> >not one whit.
[snip]
> If a being created the entire universe and how it operates, he would
> have been responsible for creating morality (as it is at least an
> abstract idea contained within the universe). If you can stack a
> viewpoint up against this perfect representation of what he created,
> you have an absolute morality.
>
> God is good by definition, but by comparison. It is an arbitrary
I assume you meant "God is good *not* by definition..."
> adjective used to describe what he does and/or represents. If we had
> a dual system, then we would have different issues, but we do not. (at
> least in the system I'm referring to)
So, which god(s) does your "system" believe in?
From your past articles, I would have expected it to be the gods of
Christianity. If my expectation is correct, then I have some problems
with the morality of some of the reported actions of two of these gods.
--
Cheers,
Mike McAngus
m...@infinet.com
Why is it that so many people must quote someone else in
their signature?
- Damien Vigar (sci...@jcu.edu.au)
epe...@my-deja.com
drfries...@homeATALL.com (Jason) wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >Or would you simply pursue the goals and values that you decided were
> >most consistent with the most happiness for the most people?
>
> I have never met a person, atheist or theist who lives whole-heartedly
> by this statement. We are all selfish and self-seeking.
Note this for later.
> If I became convined there was no God, I would switch from an absolute
> moral system to one of conditional morality. The former makes no
> sense to me without an indepenent, universal source.
Oh, come on! You just admitted that you don't have an absolute moral
system. You just imagine that there is one somewhere if you had it, but
you don't have it. You have vague feelings. You have a book with a lot
of advice, stories, and myths, many of which conflict with each other.
When it comes to actually answering moral questions, you pick and choose
and rationalize just as everyone else does, and the resulting morality
is therefore just as relative as any other.
The only difference between you and Filseth is that you hang this bag of
warm fuzzies and cold pricklies on the word "God," while he hangs it on
the word "evolution." Neither of you is able to provide definitions,
let alone algorithms for answering moral questions that are even
remotely robust enough to justify the adjective "absolute."
HawkwoodGG
appearence of ignoring it.
Hawkwood
Jason
wrote:
>> God is good by definition, but by comparison. It is an arbitrary
>
>I assume you meant "God is good *not* by definition..."
Yes, a type, but actually the opposite. I meant to say God is good by
definition NOT by comparison.
>
>> adjective used to describe what he does and/or represents. If we had
>> a dual system, then we would have different issues, but we do not. (at
>> least in the system I'm referring to)
>
>So, which god(s) does your "system" believe in?
>
From your past articles, I would have expected it to be the gods of
>Christianity. If my expectation is correct, then I have some problems
>with the morality of some of the reported actions of two of these gods.
Yes, I personally believe in the God of Christianity. I can only
assume you mean the trinity when you speak of gods. I'd be happy to
try to talk about your problems with his actions, but realize that I
don't have all the answers either and have some problems as well.
Reflect on the fact that I said God's actions are good by definition.
Does that make it easier? And the answer to your next question is
that just because it is "good" for God doesn't make it "good" for us.
We are different creatures which may not have the capacity for such
things as purely righteous anger.
Jason
contention was that an absolute morality did not jive with atheism.
(I of course then went on to say that I feel I do follow an absolute
morality and thus would have to change if I was no longer a theist.)
I do not see you refuting this. Instead I see you saying, "well, you
don't have an absolute morality either."
Is this the case? Is an atheistic absolute morality possible? If the
answer is no, Holtz's original post loses much strength. In it, he
implies the following morality would/could be followed if one stopped
being an atheist...
>Or would you simply pursue the goals and values that you decided were
>most consistent with the most happiness for the most people?
This sounds very much like utilitarianism to me. Is this absolute?
If it is, how? If it isn't, who cares if I don't want to follow it?
I still contend that there is a fundamental difference between a
morality dictated from a being outside the universe, than one inside
it.
Later you write...
On 17 Jan 2001 22:09:15 -0700, rtu...@my-deja.com wrote:
>If it were an arbitrary adjective, you could just as
>well choose to say "god is flawed," look hard to find
>the problems in his creation (disease, poverty,
>ignorance), and work to correct those. The hole in
>your statement is that "good" is no arbitrary word.
If good is not arbitrary, what are you basing the definition on? If
there is an absolute definition of good, what is it's authority? (In
other words, why should we use that definition and not another?) If
there isn't an absolute definition, then isn't it arbitrary after all?
>It already has meaning in English,
Where did this meaning come from?
Jason
The darkness has a call that's insatiable,
and the lightness has a call that's hard to hear.
-Indigo Girls
Jason
>The only difference between you and Filseth is that you hang this bag of
>warm fuzzies and cold pricklies on the word "God," while he hangs it on
>the word "evolution." Neither of you is able to provide definitions,
>let alone algorithms for answering moral questions that are even
>remotely robust enough to justify the adjective "absolute."
Maybe it is enough to say that there exists a morality which I can
compare my actions to. Perhaps I do not know it perfectly, or even
partially, but it exists. This gives me the drive to discover it and
improve my actions to match as closely as possible to it.
What do you have? Nothing. If you want to act shabby, you can act
shabby. If you want to act "good", you can call your actions "good"
(regardless of what they are). There is no independent means to
measure, no grid of reference so you can declare your actions as you
see fit.
Practically, these two systems may look the same on the outside.
Bothe people do things that others consider "good" and things others
consider "bad". It is the underlying motivation and philosphy that is
different. I feel I am on a more solid footing (and I would think
Filseth would feel the same for himself) than you.
Paul Filseth
> Paul Filseth notwithstanding, after all these years on this group, I
> still do not understand an atheist who proclaims an absolute morality
> which is not universally followed.
Well, I suspect the moment you understand me, you'll cease to be
a Christian. Christianity is moral relativism, in denial. If moral
rules were based on authority then morality would be whim. Theists
think a whim is enough to put a moral obligation on someone. That's
the absurdity Christian moral theory is based on, and those who can
make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. You
claim you believe in an absolute morality, but there appears to be no
rule you aren't prepared to ignore if God whims it.
The fact that absolute moral rules aren't universally followed is
immaterial. The existence of flat-earthers doesn't imply the world
isn't round.
--
Paul Filseth To email, delete the x.
Do not flatter your benefactor. - Buddha
Paul Filseth
> > moral system to one of conditional morality. The former makes no
>
> Oh, come on! You just admitted that you don't have an absolute moral
> system. You just imagine that there is one somewhere if you had it, but
> you don't have it. You have vague feelings. You have a book with a lot
> of advice, stories, and myths, many of which conflict with each other.
> When it comes to actually answering moral questions, you pick and choose
> and rationalize just as everyone else does, and the resulting morality
> is therefore just as relative as any other.
>
> The only difference between you and Filseth is that you hang this bag of
> warm fuzzies and cold pricklies on the word "God," while he hangs it on
> the word "evolution."
So you don't understand me either. Evolution is a minor detail
in my arguments for moral realism. The bag of warm fuzzies and cold
pricklies doesn't "hang from" _anything_; it's perfectly capable of
standing on its own merit. Evolution is merely where it comes from,
just as it's where every other complicated functional feature of
biology comes from. Theists inexplicably equate saying how a rule
originated with justifying it, but that's no reason to suppose an
atheist does. Or should.
> Neither of you is able to provide definitions, let alone algorithms
> for answering moral questions that are even remotely robust enough
> to justify the adjective "absolute."
How do you measure robustness? I've certainly offered examples
of moral rules that nobody has found exceptions to; isn't that enough
to provisionally qualify them as absolute? If you mean an algorithm
for answering _all_ moral questions, I've often expressed skepticism
that such a thing exists. Why shouldn't ethics be just as open-ended
as other fields you'd recognize as science? Rather than a terminating
algorithm, we should look for a continuing strategy for incrementally
becoming more certain about particular questions while leaving others
to the future.
As for definitions, that's not strictly a moral problem -- it's
a problem in lexicography, a respectable scientific subdiscipline of
linguistics. I'm not a specialist, but anybody can do science, so
tell me what you'd like defined and I'll give it my best shot. :-)
hackerbabe
"Brian Holtz" <Brian...@sun.com> wrote:
>
> Some person (probably a guy :-) called "hackerbabe" wrote:
I'm a female...But, now that I think about it, no wonder my boyfriend likes
the name so much! *giggle*
> I know what Deism is, and in my book I define it and place it in a taxonomy
> of other theories of reality: http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html#deism.
I must apologize for not looking at your site nor your book. I will learn
this lesson well. *Note to self: check out more links in signatures before
responding*
> "Let me fill you in" on the point of my posting (which I thought was
> obvious). As I said, many theists say that life without any gods would be an
> absurd one devoid of hope, values, and goals. I challenged them with a
> scenario in which their god(s) deliberately imposed such a condition, to
> force them to realize that life would not instantly become absurd.
They would probably argue that their god(s) would never do such a thing and
instantly dismiss your argument as absurd. That's what I would have done, at
least, when I was a Christian.
>For
> Christians I even showed how God doing this would be similar to the (cruel
> and petulant) behavior he exhibited in causing the Flood.
>
Then, I would have argued that everyone on earth was evil and deserved the
flood, again, dismissing the argument. Contradictory? Sure. But for the
longest time, I had to contradict or rationalize my former religion in order
to stay faithful.
> Of course, no theists accepted my challenge.
>
Because they don't like their thinking (or lack thereof) to be challenged.
> --
> Brian...@sun.com
> Knowledge is dangerous. Take a risk:
> http://humanknowledge.net
*Must check out link*
Dick
Personally I don't find that this makes it easier at all. I thought I
knew what "good" meant (even though we might not agree in every
instance on which spefic actions qualify as good). You seem to be
saying that there are two definitions of "good", one for God and one
for us.
You say that God is good by definition. I assume that you mean
that God's *actions* are, by definition, good. That's different from
the standard use of the word. By this definition anything that God
does is considered to be good. It seems to be synonomous with godly,
right? Using "good" in this sense does not in any way show that God is
good in the normal human sense. He could be evil by the standard
definition and, by your non-standard definition, be defined as good.
It seems to me you've devalued the word.
In short, how do we know that what is godly is good?
According to the Bible, God sometimes acts in ways which most of us
would say are not good. I.e. we wouldn't teach our kids to act like
that. You seem to admit this in your post.
It seems to me that to make God good you've had to redefine the term.
Why not just admit that sometimes God is bad? :-)
- Dick
rtu...@my-deja.com
drfries...@homeATALL.com (Jason) wrote:
> by definition. Does that make it easier? And the answer
> to your next question is that just because it is "good"
There is a more fundamental question: Why should we care
about "good" defined in this manner? "Good," defined as
what the Christian god does, endorses, or directs, may have
only accidental relevance to any human sense of beneficence,
wisdom, or honor. Just to keep things clear, perhaps we should
use a different ascii string for it: good-X. The Christian
god is good-X, by your definition. We've heard that. Now:
what is the importance of this? How does this make him
praiseworthy? Why should we follow his commands?
Two notes. First, you can't answer "because God is good,"
because that answer makes sense only if it is an appeal to
some shared or human notion of good, and you haven't
argued that. You can define your god to be "good-X," but
that doesn't automatically make him good in any way that
matters. Second, this definition doesn't make your morality
any more absolute than anyone else's. It merely establishes
YOUR moral premises.
John Secker
om> writes
>Yes, I personally believe in the God of Christianity. I can only
>assume you mean the trinity when you speak of gods. I'd be happy to
>try to talk about your problems with his actions, but realize that I
>don't have all the answers either and have some problems as well.
>Reflect on the fact that I said God's actions are good by definition.
>Does that make it easier? And the answer to your next question is
>that just because it is "good" for God doesn't make it "good" for us.
>We are different creatures which may not have the capacity for such
>things as purely righteous anger.
>
use some other word, so that people do not get confused? If you are
simply picking arbitrary names for the concept, why not call it
"fnfnfnd"? Why not call it "evil"? What difference would it make to your
position if you made the following claim:
God's actions are evil, by definition. Of course just because something
is "evil" for God doesn't make it "evil" for humans.
I suspect that you would be uncomfortable with this statement, although
it is logically identical to your own version - you are defining a word
("good" in your case, "evil" in mine) by reference to God's actions, and
making it clear that we should not be confused by the coincidence that
this word means something else when applied to human actions. So do you
have a quarrel with my formulation, and if so, what specifically?
--
John Secker
jesse l nowells
On 25 Jan 2001, Jason wrote:
> Yes, I personally believe in the God of Christianity. I can only
> assume you mean the trinity when you speak of gods.
You may presume that the people who say "gods" when alluding to the
trinity are being sarcastic. They likely do not *personally* believe in
the "god" of "Christianity". Or they may be theologians who are fed up
with this abomination against a purer form of monotheism. Likely you
figure as much but must set the "record" straight that "Christianity is
true", & the beat goes on. (Let's have a moment of silence for overly
medicated skiing congressmen.) Yet, in this "business" it's likely that
someone might slip on a banana peel or fall off their high horse & come to
a new "revelation" about god's alleged nature. What if god is a "Bi"
rather than a "Tri"? What if the "holy spirit" is just the "crawl-space"
between the Yin & Yang of god & so on?
> I'd be happy to try to talk about your problems with his actions, but
> realize that I don't have all the answers either and have some
> problems as well.
The two most relevant problems are:
(1) It hasn't been proved conclusively that there is a god.
(2) It hasn't been shown that the agendas attributed to god by various
traditions have any necessary basis in fact.
> Reflect on the fact that I said God's actions are good by definition.
> Does that make it easier?
Defining god as good while assigning actions to this god which are
arguably bad presents a contradictory definition.
> And the answer to your next question is that just because it is "good"
> for God doesn't make it "good" for us.
It can't be presume that because god is defined as being necessarily good
that therefore god is necessarily good.
> We are different creatures which may not have the capacity for such
> things as purely righteous anger.
Since you "believe" that god exists rather than "know" that god exists,
(which implies that whatever you think god's attributes are, it's a matter
of faith rather than a matter of shifting through objective data), how can
you expect anyone to presume that god necessarily exhibits purely
righteous anger if you can not show any instance of god exhibiting any
emotions, less exist, in the first place?!
[Arguing with Kierkegaard]
> What good would it do me to be able to explain the meaning of
> Christianity if it had no deeper significance for me and my life;
What harm would it do if it didn't & you explained "Christianity" anyway.
> what good would it do me if truth stood before me, cold and naked, not
> caring whether I recognized her or not, and producing in me a shudder
> of fear rather than trusting devotion?
> - Soren Kierkegaard
Instead of wanting to become emotionally involved with what you presume to
be the truth, wouldn't it be more prudent to confirm that something or
("someone" (?!)) really *is* the truth?
Automort
> Is an atheistic absolute morality possible?
Morality is a set of rules defining behaviors that make a social group best
function both for its individual members and for itself as an entity.
Various conditions give rise to different moralities.
Yet there could be a system of morals that best works in different situations
and this would be true whether or not there is a god. This would be an
objective, absolute morality.
rtu...@my-deja.com
drfries...@homeATALL.com (Jason) wrote:
> I think we are losing sight of my original beef. My
> original contention was that an absolute morality did
> not jive with atheism. (I of course then went on to
> say that I feel I do follow an absolute morality and
> thus would have to change if I was no longer a theist.)
But you then proceeded to describe your morality as based
on an ungrounded moral premise: that your view of good is
defined by the Christian god.
There are several things to note about this. (a) This
gives your god the same moral status as any other moral
totem, whether "the flag," "the people and Senate of Rome,"
"profit," or "the white race." The qualities required of
a moral totem are psychological. People who practice this
kind of morality have installed a wide variety of totems.
(b) You don't need a god to practice this kind of morality,
as the other examples show. (c) A moral totem doesn't need
to exist. There have been people who make fictional
characters their moral totem. If losing belief in the
Christian god's existence causes you to change your moral
premise, it is because of some other moral assumption you
have not yet explained. Maybe not yet determined. (d) In
any case, nothing would prevent you from choosing some
other moral totem. I've seen people who think this way
make such changes.
I think "fundamentalism" is a better word for this kind of
moral reasoning. It is absolute only in a simplistic and
scary sense. If you do give up on your moral totem, it is
my sincere hope that you expand the way you think about
morality, rather than merely choosing a different totem.
> .. Is an atheistic absolute morality possible? ..
Alas, there are atheistic philosophies that exhibit a
fundamentalist morality. I wish atheism were a guarantee
against this. But it's not.
> I still contend that there is a fundamental difference
> between a morality dictated from a being outside the
> universe, than one inside it.
Many use the word "universe" to mean everything. You may
define a sense in which it excludes all gods, your god,
or even yourself. It is hard for me to see how any
fundamental difference turns on such definition. Feel free
to press an argument.
SkyEyes
drfries...@homeATALL.com (Jason) wrote:
[Snippage]
> I still contend that there is a fundamental difference between a
> morality dictated from a being outside the universe, than one inside
> it.
You still fail to provide evidence that such a being exists. So far,
your contention seems to be "He has to exist because I wouldn't know
how to behave if He didn't." That's pretty lame, Jas.
Brenda "Gullibility is NOT a Virtue!" Nelson, A.A. #34
JeffMo
>On 18 Jan 2001 22:38:20 -0700, epe...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>The only difference between you and Filseth is that you hang this bag of
>>warm fuzzies and cold pricklies on the word "God," while he hangs it on
>>the word "evolution." Neither of you is able to provide definitions,
>>let alone algorithms for answering moral questions that are even
>>remotely robust enough to justify the adjective "absolute."
>
>Maybe it is enough to say that there exists a morality which I can
>compare my actions to. Perhaps I do not know it perfectly, or even
>partially, but it exists. This gives me the drive to discover it and
>improve my actions to match as closely as possible to it.
>
>What do you have? Nothing. If you want to act shabby, you can act
>shabby. If you want to act "good", you can call your actions "good"
>(regardless of what they are). There is no independent means to
>measure, no grid of reference so you can declare your actions as you
>see fit.
What do you think about "survival" as a metric? After all, we are all
subject to that metric, regardless of what we SAY we are following.
JeffMo
Is it better to be bored, wishing you're not,
or not to be bored, wishing that you were?
Remove dipstick for email replies.
Brian Holtz
> I think we are losing sight of my original beef. My original
> contention was that an absolute morality did not jive with atheism.
Right. And Russell pointed out (quite eloquently):
if you say your god is good, then you must have a definition of
'good' that is independent of your god. The quality of this
notion of good cannot depend on whether your god exists. If
your morality is based on god as judge, then you are simply
responding to reward and punishment. That is prudence, not
morality
To which you responded "Whatever dude".
> I feel I do follow an absolute morality
> and thus would have to change if I was no longer a theist.
Yeah, you said you'd switch to "conditional morality". I asked you what
that means, and you haven't responded.
> Is an atheistic absolute morality possible?
If and only if a theistic absolute morality is possible. Or in Russell's
words: "logically, the presence of a god changes the situation not one
whit".
Now, as I said, my suspicion is that absolute morality is not possible,
but that we as living persons can get close enough by working from our
common nature as living persons. For details, see
http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html#AssertedValues
> If the answer is no, Holtz's original post loses much strength. In it,
> he
> implies the following morality would/could be followed if one stopped
> being an atheist...
[I think you meant "theist" here.]
> >Or would you simply pursue the goals and values that you decided were
> >most consistent with the most happiness for the most people?
I didn't say "would" (in the sense of "must"). I did imply (and do
agree) that this morality *could* be followed. (It's not in fact the
morality I follow; see my book for details.) Are you saying that such a
morality could *not* (in some sense) be followed?
> This sounds very much like utilitarianism to me. Is this absolute?
Of course not. In the absence of absolute morality, any moral system
will ultimately be as non-absolute as utilitarianism. For a taxonomy of
important human value systems and an indication of their non-absolute
foundations, see my book at
http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html#ValueSystems
> If it is, how? If it isn't, who cares if I don't want to follow it?
Not me. I just wanted to know:
1) What morality *would* you follow? (Would you run amok, stampeding
women and raping cattle? Why or why not?)
2) Would your choice not be equally as non-absolute as *any* atheist's
is?
3) Would there be chaos and pandemonium if so many theists had to start
doing their moral thinking for themselves? If so, wouldn't that make
current atheists in a sense *more* moral than current theists (with their
"absolute morality")?
In case it's not obvious, the point of the subject question is to refute
the common theistic argument that atheistic morality is impossible and
absurd.
> there is a fundamental difference between a morality
> dictated from a being outside the universe, than one inside it.
Your "universe" is simply too small. :-) My idea of "universe" includes
everything in your universe *plus* everything *outside* your universe
(which actually exists and thus can affect your universe).
What we're bumping into is the question of whether a god could have
created the laws of logic (or morality) to be different than what (you
claim) they are.
If you say yes, then you would in an alternate universe call "moral" and
"good" even (what we in this universe would call) an evil god. (For
example, an evil god might, like the mythical Yahweh, decide to rig it to
be "good" that finite imperfection be punished with infinite torment.)
If this is your position, I wouldn't call it "absolute morality", but
rather "absolute amorality".
If you say no, then (as Russell pointed out) morality is logically
independent of the existence of any gods, and you are in the same boat as
us atheists.
So which is it?
> >['good'] already has meaning in English,
>
> Where did this meaning come from?
How did the word 'good' get its meaing? The meaning of a term is the
context-sensitive connotation ultimately established by its relevant
denotation and use. The meaning of 'good' is 'being pleasant or fit for a
chosen purpose'. (If it helps, imagine that 'good' is what cavemen would
grunt when feeling pleasure or achieving a chosen purpose.)
What is the origin of the concept of "being pleasant or fit for a chosen
purpose"? Theists would probably say that some god surgically implants
it in our freshly-minted souls around the time of conception. I would
say that concepts (like numbers) are simply abstractions induced by minds
from instances. Instances of pleasure and fitness-for-purpose exist
because living systems naturally have them. Instances of living systems
exist because the universe naturally evolves them.
We don't know why the universe exists -- nor do you know why your god
exists (but I do ;-).
John Secker
om> writes
>I still contend that there is a fundamental difference between a
>morality dictated from a being outside the universe, than one inside
>it.
>
--
John Secker
Michael A. McAngus
> On 17 Jan 2001 22:20:17 -0700, "Michael A. McAngus" <m...@infinet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> God is good by definition, but by comparison. It is an arbitrary
> >
> >I assume you meant "God is good *not* by definition..."
>
> Yes, a type,
I assume you meant "typo." (Yes, I know my spelling, grammer, and
word drop out have been atrocious lately).
> but actually the opposite. I meant to say God is good by
> definition NOT by comparison.
So, mass slaughter of all the inhabitants of a city-state is good when
commanded by God, while generals who order their troops to do such acts
in war are guilty of war-crimes.
So, an infinite punishment for a finite crime, when inflicted by God, is
good while any punishment that far exceeds the crime, when inflicted
by humans, is wrong.
So, holding the children responsible for the crimes of the parents is
just when it's God who holds the grudge, but it's unjust when it's
a human or human institution.
I don't buy it.
If God is not better than humans by comparison, then God is no more a
moral authority than the rest of us.
Unless you adhere to that quaint notion that might makes right.
>
> >
> >> adjective used to describe what he does and/or represents. If we had
> >> a dual system, then we would have different issues, but we do not. (at
> >> least in the system I'm referring to)
> >
> >So, which god(s) does your "system" believe in?
> >
> From your past articles, I would have expected it to be the gods of
> >Christianity. If my expectation is correct, then I have some problems
> >with the morality of some of the reported actions of two of these gods.
>
> Yes, I personally believe in the God of Christianity. I can only
> assume you mean the trinity when you speak of gods.
Well, there are at least two. The holy spirit seems to flit into and
out of the equations.
> I'd be happy to
> try to talk about your problems with his actions, but realize that I
> don't have all the answers either and have some problems as well.
Realize first, that I don't actually believe in the Christian god, but
I can talk about the actions described in the Bible just like I can
talk about the actions of Frodo in the Lord of The Rings, or Arthur
Dent in The Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
> Reflect on the fact that I said God's actions are good by definition.
> Does that make it easier?
No. Double standards bother me.
> And the answer to your next question is
> that just because it is "good" for God doesn't make it "good" for us.
> We are different creatures which may not have the capacity for such
> things as purely righteous anger.
I question whether it can be shown that your god has ever engaged in
"purely righteous anger" as opposed to simple anger (or just plain
tantrums). From big things like ordering the genocide of the
Paul Filseth
> I meant to say God is good by definition NOT by comparison.
By what definition of what word? And did you mean it to be a
stipulated definition, or a descriptive common-usage definition? If
the latter, what speech community are you describing the usage
patterns of?
--
Paul Filseth
Do not flatter your benefactor. - Buddha
Paul Filseth
> You [Jason] have vague feelings. You have a book with a lot
> of advice, stories, and myths, many of which conflict with each
> other. When it comes to actually answering moral questions, you
> pick and choose and rationalize just as everyone else does, and
> the resulting morality is therefore just as relative as any other.
>
> The only difference between you and Filseth is that you hang this
> bag of warm fuzzies and cold pricklies on the word "God," while he
> hangs it on the word "evolution."
I don't hang the bag of warm fuzzies and cold pricklies on
_anything_; it's perfectly capable of standing on its own merit.
Evolution is merely where the fuzzies and pricklies come from;
it's where every complicated functional feature of organisms comes
from. Theists inexplicably equate saying where morals come from
with justifying them, but that's no reason to suppose an atheist
does. Or should.
> Neither of you is able to provide definitions, let alone algorithms
> for answering moral questions that are even remotely robust enough
> to justify the adjective "absolute."
How do you measure robustness? I've certainly offered examples
of moral rules that nobody has found exceptions to; isn't that enough
to provisionally qualify them as absolute? If you mean an algorithm
for answering _all_ moral questions, I've often expressed skepticism
that such a thing exists. Why shouldn't ethics be just as open-ended
as other fields you'd recognize as science? Rather than a terminating
algorithm, we should look for a continuing strategy to incrementally
become more certain about particular questions while leaving others to
the future.
As for providing definitions, all a definition has to do to
be robust is successfully account for common usage. If you'd like
something defined I can research the matter.
--
Paul Filseth
Do not flatter your benefactor. - Buddha
epe...@my-deja.com
Dick <ddu...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> In short, how do we know that what is godly is good?
>
> According to the Bible, God sometimes acts in ways which most of us
> would say are not good. I.e. we wouldn't teach our kids to act like
> that. You seem to admit this in your post.
There's an alternate way of dealing with this.
Let the Christians who would declare that God is good by definition do
so, but draw it to its logical conclusion. Since they have decoupled
"good" from human behavior entirely, they have given up any right to
declare what is good or not good in human behavior. So when they come
around telling people what is good and what is not, laugh at them.
This conclusion is not inconsistent with the ideas of Christianity, but
it is inconsistent with the behavior of nearly all Christians.
Michael A. McAngus
> I think we are losing sight of my original beef. My original
> contention was that an absolute morality did not jive with atheism.
Yeah, so what?
Does the idea of an "absolute morality" (whatever that means) jibe
with reality? I would say that the answer is no. Moral and ethical
systems seem to be culturally determined and to evolve as the
societies in which they exist evolve.
> (I of course then went on to say that I feel I do follow an absolute
> morality and thus would have to change if I was no longer a theist.)
And Russell Turpin questioned your belief that your morality was
really absolute.
> I do not see you refuting this. Instead I see you saying, "well, you
> don't have an absolute morality either."
And Mr. Turpin gave reasons for his conclusion.
> Is this the case? Is an atheistic absolute morality possible?
I doubt it, but before we can proceed to an answer for your question,
you must define what the term "absolute morality" means. I assume you
believe that the Christian god acts in an absolutely moral manner. If
my assumption is correct, then you must deal with all the examples in
the Bible that depict two of those gods as acting in a petty, unjust,
and in some cases evil manner.
> If the
> answer is no, Holtz's original post loses much strength. In it, he
> implies the following morality would/could be followed if one stopped
> being an atheist...
>
> >Or would you simply pursue the goals and values that you decided were
> >most consistent with the most happiness for the most people?
>
> This sounds very much like utilitarianism to me. Is this absolute?
No.
> If it is, how? If it isn't, who cares if I don't want to follow it?
Those who live around you and work with you MAY care, if the moral or
ethical system you follow causes you to act in a sociopathic manner.
We are social animals, and as a result, many of our rules about
morals/ethics as well as our rules about good manners are attempts to
codify ways for people to live together more or less harmoniously.
> I still contend that there is a fundamental difference between a
> morality dictated from a being outside the universe, than one inside
> it.
Yes, well the one must be justified by its proponents, and the other
is rarely justified because it's proponents simply assert that it is
"absolute."
> Later you [Russell Turpin] write...
>
> On 17 Jan 2001 22:09:15 -0700, rtu...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >If it were an arbitrary adjective, you could just as
> >well choose to say "god is flawed," look hard to find
> >the problems in his creation (disease, poverty,
> >ignorance), and work to correct those. The hole in
> >your statement is that "good" is no arbitrary word.
>
> If good is not arbitrary, what are you basing the definition on?
I can't answer for Mr. Turpin, but I base the definition of good on
the accepted definition used by the society in which I live. Society
is the basis for most of the word definitions we use.
> If
> there is an absolute definition of good, what is it's authority?
What's the authority for the definition of onomatopoeia? Or work? Or
(closer to the point) equality?
Humans use words to communicate many things including abstract ideas.
Words are coined to express concepts when no word exists to do the
job, and the definitions of those words may be refined or radically
altered as the years go by and the concepts used in the society
evolve.
> (In
> other words, why should we use that definition and not another?)
Some people do use definitions for (some) words other than the
generally accepted definitions. When this happens, their
communications often cause confusion because the audience knows the
generally accepted definition and implicitly use that, while the
speaker is (often) explicitly using a different definition. This
tactic can easily lead to equivocation.
> If
> there isn't an absolute definition, then isn't it arbitrary after all?
Yes. A rose by any other name ....
Seriously, we need words to communicate instructions, ideas, and
concepts. The definitions of good, fair, equality and justice are
attempts to put into words the general consensus regarding the
concepts they represent.
> >It already has meaning in English,
>
> Where did this meaning come from?
Society.
--
Cheers,
Mike McAngus
m...@infinet.com
There's no evidence for it, so I don't believe it, and that settles it.
- Stryder (str...@access.digex.net)
Michael A. McAngus
> On 18 Jan 2001 22:38:20 -0700, epe...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >The only difference between you and Filseth is that you hang this bag of
> >warm fuzzies and cold pricklies on the word "God," while he hangs it on
> >the word "evolution." Neither of you is able to provide definitions,
> >let alone algorithms for answering moral questions that are even
> >remotely robust enough to justify the adjective "absolute."
>
> Maybe it is enough to say that there exists a morality which I can
> compare my actions to.
If you are comparing your actions to those of the Christian god, then
it's easy to come out looking good.
When I was a child my ethics and actions often comported closely to
those of the Christian god. They would probably have comported even
more closely if I had God's destructive capabilities at my disposal.
However, I've since grown up and (with the help of family, friends,
teachers, etc., as well as my own introspections) I have developed a
social conscience. Now, my actions are better than those of the
Christian god.
> Perhaps I do not know it perfectly, or even
> partially, but it exists. This gives me the drive to discover it and
> improve my actions to match as closely as possible to it.
>
> What do you have? Nothing.
This is not true. I live in a society. I observe the impact that my
actions have on others. I understand that if I act with disregard for
others, I have no reason to expect them to act with regard for me.
A very long time ago, I posted the three point basis of my ethics,
but that thread went nowhere fast. Maybe it's time to try again:
1. Empathy
How would I feel if someone else did to me what I am contemplating
doing to another?
This is exemplified in the Christian tradition by "Do to others what
you would have them do to you" or the, IMNSHO, better statement in
the Jewish tradition from Hillel, "That which is hateful to you, do
not do to another...." In other words, consider the "other" when
choosing your actions.
2. Reciprocity
How can I expect people to react if they learn that I have done the
action I am contemplating?
If I were to contemplate doing something that "no one will ever
find out you did," (one of the hypotheticals in the Brian Macker
Atheist Religion thread) I would still consider the impact if people
discovered that I had performed the action. This is also how I try
to comport myself in Newsgroups and Email. I strive to avoid doing
that which I would not want made public.
3. Universality
What if everyone felt unconstrained to do the action I am
contemplating?
There are some actions that may not have a direct impact on others,
but would make society less livable if everyone engaged in the same
activity. These types of things include drug and alcohol abuse.
[rest deleted]
--
Cheers,
Mike McAngus
m...@infinet.com
No good deed ever goes unpunished.
- Ferengi Rule of Acquisition 285
Brian Holtz
"hackerbabe" <hacke...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > many theists say that life without any gods would be an
> > absurd one devoid of hope, values, and goals. I challenged them with a
> > scenario in which their god(s) deliberately imposed such a condition, to
> > force them to realize that life would not instantly become absurd.
>
> They would probably argue that their god(s) would never do such a thing
>
> > I even showed how God doing this would be similar to the (cruel
> > and petulant) behavior he exhibited in causing the Flood.
>
> I would have argued that everyone on earth was evil and deserved [it]
But Christians already claim that every single human is inherently sinful
and by default already deserving of hell. If you argued that Yahweh is too
merciful (yeah, right!) for my scenerio, then I'd stipulate that he first
raptured the few humans who were as non-evil as the eight he saved from the
Flood, and left the rest of us. Then I'd ask again: what would you do? Or,
are you so convinced of your right to mercy and salvation that you deny God
has the moral freedom to abandon you to the fate I describe?
I guess this question is pretty embarrassing for theists, because so far
only one (Jason) has dared answer it, and only then with the vague assertion
that he'd adopt "conditional morality" (whatever that is).
epe...@my-deja.com
drfries...@homeATALL.com (Jason) wrote:
> Maybe it is enough to say that there exists a morality which I can
> compare my actions to.
Yet in another thread you claim that God is good by definition, and the
Bible has God ordering mass killings, sometimes to the last man, woman,
and child, and sometimes only raping the women and taking them as
slaves. And you don't challenge that, instead preferring to say that
you're not in a position to judge.
> What do you have? Nothing.
I have my gut, and my gut tells me not to kill, rape, or enslave people.
> If you want to act shabby, you can act
> shabby. If you want to act "good", you can call your actions "good"
> (regardless of what they are).
Sounds a lot like your God.
I don't have a lot of trust in your comparison. I think it's safe to
say that from about 300 C.E. until the invention of Communism, the vast
majority of wars, pogroms, witch hunts, Jew expulsions, inquisitions,
crusades, etc. were waged by people who were absoulutely convinced that
they were on the side of God.
In fact, though, I don't call my actions "good." That is one of the
characteristics of morality that I abhor. When someone claims to be
doing good, I always suspect that he and/or she is covering up an action
that is quite bad. It's often true, possibly even most of the time.
I don't have a morality that I use to guide my actions. I have empathy.
> There is no independent means to
> measure, no grid of reference so you can declare your actions as you
> see fit.
Nor for you. Your grid of reference is a book filled with horrible
atrocities attributed to your God, and some nice things, too. You pick
and choose just like everyone else. If you pick the nice things, it's
you doing it. Similarly if you pick the horrible things.
> Practically, these two systems may look the same on the outside.
> Bothe people do things that others consider "good" and things others
> consider "bad". It is the underlying motivation and philosphy that is
> different. I feel I am on a more solid footing (and I would think
> Filseth would feel the same for himself) than you.
Your feelings of how solid a footing you are on are pretty much
irrelevant. History is full of people who felt themselves to be on
solid moral footing yet did terrible things, often in the name of that
morality.
What is relevant are your actions and the actions of those who take
their morality from the same source. They don't have a terribly good
track record. I hope you're a better person, but if you are, it won't
be because of a belief in God.
Jason
>There are several things to note about this. (a) This
>gives your god the same moral status as any other moral
>totem, whether "the flag," "the people and Senate of Rome,"
>"profit," or "the white race."
The problem I see is all these things have "equals". There would be
the people and Senate of China (ok, maybe they didn't have a senate),
or "the Canadian flag" or "the indian race". The question would be,
"why would one among equals have authority over morality?"
In the Christian schema (and realize this only makes sense within
this worldview), God is unparalleled. There is no "equal". His
authority to dictate morality is ultimate and equalled by no other.
If someone contends that a different god has equal power (Allah
perhaps) the Christian would refute that such a god does not exist.
(again realize we are within the Christian worldview.)
IF Christianity is true, then it is obvious there is an absolute
morality. IF Christianity is not true, we are just deluding
ourselves. But the basic framework of the beliefs allow for an
absolute morality in a way atheism does not. (you cannot say, "IF
atheism is true, then it is obvious there is an absolute morality.)
Automort came the closest in pointing to genetics. I could almost
accept this as an authority for a secular absolute morality, but not
quite. :)
>I think "fundamentalism" is a better word for this kind of
>moral reasoning. It is absolute only in a simplistic and
>scary sense.
An absolute morality in no way needs to be simple. Christian morality
is indeed quite complex and people much wiser than me have worked hard
to figure it all out with incomplete success.
>Many use the word "universe" to mean everything. You may
>define a sense in which it excludes all gods, your god,
>or even yourself. It is hard for me to see how any
>fundamental difference turns on such definition. Feel free
>to press an argument.
>
See the first paragraph. My contention is that God is "unparalleled"
in a way that has no equal position in atheism. Even if we were to
point to genetics, this would only hold true at a species level. Any
other intelligent life would not necessarily need to conform to it.
Jason
What good would it do me to be able to explain
the meaning of Christianity if it had no deeper
significance for me and my life; what good would
Jason
>You still fail to provide evidence that such a being exists. So far,
>your contention seems to be "He has to exist because I wouldn't know
>how to behave if He didn't." That's pretty lame, Jas.
Eh, I would know how to behave. I'd probably cheat more. Forget the
rape and murder, those things have clear consequences which would not
benefit "the self". But the person who successfully breaks rules to
his own advantage in a society of rule followers would be the best
off. (If I never paid taxes but continued to enjoy the society paid
for by others.)
How do you know how to behave? It's probably a house of cards as
well.
Jason
Justify, when justice won't pay the toll
Subtle lies, when the truth is better half than whole
--Susan Ashton, Crooked Man
Jason
wrote:
>1. Empathy
>2. Reciprocity
>3. Universality
Hey, I think it's a great morality. I do find it interesting that it
is, in fact, quite similar to "christian" morality. Is this
coincidence? Probably not. (Of course I'm going to say you got it
from us, are you are going to say we got it from you. :))
Jason
>Yeah, you said you'd switch to "conditional morality". I asked you what
>that means, and you haven't responded.
Conditional morality would be one in which I would decide for myself
what would be best. When confronted with a different morality from
another person, I would have no logical authority to claim my morality
is "better" than his.
>Now, as I said, my suspicion is that absolute morality is not possible,
Well, we are on the same page then as far as atheism goes, but not
theism. Read my reply earlier to rtupin, we can consolidate on that
thread.
>1) What morality *would* you follow? (Would you run amok, stampeding
>women and raping cattle? Why or why not?)
I would not run amok as that probably would put me in the slammer or
dead. On a fundamental level I would switch from an altruistic view
to a self-centered view. Moral questions could always be answered by
answering "What is best for ME?" (at times that answer may be
"sharing" or "helping others")
Don't get me wrong. Although my morality is more altrustic, don't
think I'm some perfect person always looking out for others. I got
plenty of faults myself. But if we could have a perfect example of
someone following my system and a perfect example of someone following
the "What's best for ME?" system, you would get different people.
>2) Would your choice not be equally as non-absolute as *any* atheist's
>is?
Sure would.
>3) Would there be chaos and pandemonium if so many theists had to start
>doing their moral thinking for themselves? If so, wouldn't that make
>current atheists in a sense *more* moral than current theists (with their
>"absolute morality")?
I dont' think so. If you took a 100,000 Christians and zapped them
into atheism, the spectrum of moralities would be no different than
the spectrum of moralities present in 100,000 atheists already. Why
would it be any different?
>
>In case it's not obvious, the point of the subject question is to refute
>the common theistic argument that atheistic morality is impossible and
>absurd.
No, please don't think I'm saying that. Atheist morality is quite
possible. I'm sure everybody on this group has a moral system which
they follow. I'm sure most of you are pretty nice as well. ('cept
maybe for Secker...) However, absolute atheist morality is impossible
in my view.
>What we're bumping into is the question of whether a god could have
>created the laws of logic (or morality) to be different than what (you
>claim) they are.
Yes he could have. At least some of them.
>
>If you say yes, then you would in an alternate universe call "moral" and
>"good" even (what we in this universe would call) an evil god. (For
>example, an evil god might, like the mythical Yahweh, decide to rig it to
>be "good" that finite imperfection be punished with infinite torment.)
>If this is your position, I wouldn't call it "absolute morality", but
>rather "absolute amorality".
You example is only hypothetical. If no other such parallel universes
with parallel god's exist, then we have no problem. We would still
have only one God with one set of rules for our one universe. I can
imagine a universe where gravity operates differently, but until that
universe is shown, gravity remains "universal" (in your sense of the
word).
>> Where did this meaning come from?
>
To paraphrase your answer...the definition of good is derived from
genetics. If good is so engrained in us, why can we so easily choose
to do something "bad"? This genetic engine seems to need to be both
very strong and very weak.
Jason
wrote:
>OK, how would you characterise this fundamental difference?
See my reply to rturpin for a full explanation, but the position that
God enjoys within the Christian worldview is unparalleled by any other
entity or ideal in the atheist worldview. Therefore the amount of
"absoluteness" (is that even a word?) would be necessarily less in an
atheist system.
rtu...@my-deja.com
>> This gives your god the same moral status as
>> any other moral totem, whether "the flag," "the
>> people and Senate of Rome," "profit," or "the
>> white race."
In article <3a75fd2c.95571210@news>,
drfries...@homeATALL.com (Jason) wrote:
> The problem I see is all these things have "equals".
> There would be the people and Senate of China ..,
> or "the Canadian flag" or "the indian race". The
> question would be, "why would one among equals have
> authority over morality?"
For almost a millenium, a verifiable answer was: Rome
uniquely is the greatest power. The MORAL question,
that you continue to duck, is whether that therefore
made Rome the most moral of all earthly powers.
> In the Christian schema (and realize this only makes
> sense within this worldview), God is unparalleled.
> There is no "equal". ..
For the sake of argument, let's assume the Christian god
is uniquely the creator of everything else, powerful
without limits, and knows all the facts. You may add any
other attributes that don't presuppose moral goodness.
Now let me point out a logical possibility. There are
many possible universes each with their own god of this
sort, and their own creation. In some, this god behaves
one way and dictates one moral standard. In others, he
behaves differently, and dictates a different moral
standard. Are you saying that whatever such a god
dictates is therefore good? Can you not imagine a
universe where there is a devil that is "creator of
everything else, powerful without limits, knows all
facts, etc"? Can you not imagine such a god who is
morally mixed?
Note that I am NOT saying that these universes exist.
I am pointing out only their possibility, that there
is no logical conflict between power, knowledge,
creating the rest of the universe, etc. and moral
variability. You seem to be saying that in each of
these universes, its denizens should accept that
universe's god's dictates as absolute morality, NO
MATTER WHAT THOSE DICTATES ARE. Do you really believe
this? If so, this is a morality that is simultaneously
blind and relativistic.
> .. His authority to dictate morality is ultimate
> and equalled by no other.
I'm trying to understand your claim. (a) Are you
claiming that he has unequal MORAL authority because he
is unequaled in other, non-moral attributes? If so, then
we have teased out YOUR moral premise. Can you elucidate
it further? For what non-moral attributes does being
unparalleled then confer moral authority? Are you ready
to discuss this moral premise? (b) Or are you saying
that IN ADDITION to his other non-moral attributes, which
are irrelevant to this discussion, that your god has
unparalleled moral authority? If this is your base and
unargued assumption, then once again, you have reduced
your god to a moral totem, no different from "the people
and senate of Rome." His uniqueness in other regards is
irrelevant. (c) Or is your claim something different?
JeffMo
>On 28 Jan 2001 17:58:54 -0700, rtu...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>There are several things to note about this. (a) This
>>gives your god the same moral status as any other moral
>>totem, whether "the flag," "the people and Senate of Rome,"
>>"profit," or "the white race."
>
> The problem I see is all these things have "equals". There would be
>the people and Senate of China (ok, maybe they didn't have a senate),
>or "the Canadian flag" or "the indian race". The question would be,
>"why would one among equals have authority over morality?"
>
> In the Christian schema (and realize this only makes sense within
>this worldview), God is unparalleled. There is no "equal". His
>authority to dictate morality is ultimate and equalled by no other.
>If someone contends that a different god has equal power (Allah
>perhaps) the Christian would refute that such a god does not exist.
>(again realize we are within the Christian worldview.)
Thank you for your eloquent demonstration of that point.
Just as in Russell's examples about other totems, you have to diminish
the importance of the other "equals" in order to claim moral
superiority based on your favorite one. IOW, God is unparalleled so
long as we deny every parallel example presented.
Kid #1: "My dad is the strongest man in the world."
Kid #2: "My dad won a weightlifting title in the Olympics."
Kid #1: "Well, your dad doesn't count."
American #1: "In this country, all men are created equal."
American #2: "Well, why can't Indians, Negroes, and women vote?"
American #1: "Indians and Negroes are uncivilized savages, and women
are weak-minded creatures whose husbands should look out for them."
Or to follow your example: "In the American schema (and realize this
only makes sense within this worldview), Old Glory is unparalleled.
There is no 'equal'."
> IF Christianity is true, then it is obvious there is an absolute
>morality. IF Christianity is not true, we are just deluding
>ourselves.
It's certainly clear which is the bigger "IF." It's not symmetric.
And all the other believers think their "IFs" are true, too. No big
surprises there.
> But the basic framework of the beliefs allow for an
>absolute morality in a way atheism does not. (you cannot say, "IF
>atheism is true, then it is obvious there is an absolute morality.)
That's a good point in favor of atheism, since it need not lead to a
rash assumption about absolute authority for some arbitrary or
traditional moral framework.
> Automort came the closest in pointing to genetics. I could almost
>accept this as an authority for a secular absolute morality, but not
>quite. :)
I suggested continual enhancement of survival probability, which is
not to say the kind of over-simplified Social Darwinism against which
some naysayers tend to rail.
>>I think "fundamentalism" is a better word for this kind of
>>moral reasoning. It is absolute only in a simplistic and
>>scary sense.
>
>An absolute morality in no way needs to be simple. Christian morality
>is indeed quite complex and people much wiser than me have worked hard
>to figure it all out with incomplete success.
Christian morality appears to me to be both inconsistent and
incomplete.
>>Many use the word "universe" to mean everything. You may
>>define a sense in which it excludes all gods, your god,
>>or even yourself. It is hard for me to see how any
>>fundamental difference turns on such definition. Feel free
>>to press an argument.
>>
>See the first paragraph. My contention is that God is "unparalleled"
>in a way that has no equal position in atheism.
....as long as you put on the blinders and pretend that no other
cultures and traditions have ever invented any OTHER gods that might
be as real as your own, by your own admission above.
I think this distinction is so crucial that to drop it knowingly in
the midst of the argument is tantamount to intellectual dishonesty.
(Note: I'm not asserting that you did this intentionally, or that you
are being dishonest. I'm simply giving my opinion of how important it
is to repeat this explicitly, each and every time. As you said,
"[...] realize this only makes sense within this worldview.")
> Even if we were to
>point to genetics, this would only hold true at a species level. Any
>other intelligent life would not necessarily need to conform to it.
To exist, and to survive.
JeffMo
>On 28 Jan 2001 23:26:31 -0700, John Secker <jo...@secker.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>OK, how would you characterise this fundamental difference?
>
>See my reply to rturpin for a full explanation, but the position that
>God enjoys within the Christian worldview is unparalleled by any other
>entity or ideal in the atheist worldview. Therefore the amount of
>"absoluteness" (is that even a word?) would be necessarily less in an
>atheist system.
This is just another way of saying that atheism is not so much a
belief, as a lack of belief. Of course, any given atheist may adopt
an absolutist moral position, should they choose to do so.
JeffMo
> I would not run amok as that probably would put me in the slammer or
>dead. On a fundamental level I would switch from an altruistic view
>to a self-centered view. Moral questions could always be answered by
>answering "What is best for ME?" (at times that answer may be
>"sharing" or "helping others")
>
>Don't get me wrong. Although my morality is more altrustic, don't
>think I'm some perfect person always looking out for others. I got
>plenty of faults myself. But if we could have a perfect example of
>someone following my system and a perfect example of someone following
>the "What's best for ME?" system, you would get different people.
Have you ever heard of an atheist who follows (as an ideal) a "What's
best for *our* survival?" system?
You have now. When you digest that, try to construct what "our" might
mean in the above. (Hint: it's *not* "Christians only," like it is in
some systems.)
JeffMo
>On 28 Jan 2001 23:38:39 -0700, "Michael A. McAngus" <m...@infinet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>1. Empathy
>>2. Reciprocity
>>3. Universality
>
> Hey, I think it's a great morality. I do find it interesting that it
>is, in fact, quite similar to "christian" morality. Is this
>coincidence? Probably not. (Of course I'm going to say you got it
>from us, are you are going to say we got it from you. :))
We all got it from existence and the struggle for survival.
And that's true regardless of how we wrap it up in personification,
objectification, mythology, and fantasy.
Paul Filseth
> epe...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Neither of you is able to provide definitions, let alone algorithms
> > for answering moral questions that are even remotely robust enough
> > to justify the adjective "absolute."
>
> partially, but it exists. This gives me the drive to discover it and
> improve my actions to match as closely as possible to it.
But the drive to discover it doesn't discourage you from barking
up the wrong tree. Until you find the right tree, making your actions
match as closely as possible does not necessarily qualify as improving
them.
> There is no independent means to measure, no grid of reference so
> you can declare your actions as you see fit.
Supposing for the sake of argument that this is the case, why do
you have a problem with it? What makes you think it's an obstacle to
Eric's living virtuously? And whatever reason you have, why do you
think your reason doesn't interfere with God's living virtuously?
> Practically, these two systems may look the same on the outside.
> Both people do things that others consider "good" and things others
> consider "bad". It is the underlying motivation and philosophy that
> is different.
That's not strictly accurate. You're trying to make moral
decisions by means of a system with an underlying philosophy. Eric
isn't -- he applies his motivations directly (or at least so his
self-analysis suggests.) I don't know what motivations underlie your
philosophy since it tends to mask motivations, but they might be
pretty much the same as his. It's not a-priori obvious whether it's
a good idea to interpose a system between one's motives and one's
decisions. Maybe the Way that can be told of is not the eternal Way.
> I feel I am on a more solid footing (and I would think Filseth
> would feel the same for himself) than you.
I don't. Eric's footing is just as solid as mine, because he's
standing on exactly the same thing I am. (His view of it is merely
a little out of focus. :-) You're the one with a footing problem.
You're the one who judges things based on what they're standing on
while standing on a god that isn't standing on anything.
--
Paul Filseth
Do not flatter your benefactor. - Buddha
John Secker
m> writes
>>OK, how would you characterise this fundamental difference?
>
>See my reply to rturpin for a full explanation, but the position that
>God enjoys within the Christian worldview is unparalleled by any other
>entity or ideal in the atheist worldview. Therefore the amount of
>"absoluteness" (is that even a word?) would be necessarily less in an
>atheist system.
>
would admit, this is not the case, and Christians, even learned
scholars, cannot agree on the rules. So even if there is an absolute
morality, nobody (on Earth) knows what it is. So what use is it?
--
John Secker
jesse l nowells
On 30 Jan 2001, Jason wrote:
> Eh, I would know how to behave. I'd probably cheat more. Forget the
> rape and murder, those things have clear consequences which would not
> benefit "the self".
For *you* murder & rape have clear consequences, unless you're signifying
the effect on the victims. Then again how you define these aberrations may
afford you an exemplary character where you may have none.
> But the person who successfully breaks rules to his own advantage in a
> society of rule followers would be the best off.
Is this a society of "rule followers" of one set of rules? Or is it a
society of classes whose members follow the rules of their respective
classes?
> How do you know how to behave? It's probably a house of cards as
> well.
Not if modify your behaviors with consideration that the heart of darkness
doesn't just reside in the heart of someone at the other end of the jungle
but also resides in thee.
John Secker
m> writes
> Hey, I think it's a great morality. I do find it interesting that it
>is, in fact, quite similar to "christian" morality. Is this
>coincidence? Probably not. (Of course I'm going to say you got it
>from us, are you are going to say we got it from you. :))
>
based on Christian principles, overlaid with thoughts from other sources
and my own considered opinions. I grew up in a basically Christian
society, and it would be naive to pretend that this does not have an
influence. I am fairly sure that had I grown up in a different culture,
Jewish, for example, or Moslem, that even were I still an atheist, I
would likely have a different personal view of morality. For example the
question of revenge vs forgiveness (which is better in the long run)
might be resolved very differently.
However none of this implies that I think I get any part of my morality
from God. Remember that religion (IMHO) is simply a human construct.
"Religious morality" is simply a set of practical rules which have
accreted over the centuries, essentially on an evolutionary basis. If a
rule led to an increase in the stability of a society, then it would
tend to survive. Or to put it another way, if a religion came up with
moral rules which did not tend to establish a stable society, then that
religion would not last - think of Heaven's Gate. Down the years
individuals will have added large or small contributions to the rules;
sometimes (eg Jesus/Paul/whoever) to the extent that they founded a new
religion.
So I am quite happy to concede your point - I got it from "you", but you
got it from the Jews, who got it from someone else, who got it from Ug
the Caveman.
--
John Secker
JeffMo
This point you question seems inherent in the "omnipotent-god-who-
allows-us-to-so-easily-choose-to-do-something-bad" model, as well.
rtu...@my-deja.com
wrote:
>> 1. Empathy
>> 2. Reciprocity
>> 3. Universality
In article <3a760615.97852957@news>,
drfries...@homeATALL.com (Jason) wrote:
> Hey, I think it's a great morality. I do find it
> interesting that it is, in fact, quite similar to
> "christian" morality.
Actually, Jason, Christian morality denies at least the
last two. Moral rules are different for Christians than
for non-Christians, and different for mortals than for
the Christian god, whose actions are not to be questioned.
That throws universality out the window. Maybe empathy,
also. Elsewhere in this thread, you're justifying why
the rules are different for the Christian god, because he
is unequaled. Universality, as a moral principle, says
the rules are the same for every moral agent, no matter
their inequality in non-moral attributes. So which is it?
Universality? Or unparalleled might, etc., make right?
As to reciprocity, Paul directs us to give unto Caesar
what is Caesar's, and slaves to obey their masters.
Christian morality -- or at least, Paul -- seems quite
content with the notion that different persons are
born to different station, some nations rule while
other nations are conquered, and that people should
live with unreciprocal rules that follow from this. Only
in the last three centuries have Christian voices railed
against slavery.
Russell
India
> If moral rules were based on authority then morality would be whim.
Always? If someone is, or is taken to be, an authority on morality,
then their moral decisons are necessarily whims?
--India
Paul Filseth
> I think we are losing sight of my original beef. My original
> contention was that an absolute morality did not jive with atheism.
> morality and thus would have to change if I was no longer a theist.)
> don't have an absolute morality either."
Well, it appears to me you have an erroneous idea of what morality
would look like if it were absolute. You think it's all about obedience
to an authority. So someone could explain an atheistic absolute moral
theory, but you just won't grok it, because you aren't looking for
absoluteness in his arguments -- you're looking for an authority. So
it would seem that first you need to be shown that absoluteness and
authority have nothing to do with each other. If we can get you to
understand that your "It's moral if God says so" principle is a
relativistic theory, you'll see that whether there are any gods has no
bearing on whether morality is absolute so you'll stop being convinced
atheists' can't be absolute. "You don't have one" is a lemma on the way
to dealing with your original beef.
> Is this the case? Is an atheistic absolute morality possible?
"Absolute" has a lot of different meanings. To say a moral rule is
absolute may mean it has no exceptions, or it isn't contingent on any of
various things for its correctness, or it's unlimited in space and time,
or it classifies things as "good/bad" rather than "better/worse", or
it's the same regardless of culture, and no doubt there are other
possibilities. What meanings of absolute do you feel are incompatible
with atheism?
> I still contend that there is a fundamental difference between a
> morality dictated from a being outside the universe, than one inside
> it.
I can't help noticing a pattern in theistic reasoning. If we consider
the theories...
You should obey because Stalin says so.
Complicated stuff like life arose all by itself.
The physical universe was not caused.
We're told these are all absurd, because...
There's no reason we owe Stalin obedience.
Stuff as complicated as life can't form spontaneously.
Nothing comes from nothing.
So JCI theists reject those theories in favor of...
You should obey because God says so.
Complicated stuff exists because God engineered it.
God exists and wasn't caused by anything.
This is simply point-blank refusal to apply the same reasoning to God
as to non-God. Why do theists think this is reasonable? They can of
course _always_ point to _some_ difference between God and any given
non-God. But the question is, why is whatever distinction they draw
_relevant_? In the case in point, inside the universe vs. outside,
what bearing does God's _street address_ have on moral reasoning?
> If good is not arbitrary, what are you basing the definition on? If
> there is an absolute definition of good, what is it's authority?
It's not about authority. Words mean what people use them to mean.
A definition of a word is a scientific theory. It's a theory intended
to explain observable phenomena -- the patterns of words the given word
appears in -- by inferring something about events going on in the minds
of speakers that cause them to choose that word.
> (In other words, why should we use that definition and not another?)
The same reason we use Kepler's laws instead of Copernicus's to
calculate planet locations -- one theory explains the observations
better than the other. It's not because we feel Kepler is more
deserving of having his authority deferred to.
--
Paul Filseth
Do not flatter your benefactor. - Buddha
Brian Holtz
"Jason" <drfries...@homeATALL.com> wrote:
> When confronted with a different morality from
> another person, I would have no logical authority to claim my morality
> is "better" than his.
Wrong. Without an "absolute" morality, you would merely have no *absolute*
logical authority to claim your morality is better. But if (as is very
likely) the other person shares with you some moral axioms (e.g. that
persons have equal rights), then that could be your (shared, relative) basis
for disputing her morality. On the other hand, if she is a Nazi or sadist
and shares none of your axioms, then debating her would be little more
useful than debating a bear trying to eat you.
> >1) What morality *would* you follow? (Would you run amok [..]?
>
> I would not run amok as that probably would put me in the slammer [..]
> I would switch from an altruistic view to a self-centered view.
So there is no crime you would not then do if a) it benefited you and b) you
*knew* you could get away with it?
> Although my morality is more altrustic, don't
> think I'm some perfect person always looking out for others.
Quite the contrary, you have basically admitted that you are restrained from
(what I would consider) complete immorality only by your belief in a
non-existent god!
> If you took a 100,000 Christians and zapped them
> into atheism, the spectrum of moralities would be no different than
> the spectrum of moralities present in 100,000 atheists already. Why
> would it be any different?
Because many of them are probably like you: would-be criminals restrained
only by fear of god and the police.
> However, absolute atheist morality is impossible in my view.
Nobody disagrees. However: "absolute" morality can be demonstrated to be
either a) the unconstrained amoral whim of god(s) or b) available to
atheists and anyone else who can duplicate your reasoning about why the
morality of god(s) is constrained.
> >whether a god could have created the laws of logic (or morality)
> > to be different than what (you claim) they are.
>
> Yes he could have. At least some of them.
> >
> >If you say yes, then you would in an alternate universe call "moral" and
> >"good" even (what we in this universe would call) an evil god.
>
> If no other such parallel universes
> with parallel god's exist, then we have no problem.
Wrong: my problem is that you blindly follow the whims of a god that you
admit could tomorrow hypothetically order you to torture and kill my
8-month-old daughter. If you deny that he could/would because that would be
bad, then you must admit there is some (possibly absolute) morality that is
independent of your god.
> To paraphrase your answer...the definition of good is derived from
> genetics.
Wrong: I said that the definition of 'good' is relative to beings' appetites
and intentions, and that those appetites and intentions are ultimately
produced by evolution.
>If good is so engrained in us, why can we so easily choose
> to do something "bad"?
I didn't say that evolution guarantees that the appetites and intentions of
different beings are never in conflict.
Paul Filseth
> Brian Holtz <ho...@eng.sun.com> wrote:
> > 1) What morality *would* you follow? (Would you run amok,
> > stampeding women and raping cattle? Why or why not?)
>
> I would not run amok as that probably would put me in the slammer or
> dead. On a fundamental level I would switch from an altruistic view
> to a self-centered view. Moral questions could always be answered by
> answering "What is best for ME?"
Why do you believe you would do that? You sound like you're
repelled by a pure look-out-for-number-one attitude -- you're offering
the spectre of selfishness as a _criticism_ of atheism. What makes
you think those feelings would go away merely because you changed your
abstract premises?
> > 3) Would there be chaos and pandemonium if so many theists had to
> > start doing their moral thinking for themselves? If so, wouldn't
> > that make current atheists in a sense *more* moral than current
> > theists (with their "absolute morality")?
>
> I don't think so. If you took a 100,000 Christians and zapped them
> into atheism, the spectrum of moralities would be no different than
> the spectrum of moralities present in 100,000 atheists already. Why
> would it be any different?
Bingo. And since self-centered views are held by a small minority
among current atheists, they'd be a small minority among the 100,000
zapped ex-Christians. So what makes you think _you'd_ be in that small
minority?
Jason
>For almost a millenium, a verifiable answer was: Rome
>uniquely is the greatest power. The MORAL question,
>that you continue to duck, is whether that therefore
>made Rome the most moral of all earthly powers.
Well, we could get into an argument about China vs. Rome vs. the
powers of South America, but I see your point. The answer is,
assuming Rome to be the most powerful force on earth, that Rome is the
MOST absolute human moral authority. We can see that this is probably
true practically. What Rome said at the time went. However, a few
distinctions:
Rome, being made of mortal people, was likely to come and go and
change (as it did).
The world, being made of other people of equal individual power, was
likely to create a power which was greater than Rome's (as it did).
Neither of these situations are going to happen to God.
> You seem to be saying that in each of
>these universes, its denizens should accept that
>universe's god's dictates as absolute morality, NO
>MATTER WHAT THOSE DICTATES ARE. Do you really believe
>this? If so, this is a morality that is simultaneously
>blind and relativistic.
Yes, these are logical possibilities. While it seems to make
morality "blind and relativistic" it doesn't within our confines. We
can imagine that gravity has other characteristics, but it does us no
good to ignore the ones we are faced with in this universe.
>I'm trying to understand your claim. (a) Are you
>claiming that he has unequal MORAL authority because he
>is unequaled in other, non-moral attributes? If so, then
>we have teased out YOUR moral premise. Can you elucidate
>it further? For what non-moral attributes does being
>unparalleled then confer moral authority? Are you ready
>to discuss this moral premise?
What would that be? "Might equals right." Did you not think I knew
this? My morality can be boiled down roughly to this. However, do
not think that this idea can be transferred to humans? One human is
equal to another and so one cannot be more "mighty" than the other.
Likewise we are ALL under God's moral authority so one person in line
with God's morality is more correct than a million who are not.
(b) Or are you saying
>that IN ADDITION to his other non-moral attributes, which
>are irrelevant to this discussion, that your god has
>unparalleled moral authority?
If you mean that morality exists apart from God in some abstract,
comparable form and that God has the most, then I disagree.
Jason
>Have you ever heard of an atheist who follows (as an ideal) a "What's
>best for *our* survival?" system?
I wasn't implying that the "what's best for ME?" system is the only
one atheist's can follow. I was saying that it would be the one that
makes the most sense to me, where I not a theist. There would
probably be a great deal of overlap between the two systems. We could
argue which one would be better in the long run.
Jason
wrote:
>> If you took a 100,000 Christians and zapped them
>> into atheism, the spectrum of moralities would be no different than
>> the spectrum of moralities present in 100,000 atheists already. Why
>> would it be any different?
>
>Because many of them are probably like you: would-be criminals restrained
>only by fear of god and the police.
But wouldn't a portion of the 100,000 atheists already be criminals?
If 100,000 ceased to hold the christian morality, they would soon
grasp another. VERY FEW (if any) people are truly amoral. Some of
the christians would wind up on the criminal end of the moral spectrum
(let's say people like me) while others would aspire to be as pious as
you. (Good luck, they can only try!) In the end, the 100,000
christians would statistically look exactly the same as the 100,000
atheists.
Jason
All hail Holtz, pious among the godless!
Jason
> Of course, any given atheist may adopt
>an absolutist moral position, should they choose to do so.
What i am saying Jeff is that there would be no authority that an
atheist could point that both equals the absoluteness of God and is
not a god itself. Genetics is the closest and I can roughly
understand a genetic absolute morality. But this would only be
absolute on a species level.
Jason
wrote:
>So there is no crime you would not then do if a) it benefited you and b) you
>*knew* you could get away with it?
I think I mentioned cheating on my taxes in another post.
>
>> Although my morality is more altrustic, don't
>> think I'm some perfect person always looking out for others.
>
>Quite the contrary, you have basically admitted that you are restrained from
>(what I would consider) complete immorality only by your belief in a
>non-existent god!
Ok, I'm just going to stop replying to this post and go off on a rant
here. This is sheer forensic stupidity. Do I "believe in a
non-existent god?" Of course not. I believe that God exists.
Perhaps this statement is false (in your opinion), but to imply that I
am an idiot for believing something that is OBVIOUSLY not there is
just bad form. It makes you look like you have the arguing capacity
of a six year old. It isn't that obvious to everybody because some
people obviously believe.
Jason
I believe in order that I may understand.
I understand in order that I may believe.
India
> drfries...@homeATALL.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > I still contend that there is a fundamental difference between a
> > morality dictated from a being outside the universe, than one inside
> > it.
>
> I can't help noticing a pattern in theistic reasoning. If we consider
> the theories...
>
> You should obey because Stalin says so.
>
> Complicated stuff like life arose all by itself.
>
> The physical universe was not caused.
>
> We're told these are all absurd, because...
>
> There's no reason we owe Stalin obedience.
>
> Stuff as complicated as life can't form spontaneously.
>
> Nothing comes from nothing.
>
> So JCI theists reject those theories in favor of...
>
> You should obey because God says so.
>
> Complicated stuff exists because God engineered it.
>
> God exists and wasn't caused by anything.
>
> This is simply point-blank refusal to apply the same reasoning to God
> as to non-God. Why do theists think this is reasonable? They can of
> course _always_ point to _some_ difference between God and any given
> non-God. But the question is, why is whatever distinction they draw
> _relevant_? In the case in point, inside the universe vs. outside,
> what bearing does God's _street address_ have on moral reasoning?
I agree with Paul that Jason's statement doesn't make any sense.
However, I think both of you are mistaken in assuming that Christian
theology is something like "We should do what God says because he's God
and that makes him an authority" or "Following God is good because God
is the definition of good and therefore God is good" or some variant
thereof.
Consider Psalm 119:
35 Direct me in the path of your commands, for there I find delight.
93 I will never forget your precepts, for by them you have preserved my
life.
99 I have more insight than all my teachers, for I meditate on your
statutes.
100 I have more understanding than the elders, for I obey your precepts.
105 Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path.
129 Your statutes are wonderful; therefore I obey them.
137 Righteous are you, O LORD, and your laws are right.
138 The statutes you have laid down are righteous; they are fully
trustworthy.
140 Your promises have been thoroughly tested, and your servant loves
them.
165 Great peace have they who love your law, and nothing can make them
stumble.
What's the psalmist's theology - why does he obey God? He has found
that obeying God brings benefits (peace, delight, wisdom) and that God's
promises are trusworthy (they "have been thoroughly tested"), and
therefore he believes that God and God's laws are righteous. It seems
to me that it's most likely that the psalmist had a notion of what
"righteous" was and found that God fit that notion and was therefore
praiseworthy. He does not say, "O Great Authority, you have handed down
laws, and because you are the authority I obey them," but rather, "Your
statues are wonderful; therefore I obey them."
(No, I'm not saying that "the Bible says God's laws are right, therefore
they're right," I'm merely using the Bible as a reference as to what
Christian theology is.)
As for the other two notions you've been discussing ("complicated stuff
has to be designed" and "stuff doesn't come from nothing,") I believe
that what Jason has been trying to get at is something like this: We
observe consistent trends in the physical universe ("stuff on Earth
falls down and not up") and think of these as laws of the physical
universe (the law of gravity). Two things we observe are that stuff
doesn't spontaneously arise out of nothing (isn't there a law about the
amount of matter and energy remaining constant?), and that intricate
stuff does not easily come from non-intricate stuff - going purely from
observation, we see that intricate stuff either has been around for a
long time or has been made by humans. To the man on the street, a
reasonable conclusion is that "stuff doesn't come from non-stuff" and
"intricate stuff is designed by an intelligent being" are
laws/properties of the physical universe. Since God is generally
defined as an infinite, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent, invisible,
etc. being, the usual, reasonable assumption is that God is not a
biological entity constrained by the laws of the physical universe.
Thus it makes sense to say that God, being outside the physical universe
and not being constrained by its laws, is not constrained by the "stuff
doesn't come from nothing" property of the universe and therefore could
have created the universe without being part of the universe or without
himself being created (and similarly for the "complicated stuff has to
be designed" property).
I'm not claiming that this is a watertight or even a particularly strong
argument, I mean merely to illustrate that it's a common-sense sort of
argument - to the average person, it "seems reasonable" - and is not a
"point-blank refusal to apply reasoning."
--India
rtu...@my-deja.com
>> You seem to be saying that in each of these [possible]
>> universes, its denizens should accept that universe's
>> god's dictates as absolute morality, NO MATTER WHAT
>> THOSE DICTATES ARE. Do you really believe this? If so,
>> this is a morality that is simultaneously blind and
>> relativistic.
In article <3a7affd4.49269597@news>,
drfries...@homeATALL.com (Jason) wrote:
> Yes, these are logical possibilities. While it seems
> to make morality "blind and relativistic" it doesn't
> within our confines. We can imagine that gravity has
> other characteristics, but it does us no good to ignore
> the ones we are faced with in this universe.
Counterfactual reasoning often illuminates. You seem
to be saying that if you believed in a god of absolute
might who dictated a far bleaker morality -- for example,
killing the infidel -- that you would follow it with the
same equanamity that you follow Christian morality.
>> I'm trying to understand your claim. (a) Are you
>> claiming that he has unequal MORAL authority because he
>> is unequaled in other, non-moral attributes? If so, then
>> we have teased out YOUR moral premise. Can you elucidate
>> it further? For what non-moral attributes does being
>> unparalleled then confer moral authority? Are you ready
>> to discuss this moral premise?
> What would that be? "Might equals right." Did you not
> think I knew this? My morality can be boiled down roughly
> to this. However, do not think that this idea can be
> transferred to humans? One human is equal to another and
> so one cannot be more "mighty" than the other. ..
Well, no. People clearly differ in their strength,
intelligence, and might. I understand, though, that you
are saying only that "ultimate might defines the right."
This is an interesting moral premise. Can you discuss at
all where it comes from, and why you base your moral
thinking on it? It is especially interesting because it
runs so strongly against our culture. Most people in
our culture believe that might does NOT make right. Not
even ultimate might. Of course, this ties many Christians
up in knots, trying to explain in what sense their god is
good, since on the face of Christian theology, he fails
to meet broad notions of good. Defining his goodness by
reference to his might resolves that problem. "You'd
better accept his authority, dammit, because he gets the
final say!" How medieval.
It is true, also, that for those who accept this premise,
morality is possible only if the universe includes some
moral authority that has ultimate might. If god quit,
your moral compass would go haywire. BUT. That doesn't
make your morality any more absolute than that of others
who have a different fundamental premise. The MORAL
advantage of "ultimate might" doesn't come from its own
innate character, but from YOUR moral premise that that
is what counts, morally. Like all fundamentalist moralities,
it inhibits fruitful discussion with people who don't
accept YOUR fundamental premise. Likely, this includes
even other Christians who believe that their god's
goodness has to do with something other than his ultimate
might.
rtu...@my-deja.com
drfries...@homeATALL.com (Jason) wrote:
> But wouldn't a portion of the 100,000 atheists already
> be criminals?
Maybe not. A study of everyone imprisoned in Massachussetts
(if I recall the state correctly), revealed not a single
non-believer. Without exception, every prisoner claimed
some religious belief.
It is interesting that in our culture, the most religious
institutions are our prisons, and the least religious
institutions are our major universities. I've heard quite
a few explanations for this. People get religion in prison.
Or at least feign it for the parole board. Intellectuals
are too prideful to believe in a god. And they get better
lawyers. My own view is simply that education counters
religion. The more education someone has, the less likely
they are to be religious, and if they are religious, the
less likely they are to be fundamentalist. (The negative
correlation between education and crime is even easier
to explain.)
Michael A. McAngus
news:3a760615.97852957@news...
> On 28 Jan 2001 23:38:39 -0700, "Michael A. McAngus" <m...@infinet.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >1. Empathy
> >2. Reciprocity
> >3. Universality
>
> is, in fact, quite similar to "christian" morality.
Empathy?
Christian doctrine is ambivalent on the subject of empathy. Although
there was that Jesus guy who ripped off Hillel (and got it bass-
ackwards I might add) Christian theology also encourages evangelizing.
Does the Christian evangelist ever consider how s/he would feel if
confronted with similar evangelizing from people of other faiths or
(gods forefend) atheists? (I especially wonder about the most
aggressive evangelists) Does the Christian who calls for prayer in
public schools consider how s/he would feel if a Hindu, Muslim, or
Satanic prayer was chosen for recitation in hir child’s classroom (not
to mention readings from the Kama Sutra or selected readings of
Humanist principles)?
Reciprocity?
Why would any Christian worry about Reciprocity from hir fellow
humans? All that is import is that GOD forgives hir. The rest of the
human race is insignificant compared to God, and what they might do is
not really all that important in the grand scheme of things.
Universality?
Christians turn my idea of Universality on its head. They don’t ask
“what if everyone felt unconstrained about the action I’m
contemplating,” instead they ask “how can I make every one act the way
I think they should act.” When you think you have an “absolute”
morality, you have no compunction about trying to inflict it upon
others, regardless of their beliefs or feelings.
> Is this
> coincidence? Probably not. (Of course I'm going to say you got it
> from us, are you are going to say we got it from you. :))
Why would I say such an absurd thing? You may think it is necessary
for your religion to claim credit for certain ideas (certainly other
Christians have claimed undue credit for many things including the US
Constitution and Bill of Rights). I will readily admit that I have
had very few original thoughts, and they have not been in the areas
of philosophy or ethics.
So yes, my principles for ethical decision making came from many
sources, including Christianity (which, after all, is pervasive in
the culture in which I live).
--
Cheers,
Mike McAngus
m...@infinet.com
We care not about rights. We spread our beliefs according to what
our God tells us to. Simple as that. We don't struggle for rights.
- Chris Roberts (cn...@erc.msstate.edu)
Paul Filseth
> drfries...@homeATALL.com (Jason) wrote:
> > "Michael A. McAngus" <m...@infinet.com> wrote:
> > > 1. Empathy
> > > 2. Reciprocity
> > > 3. Universality
> >
> > that it is, in fact, quite similar to "christian" morality.
>
> Actually, Jason, Christian morality denies at least the
Also the first. No one with empathy could consign another to
everlasting torment.
> As to reciprocity, Paul directs us to give unto Caesar
> what is Caesar's, and slaves to obey their masters. ...
Moreover, Christians claim we have obligations to God. To the
extent that Christian moral theory says God is good by definition and
could have made morality be anything He wanted, as Jason has argued,
that means God has no obligations to us whatsoever.
--
Paul Filseth
Do not flatter your benefactor. - Buddha
epe...@my-deja.com
India <ind...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I agree with Paul that Jason's statement doesn't make any sense.
> However, I think both of you are mistaken in assuming that Christian
> theology is something like "We should do what God says because he's
God
> and that makes him an authority" or "Following God is good because God
> is the definition of good and therefore God is good" or some variant
> thereof.
>
> Consider Psalm 119:
While you may be right (or not, as the case may be), you should realize
that appeals to portions of the Bible are totally useless. Christians
manage to find a wide variety of interpretations and all of them support
their interpretations based on selected portions of the Bible, even when
the interpretations conflict wildly.
> (No, I'm not saying that "the Bible says God's laws are right,
therefore
> they're right," I'm merely using the Bible as a reference as to what
> Christian theology is.)
Which is a meaningless statement, as it presupposes that Christian
theology is something. It isn't. There are as many "Chrisitan
theologies" as there have been separate Christian movements.
Brian Holtz
"Jason" <drfries...@homeATALL.com> wrote:
> >> If you took a 100,000 Christians and zapped them
> >> into atheism, the spectrum of moralities would be no different than
> >> the spectrum of moralities present in 100,000 atheists already. Why
> >> would it be any different?
> >
> >Because many of them are probably like you: would-be criminals restrained
> >only by fear of god and the police.
>
> But wouldn't a portion of the 100,000 atheists already be criminals?
Sure, but there would be none who have only been restrained by fear of god.
> If 100,000 ceased to hold the christian morality, they would soon
> grasp another.
If you mean grasp another god, that's dodging the hypothetical. If you mean
grasp an atheistic morality, that's conceding the entire point of my
what-if-god-quit question.
> VERY FEW (if any) people are truly amoral.
You at least claim to be basically amoral, in that you admit that as an
atheist you would only be restrained by fear of getting caught.
> the 100,000 christians would statistically look exactly the same
> as the 100,000 atheists.
Only if you have evidence that amorality is already higher among current
atheists than among current Christians, and that Christians' losing their
fear of god would only equalize things. I doubt you have any such evidence.
> >So there is no crime you would not then do if a) it benefited you and b)
you
> >*knew* you could get away with it?
>
> I think I mentioned cheating on my taxes in another post.
As a crime you *would* do, or would *not* do? In case it's not obvious, my
point is that (unless you are a total sociopath) there probably are
self-beneficial crimes you wouldn't commit even if you knew you could get
away with them. So the amoral "conditional" morality you'd follow if God
quit might turn out to be not so amoral after all.
> >Quite the contrary, you have basically admitted that you are restrained
from
> >(what I would consider) complete immorality only by your belief in a
> >non-existent god!
>
> This is sheer forensic stupidity. Do I "believe in a
> non-existent god?" Of course not.
Do you really think that I think you think god doesn't exist? How many
parenthetical "(what I would consider)" phrases do you need me to insert to
get my point? Let's try again:
You have basically admitted that you are restrained from
(what I would consider) complete immorality only by your belief in
(what I would consider) a non-existent god!
> to imply that I am an idiot for believing something that is
> OBVIOUSLY not there is just bad form.
I intended no such implication, and I'd be surprised if anyone read such an
implication. By leaving off the second "(what I would consider)", I was
trying to convey *my* shock that the only thing between you and complete
immorality is you becoming an atheist.
> It makes you look like you have the arguing capacity
> of a six year old.
And what arguing capacity are you displaying by ignoring the following?
"Absolute" morality can be demonstrated to be
either a) the unconstrained amoral whim of god(s) or b) available to
atheists and anyone else who can duplicate your reasoning about why the
morality of god(s) is constrained.
Michael A. McAngus
> On 31 Jan 2001 01:23:17 -0700, jef...@dipstick.cfw.com (JeffMo) wrote:
>
> > Of course, any given atheist may adopt
> >an absolutist moral position, should they choose to do so.
>
> What i am saying Jeff is that there would be no authority that an
> atheist could point that both equals the absoluteness of God and is
> not a god itself. Genetics is the closest and I can roughly
> understand a genetic absolute morality. But this would only be
> absolute on a species level.
What with this constant reference to "authority?" Please justify the
implicit view that ethics and morality must be based on authority
rather than people recognizing that ethics and morality are simply
attempts to codify rules for all of us to live together in a civil
society.
--
Cheers,
Mike McAngus
m...@infinet.com
Ohhhh Lord. Do we have the strength to carry on this
mighty task in ONE NIGHT, or are we just jerking off?
- Rev. Johnson in Mel Brooks' _Blazing Saddles_
dam...@my-deja.com
worthy and appropriate. Please don't take this as too critical or
offensive.
Skyeyes, or anyone
1. What would you accept as evidence (or proof) that a particular God
exists?
2. Would your exceptance criteria be generic; i.e., suitable for
everyone? Independent of the object of the supporting evidence?
3. Would a God's existance affect the evidence of such?) I.E., It might
be that by definition or necessity, GOD'S MERE EXISTANCE WOULD
NECESSARILY preclude ANY EVIDENCE (to us) OF SUCH!
Jason, what does "outside this universe" mean? If, By definition, there
is nothing outside? Re: "God being outside ..."
Russell, et. al., Apparently, you have presummed (without foundation)
that other "real" universes, or Gods, (having different laws) are
indeed possible. (even in principle) Do you have evidence or proof of
such?
Perhaps this is the one and only possible universe. And perhaps there
is likewise only one possible true God. ( i.e., having infinitely many
infinite attributes thus precludes any others.)
Almost Everything I read here is so full of holes (like a Menger
sponge :), that I wonder how much thought is given to the statements
and arguments made. Certainly, it does no good to bandy nonsense about.
I would propose/urge that people here put more careful thought and
effort into framing and constructing their arguments. We would all
benefit.
To Truth,
Damscot
In article <94s9k5$v7j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
SkyEyes <sky...@dakotacom.net> wrote:
> In article <3a68efbf.547954522@news>,
> drfries...@homeATALL.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> [Snippage]
>
> > I still contend that there is a fundamental difference between a
> > morality dictated from a being outside the universe, than one inside
> > it.
>
> You still fail to provide evidence that such a being exists. So far,
> your contention seems to be "He has to exist because I wouldn't know
> how to behave if He didn't." That's pretty lame, Jas.
>
> Brenda "Gullibility is NOT a Virtue!" Nelson, A.A. #34
Jason
>In article <3a7b1209.53931253@news>,
> drfries...@homeATALL.com (Jason) wrote:
>> But wouldn't a portion of the 100,000 atheists already
>> be criminals?
>
>Maybe not. A study of everyone imprisoned in Massachussetts
>(if I recall the state correctly), revealed not a single
>non-believer. Without exception, every prisoner claimed
>some religious belief.
Ok, I'm not going to get caught up in the Christian prison debate.
I'd just say that the sample size was probably too small. People who
would check off "atheist" on a questionaire are not too common in the
US. I'd say all 6 of you are on this newsgroup. :) I'd have to see
the methods of the study as well.
Jason
>Well, no. People clearly differ in their strength,
>intelligence, and might. I understand, though, that you
>are saying only that "ultimate might defines the right."
However, the difference between one person and another when compared
with God is insignificant. In that respect, one cannot claim to be
more powerful. If the requirement is jumping to the moon, who cares
if I can jump 18" vs. 14".
>
>This is an interesting moral premise. Can you discuss at
>all where it comes from, and why you base your moral
>thinking on it? It is especially interesting because it
>runs so strongly against our culture. Most people in
>our culture believe that might does NOT make right.
Well, most people are thinking about humans and they would be right.
See note above.
> The MORAL
>advantage of "ultimate might" doesn't come from its own
>innate character, but from YOUR moral premise that that
>is what counts, morally.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. While I agree that on one level
"might equals right" makes sense in describing my morality, I also did
not deny that God countains an innate authority over morality. (As
its creator). I do not think there is some independent source for
which God's actions can be compared to see if they are "moral" or not.
Jason
wrote:
>drfries...@homeATALL.com (Jason) wrote:
>> Brian Holtz <ho...@eng.sun.com> wrote:
>> > 1) What morality *would* you follow? (Would you run amok,
>> > stampeding women and raping cattle? Why or why not?)
>>
>> I would not run amok as that probably would put me in the slammer or
>> dead. On a fundamental level I would switch from an altruistic view
>> to a self-centered view. Moral questions could always be answered by
>> answering "What is best for ME?"
>
> Why do you believe you would do that? You sound like you're
>repelled by a pure look-out-for-number-one attitude -- you're offering
>the spectre of selfishness as a _criticism_ of atheism. What makes
>you think those feelings would go away merely because you changed your
>abstract premises?
>
Christianity constantly hammers home the idea of putting others
first. I believe (and this is only belief) that without constant
reminder and pressure to do so, people would revert to a more
self-centered approach.
>
> Bingo. And since self-centered views are held by a small minority
>among current atheists, they'd be a small minority among the 100,000
>zapped ex-Christians. So what makes you think _you'd_ be in that small
>minority?
I am much more intelligent than the average bear. Perhaps this is
the answer. Because my IQ is on the smallest portion of the curve,
perhaps my new morality would be as well. Just a though.
Jason
wrote:
>Only if God can make clear what His "absolute" rules are. As I think you
>would admit, this is not the case, and Christians, even learned
>scholars, cannot agree on the rules. So even if there is an absolute
>morality, nobody (on Earth) knows what it is. So what use is it?
I would say that some rules are better than none. If we do not
completely understand the rules, then the degree which we do is better
than none-at-all.
Paul Filseth
> pg...@lsil.com (Paul Filseth) wrote:
> > If moral rules were based on authority then morality would be whim.
>
> Always? If someone is, or is taken to be, an authority on morality,
Hi, India, welcome back to the nuthouse! It depends on what you
mean by "authority". If I take Tuchman's word for it that Turkey
became a German ally as a result of British stupidity, because she's
an authority on WWI, that's not a whim. But the British weren't being
stupid because she said so; rather, she said so because they were.
Does God say X is moral because it really is, and He takes note of this
fact and informs us of it? Or does He have a choice about which things
are moral? If it isn't His choice, then He can be an authority without
morality being whimsical.
But if it _is_ His choice, because God is an authority like a
Roman Emperor rather than like a historian, and the only standard any
X needs to satisfy to be moral is for God to say it is, then a whim of
God is a moral rule. So morality is a _matter_ of whim. This doesn't
mean each and every moral decision of God is a whim, or even that any
are -- He might be singlemindedly pursuing some goal (for instance,
maximizing His own pleasure) which requires X to be moral, so He
chooses to make it moral out of means-ends rationality rather than
whim. This doesn't matter; what matters is that _were He_ to choose on
a whim, that would be enough to affect morality. If a whim is enough
to change a moral rule then moral rules are no more significant than
whims. Why does a whim of God deserve our respect?
--
Paul Filseth
Do not flatter your benefactor. - Buddha
rtu...@my-deja.com
drfries...@homeATALL.com (Jason) wrote:
> .. People who would check off "atheist" on a questionaire
> are not too common in the US. I'd say all 6 of you are
You did mean 6 million, right?
If you read the thread on religion in England, you'll find
reference to a survey showing that about 5% of our population
will deny having religion. On surveys. While this is small
compared to Europe, it represents a large number of people
nationwide, and is plenty big to show up in reasonable
samples. I suspect Massachussetts has at least a hundred
thousand people in prison, so that sample size is PLENTY big.
If everyone there is claiming religion, there must be causes
why prison populations claim so much more religion than the
general population.
University faculties are the other population that needs
explaining. In the US, they are almost European in their
rejection of religion. Especially in the sciences. Go to
any meeting of a science department in a major US university,
and you'll find your 6 atheists, right there.
dam...@my-deja.com
Paul Filseth <fil...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> It's not about authority. "Words mean what people use them to
mean."
This (your) statement, above quoted, appears meaningless to me, Paul.
My Reasoning follows; and has, I believe, more general application, (as
well as mis-application :) So, I will also submit this as a prime post.
As most of us realize, plurality of people involved in dialog is
important because, words are often vague or ambiguous, even in
scientific contexts. One person may use a given word with a certain
meaning in mind, while another may use the same word with a different
meaning in mind. Since we cannot know what another person has in mind,
we cannot be sure we have the same meaning for the same word in two or
more different minds. (East is east, and west is west, and never
the "twain" shall meet.) "Mark Twain"
Thus, Communication between people is subject to endless confusion,
such as is demonstrated here and everywhere we look. I would label this
the "uncertainty principle" of human communication.
So, lets face it, we cannot communicate thoughts with absolute
certainty of their meaning to another mind; (even, perhaps, within our
own mind between our different personality divisions, intra-crainially.
i.e., Like Jekel, who doesn't know what Hyde is thinking).
Thus, what Bertrand Russell said of Math: "We never know what we are
talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true." , seems to
apply here as well.
This principle seems quite evidently and especially borne-out here in
a.a., and ironically, it applies equally well to what I myself have
just written.
Being so handicapped, I would plead that we give each other more slack
in our feeble fumblings with concepts and words, and our failures to
formulate sound arguments.
Finally, I declare before God almighty; if such exists, that despite
our handicaps and limitations, we all at least deserve credit for
sincerely trying to get at the truth.
DAMSCOT
India
> India <ind...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > pg...@lsil.com (Paul Filseth) wrote:
> > > If moral rules were based on authority then morality would be
whim.
> >
> > Always? If someone is, or is taken to be, an authority on morality,
> > then their moral decisions are necessarily whims?
>
> Hi, India, welcome back to the nuthouse!
Thanks. I don't know about "nuthouse," but the phrase "Freaks and
Geeks" comes to mind (of course, I speak as someone who fits in both
categories :-)
> Does God say X is moral because it really is, and He takes note of
this
> fact and informs us of it? Or does He have a choice about which
things
> are moral?
Actually, I'm just noticing what I think may be Biblical support - to
some extent - for the former. E.g. Gen. 18:23-25, and my other post on
Psalm 119. I think Christians tend to say things like "God's actions
are right by definition" as an unconscious shorthand - if one believes
that God is always perfectly moral, one can then use God's commands as
a working definition of moral.
> If it isn't His choice, then He can be an authority without
> morality being whimsical.
That was all I was getting at.
--India
Jason
wrote:
>What with this constant reference to "authority?" Please justify the
>implicit view that ethics and morality must be based on authority
>rather than people recognizing that ethics and morality are simply
>attempts to codify rules for all of us to live together in a civil
>society.
The reference is for ABSOLUTE morality. To have such a thing you
need to have an authority (i.e. an entity, idea or such that can be
used to independently compare other actions to like a ruler for
distances. The authority for the metric meter sits in a vault in
France.)
non-absolute morality needs no "authority". In relative morality one
can suppose what one wants and would be no more correct or incorrect
than his neighbor.
Michael A. McAngus
> Upon cursory skimming of this thread, a few questions and remarks seem
> worthy and appropriate. Please don't take this as too critical or
> offensive.
>
> Skyeyes, or anyone
> 1. What would you accept as evidence (or proof) that a particular God
> exists?
There was a time when just "feeling the presence of God in my life"
would have been sufficient. However, no gods provided even the
slightest tingle, and now, after many years of searching and praying,
I expect evidence at least as good as that which is alleged to have
been given to the prophets.
Even so, if I were to get such evidence I would no longer be an
atheist, but I don't know that I would immediately be a follower. Any
god that made itself known to me at this late stage, and with all the
experience I've attained since I was a naive searcher, would also
have some explaining to do.
Not that I'm holding my breath.
> 2. Would your exceptance criteria be generic; i.e., suitable for
> everyone? Independent of the object of the supporting evidence?
I don't understand the question.
> 3. Would a God's existance affect the evidence of such?) I.E., It might
> be that by definition or necessity, GOD'S MERE EXISTANCE WOULD
> NECESSARILY preclude ANY EVIDENCE (to us) OF SUCH!
But, according to various scriptures and reports, your hypothetical
"definition" does not accord with the purported reality of the
behaviour of certain gods.
Now, it may be that the "real" god is one that doesn't interact with
live humans. However, that's not the god about whose existence
various believers have tried to convince me.
> Jason, what does "outside this universe" mean? If, By definition, there
> is nothing outside? Re: "God being outside ..."
>
> Russell, et. al., Apparently, you have presummed (without foundation)
> that other "real" universes, or Gods, (having different laws) are
> indeed possible. (even in principle) Do you have evidence or proof of
> such?
Even if no other universe is possible, the hypothetical situation is
still a valid route of inquiry, especially given Jason's apparent
equating of ultimate might with ultimate moral authority (or maybe he
believes a creator god has ultimate moral authority because the god
performed the creation).
If either of the above is a valid description of Jason's views, then
it seems reasonable to try to show how such a view is no more absolute
than an atheist's ethics.
> Perhaps this is the one and only possible universe. And perhaps there
> is likewise only one possible true God. ( i.e., having infinitely many
> infinite attributes thus precludes any others.)
>
> Almost Everything I read here is so full of holes (like a Menger
> sponge :), that I wonder how much thought is given to the statements
> and arguments made. Certainly, it does no good to bandy nonsense about.
What do you expect? We're people with lives outside Usenet who read
these articles and post our thoughts in our spare time. It seems a
bit much to ask that those thoughts also be well reasoned and
insightful.
> I would propose/urge that people here put more careful thought and
> effort into framing and constructing their arguments. We would all
> benefit.
>
> To Truth,
Personally, I'd rather see a little understanding and civility.
--
Cheers,
Mike McAngus
m...@infinet.com
If God took acid would he see people?
- Doug Shaw (dos...@math.lsa.umich.edu)
Jason
>Jason, what does "outside this universe" mean? If, By definition, there
>is nothing outside? Re: "God being outside ..."
Outside the natural universe. This would be in the same sense that
the Mind is outside the natural world in a dualist view. God may
interact with the universe but does not belong in the set "all natural
things". I'm not talking about a physical space, but a deliniation
between the natural and supernatural.
Jason
We need to have a little vocabulary lesson:
Amoral - without moral sense or principles; incapable of
distinguishing between right and wrong.
Immoral - not in conformity with accepted principles of right and
wrong behavior; contrary to the moral code o the community.
These are not interchangable synonyms. You are posting like they
are...
On 5 Feb 2001 02:12:47 -0700, "Brian Holtz" <Brian...@sun.com>
wrote:
>If you mean grasp another god, that's dodging the hypothetical. If you mean
>grasp an atheistic morality, that's conceding the entire point of my
>what-if-god-quit question.
Well, it's been a while, you are going to have to reiterate your
point. I agree that christians would learn another morality if they
lost faith that the one they held was true. No big deal to me. Is
that earth shattering?
>
>> VERY FEW (if any) people are truly amoral.
>
>You at least claim to be basically amoral, in that you admit that as an
>atheist you would only be restrained by fear of getting caught.
You see, here is where you need to learn your definitions. Am I
claiming to be "incapable of distinguishing right from wrong"? No. I
am claiming that I would move to another system of right and wrong.
Right would equal things that advanced my self-survival, wrong would
be things that hindered my self-survival. Would I be incapable of
distinguishing right from wrong? No. Would I be IMMORAL (going
against conventional morality)? Perhaps. But in relative morality,
immorality is so subjective I wouldn't really care. Everybody is
immoral on some points when held to the standards of someone else's
morality. (We are all immoral muslims if we drink alcohol. I'm an
immoral hindu for eating beef.)
>
>> the 100,000 christians would statistically look exactly the same
>> as the 100,000 atheists.
>
>Only if you have evidence that amorality is already higher among current
>atheists than among current Christians, and that Christians' losing their
>fear of god would only equalize things. I doubt you have any such evidence.
Well, since you are making the claim that it would be other than that,
you need to provide the proof. I am claiming status quo. If you take
a characteristic away, they group will revert to one similar to a
second group which does not have that characteristic. (In
mathematical terms A+B-B=A) You need to show me this wouldn't be so.
>> I think I mentioned cheating on my taxes in another post.
>
>As a crime you *would* do, or would *not* do?
As a crime I would consider doing. It would fit in my new morality of
being self-serving especially if I KNEW (as you postulated) that I
wouldn't get caught.)
> So the amoral "conditional" morality...
See, does this make any sense at all?
>You have basically admitted that you are restrained from
>(what I would consider) complete immorality only by your belief in
>(what I would consider) a non-existent god!
I doubt you would consider my new system complete immorality. I'm
sure we would agree on at least one thing. (Let's say, suicide is
bad.) That would make me at least a little similar to your morality.
I have never admitted that if I didn't believe in God I would rape,
pillage, murder, and plunder. This is not true.
>"Absolute" morality can be demonstrated to be
>either a) the unconstrained amoral whim of god(s) or b) available to
>atheists and anyone else who can duplicate your reasoning about why the
>morality of god(s) is constrained.
Again this makes no sense.
Before you reply, think three minutes on the difference between AMORAL
and IMMORAL. Make sure your next post makes sense in light of these
definitions.
John Secker
<drfries...@homeATALL.com> writes
> Christianity constantly hammers home the idea of putting others
>first. I believe (and this is only belief) that without constant
>reminder and pressure to do so, people would revert to a more
>self-centered approach.
>
to eliminate the effects of cultural contamination, people living in
non-Christian societies) are more self-centred than Christians? Not
obviously, IMHO. The most me-centred country on earth is surely the USA,
which also claims to be among the most Christian.
--
John Secker
phobos
> The authority for the metric meter sits in a vault in
> France.)
Picky point: it doesn't. A metre is defined as being the distance
travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second. The second is
the time taken by 9,192,631,770 vibrations of the radiation emitted by a
caesium atom. No standard metres in vaults are needed - just a caesium
clock and a lamp.
However, the kilogram is still defined in terms of a cylinder of
platinum-iridium in Paris.
Dan Prescher
> On 5 Feb 2001 02:27:20 -0700, "Michael A. McAngus" <m...@infinet.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >What with this constant reference to "authority?" Please justify
the
> >implicit view that ethics and morality must be based on authority
> >rather than people recognizing that ethics and morality are simply
> >attempts to codify rules for all of us to live together in a civil
> >society.
>
> The reference is for ABSOLUTE morality. To have such a thing you
> need to have an authority (i.e. an entity, idea or such that can be
> used to independently compare other actions to like a ruler for
> distances. The authority for the metric meter sits in a vault in
> France.)
>
> non-absolute morality needs no "authority". In relative morality
one
> can suppose what one wants and would be no more correct or incorrect
> than his neighbor.
>
> Jason
Some personal observations after lurking around this thread:
There are at least as many "divine and absolute moral authorities" in
the world as there are monotheistic religious sects. Muslims, Jews and
Christians all claim god as the absolute foundation of moral law, yet
the particulars of the law vary widely, even among different sects of
the same religion. This doesn't prove that god and the absolute moral
authority it implies doesn't exist -- it just proves that consensus on
what the law actually is has never been widely achieved. Even in cases
of agreement on particulars of divine moral law, those particulars and
the injunctions prescribed for violations vary widely to fit
particular social/cultural/political situations.
At least one main purpose of moral law is to regulate human behavior
in society. Others may be to make us more pleasing in the eyes of god,
make us examples of righteousness for the world, etc., but these are
meaningless outside a social context, even if the society is one of
monks, nuns or hermits. It isn't surprising, then, than even "divine,
absolute" moral law varies from society to society, since types of
desired behavior and the means by which they can be compelled differ
in different societies.
So, there may be a single, divine, absolute moral law, but there is no
consensus on what it is. Even if there was, we could expect that it
would be perceived and applied differently in different
social/cultural/political situation, and this is indeed what we find.
From this, I have to draw one of two conclusions:
1. If humans were capable of clearly perceiving and administering a
single divine, absolute moral law, then all gods and moral laws in all
societies would be identical. Since this isn't the case, humans are
incapable of clearly perceiving and administering absolute moral law,
making such law at best ineffective and at worst useless. Or,
2. There is no absolute, divine moral law, and human societies develop
the moral laws required to compel desired behavior in that society,
then attribute them to a divine, absolute authority (sincerely or
insincerely) at least in part to aid compliance.
If either of these conclusion are correct, then I maintain that we
humans and our societies are better served if we make a conscious
decision to sit down, figure out what constitutes desired behavior
right now in our particular society and why, and then determine how
best to promote that behavior and limit its opposite without appeal to
divine authority. This is what we do anyway, except for the "without
appeal to divine authority" part.
This will never happen on a large scale, since the "what" and the
"why" of desired social behaviors depends in almost every case on a
particular individual's and society's relationship with a particular
god or other "absolute" moral authority.
Oh well.
Jason
>If you read the thread on religion in England, you'll find
>reference to a survey showing that about 5% of our population
>will deny having religion. On surveys. While this is small
>compared to Europe, it represents a large number of people
>nationwide, and is plenty big to show up in reasonable
>samples. I suspect Massachussetts has at least a hundred
>thousand people in prison, so that sample size is PLENTY big.
>If everyone there is claiming religion, there must be causes
>why prison populations claim so much more religion than the
>general population.
Well, again I don't really want to get into this. I'm working lots of
hours in the ER and my reply time is limited. A few points:
1) England is not Massachussetts. A so far unjustified inference is
made that they are they same in demographics and the people in them.
2) "deny having religion" may be different from "atheist". Again I'd
have to see the citation of the study.
That said, I am surprised that NOBODY in the Massachussetts prison
system admitted to being an atheist. You would think there would be
at least a fluke in jail picked up on some minor charge. :) This
makes me suspect the study was flawed. I'd have to see the citation
before I believed it at all.
Jason
as far as the reference to 6 people. I hope you saw the html
[sarcasm] [/sarcasm] around the quote.
Jason
>Picky point: it doesn't. A metre is defined as being the distance
>travelled by light in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.
Yes, I think at one time I knew this. But at one point there was a
meter stick in france that was the gold measure. :)
>However, the kilogram is still defined in terms of a cylinder of
>platinum-iridium in Paris.
>
Jason
"I sought him accordingly in great resorts, in
cities, in theaters, gardens, parks, and courts.
At length I heard a ragged noise and mirth of
thieves and murderers; there I him espied."
- George Herbert
Jason
wrote:
>Perhaps so. In which case, are we not better with a set of human-based
>rules, which we have a chance of understanding, as compared with a badly
>understood version of inhuman rules allegedly handed down by "God"?
Mmm, I think you are painting too bleak a picture. I think there are
many rules which are well understood. Just as well, at least, as
human rules. There is a small fuzzy edge of rules we understand
"badly", and a chuck of rules we probably don't understand at all.
Jason
>If you can explain
>this scientifically, how there is "connection"; yet, "no connection" at
>the same multidimensional time and space point, I shall be impressed
>and greatly influenced.
Haha, no I'm not that smart. I do not think it can be described
scientifically as a "scientific description" involves two natural
objects. We are talking about the interaction between a natural and
supernatural object and so a scientific description is out of the
question. Disappointing, for sure.
Jason
wrote:
> Maybe you'd be out on the third sigma in the other direction. Or
>on one or the other tail of a completely different Gaussian curve, say,
>one of the most inclined to collect stamps. :-) Do you have reason to
>believe intelligence correlates positively with selfishness? I haven't
>observed such a trend; and a-priori, why should it? Intelligence shows
>itself in means-ends rationality; it doesn't have a lot to say about
>what goals to pursue. If somebody decides his goal is the well-being
>of his fellow man, what's so dumb about that? "There's a million ways
>to go, you know that there are."
I was just guessing. I have no idea if this would be the reason. I
really don't even know if I would be on some far end of a moral curve
if I became an atheist. I'm only guessing at what I THINK I would be
like instead of really finding out.
There possibly is a reason why you haven't observed the correlation
between selfishness and intelligence. The best selfishness is one
that is invisible. In my pretend society of rule followers, the
member best off is the one who is SECRETLY breaking the rules to his
own advantage while the others continue to follow them. In this way
this memeber has more options to him instead of being forced into a
choice. More options = better off especially if you are intelligent
enough to weigh those options for ultimate benefit.
It probably isn't dumb to have some other ultimate goal. I guess I
would feel that if my days were limited I would make the most of those
days for myself as once they are gone, everything I have done is
meaningless.
>
> The point is, it seems to me Christianity is big on guilt. And
>one effective way to induce guilt feelings is to tell people they're
>worse than they really are. So when you claim to have what are by my
>lights lousy morals, I'm skeptical...
>
>> "Brian Holtz" <Brian...@sun.com> wrote:
>> > So there is no crime you would not then do if a) it benefited you
>> > and b) you *knew* you could get away with it?
>>
>> I think I mentioned cheating on my taxes in another post.
>
> But his question was whether _for all X_ with the given property,
>you'd do X; giving just one example doesn't settle the question. So
>let's try something nastier. If you thought there was no God and you
>knew you could get away with it, would you sell worthless swampland to
>an elderly widow in order to take her life savings?
Or kill a girl for her lollypop if I knew I'd get away from it. I'd
have to say I don't think so. But I may be far too steeped in my
current moral thoughts. I don't know for sure and I'm not sure I
could tell you why I wouldn't. I think there are no practical
examples where you are SURE you won't get caught. Therefore you need
to weigh the risks vs. the benefits. IF you got caught, the
consequence of killing the girl or tricking the helpless would be much
greater than the benefit of the lollypop or profit from the swampland.
There are practical examples of this in everyday society. I'm sure we
all speed. That is selfishness.
John Secker
<fil...@my-deja.com> writes
>> "Brian Holtz" <Brian...@sun.com> wrote:
>> > So there is no crime you would not then do if a) it benefited you
>> > and b) you *knew* you could get away with it?
>>
>> I think I mentioned cheating on my taxes in another post.
>
> But his question was whether _for all X_ with the given property,
>you'd do X; giving just one example doesn't settle the question. So
>let's try something nastier. If you thought there was no God and you
>knew you could get away with it, would you sell worthless swampland to
>an elderly widow in order to take her life savings?
Or, to make it particularly stark, the example Brian used in another
post - killing a baby to get her lollipop. There is a baby in her pram
with her sweet, you are a bit hungry. You know no-one will catch you if
you kill her to prevent her crying and giving the game away. If there
were no God, would you do this? Do you think the average atheist would
do this? Why (not)?
--
John Secker
John Secker
<pres...@concentric.net> writes
>So, there may be a single, divine, absolute moral law, but there is no
>consensus on what it is. Even if there was, we could expect that it
>would be perceived and applied differently in different
>social/cultural/political situation, and this is indeed what we find.
>
From this, I have to draw one of two conclusions:
>
>1. If humans were capable of clearly perceiving and administering a
>single divine, absolute moral law, then all gods and moral laws in all
>societies would be identical. Since this isn't the case, humans are
>incapable of clearly perceiving and administering absolute moral law,
>making such law at best ineffective and at worst useless. Or,
>
>2. There is no absolute, divine moral law, and human societies develop
>the moral laws required to compel desired behavior in that society,
>then attribute them to a divine, absolute authority (sincerely or
>insincerely) at least in part to aid compliance.
>
3. One group of humans (let us say the Hindus, for example) are capable
and have succeeded in clearly perceiving and administering a single
divine, absolute moral law. All other religious groups have misperceived
and/or misadministered it.
This third option is logically possible, and is indeed the position,
stated or assumed, of pretty much every religion which exists - except
that for each religion, they hold that they themselves and no other have
correctly apprehended and applied the absolute divine law.
Just for the avoidance of doubt, I personally hold to your second
conclusion. Looking at religions from the outside, as it were, this is
just another example of their common attitude that "everybody else has
got it wrong, and we are right". This is logically possible, of course,
but it requires (IMHO) some supporting evidence.
--
John Secker
Jason
wrote:
>You see, I'm not the one here who needs to learn his definitions...
I'll get a letter off to the Webster's New World Dictionary Third
College Edition people right away...
You also overstate your case without showing the evidence:
www.webster.com: 1 a : being neither moral nor immoral; specifically :
lying outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply <science as
such is completely amoral -- W. S. Thompson> b : lacking moral
sensibility <infants are amoral>
2 : being outside or beyond the moral order or a particular code of
morals <amoral customs>
I do grant you that the second definition is closer to what you are
talking about. The primary definition is what I am talking about.
www.dictionary.com
1. Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor
immoral.
2. Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong.
Again, my definition is the primary one, your's is secondary.
In the end it doesn't matter. If we are going to have a conversation
we need to agree on what we are talking about. So I propose this. If
you want to use my definition of amoral, capitalize it. If you want
to use your definition, do not. Or put in parenthases which you mean.
>Would this be some systematic social Darwinist morality, that one might urge
>on some community? Or are you just saying that you would use "right" as a
>synonym for "self-beneficial"? By my definitions, the latter is not merely
>an alternative morality, but is rather amorality.
Ok, I understand. That's fine. In some ways I'd be amoral under your
definition. I don't think as much as you feel. Most of my ways would
be the same as my neighbor.
>You can't simply stipulate that post-God-quitting ex-Christians are
>indistinguishable from current atheists. That's called "begging the
>question".
My feeling is that people are all the same. Therefore People + God -
God = People. Seems pretty obvious to me.
>
>If you want mathematics, try this. You claim that after God quits, if the
>percentage of current atheists who are purely selfish is S, then the
>percentage of current Christians who after God quits will be purely selfish
>will also be S. Now, let J be the percentage of current Christians who are
>not purely selfish only because of fear of God. For your claim to be true,
>it must be the case that either J is zero, or pure selfishness is already
>higher among current atheists than among current Christians.
Ok, I'd buy either. I don't think there are many christians who are
not purely selfish just because of the fear of God. Either those
people are selfish already (the S group), or the amount of selfishness
is small enough that they would correlate with some atheist person.
Or look at it like this: A spectrum of Christian morality
1 2 3 4 4 6 7 8 9 10
A spectrum of atheist morality
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I may represent the second 4 in the first group which would move to a
5 if he became an atheist. That would represent more selfishness, but
I wouldn't become a 11 or 15 or something wild like that.
We already
>know J is not zero, because you have claimed you would be purely selfish if
>God quit. Thus, your claim reduces to the claim that pure selfishness is
>already higher among current atheists (or that you Jason would be the only
>selfish ex-Christian).
Ok, again I think we are losing definitional ideas. I guess I would
be "purely selfish" since I have stated my morality would be "what's
in it for me". But how different is this from regular secular
morality? In these words, I'd say it was "almost purely selfish".
>Translation: so the without-regard-to-communal-ethics policy of
>self-interested "conditional morality" you'd follow if God quit might turn
>out to in fact have some regard for communal ethics. Specifically, there
>would be self-beneficial crimes (like killing a baby to take her lollipop)
>you wouldn't commit even if you knew you could get away with them. This
>contradicts your claim that you would act purely on the basis of
>self-interest.
Well, maybe I am overstating the case. Would I really kill a baby for
her lollypop if I KNEW I could get away from it? I can't really
imagine that. I know that would be the selfish thing to do, but I
just don't see it. Of course we can't really try this experiment as I
am never going to really believe that God quit, but it seems too out
there for me. So I guess you are revealing that my morality would be
more complex than I simply stated. (Which is probably almost always
true. Who can really boil their morality down to six words?)
>
>Of course, I never really believed you when you said you'd be purely
>selfish. My only point here is that society would work fine even without
>fear of (or hope in) god(s). My reasoning here is that unlike you(r claim
>about yourself), most theists have a basic notion of right and wrong that is
>independent of the particular dictates of their gods. That basic notion
>would still function after God quit.
Well, I'm agreeing with you and disagreeing. "right" and "wrong" do
take different meanings. most theists would be able to distinguish
what is "right" and "wrong" according to their communities. Probably
all theists would be able to do that. I can agree with that.
>"Absolute" ethical standards can be demonstrated to be either a) the whim of
>god(s) unconstrained by any communal or logical or necessary or a priori or
>universal ethical standards,
Ok, I agree with this. It's a sort of weird use for the word "whim"
but I'm guessing you mean that God could have made it different than
he did. This is true.
Jason
PS: Sorry about getting hot under the collar in the last few posts.
I'm more mad that it is so hard to talk on the same page as someone.
I know you are intelligent and mean well. There are limits to the
typed word that probably the spoken word does not have.
dam...@my-deja.com
Paul Filseth <fil...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Snip
So
> let's try something nastier. If you thought there was no God and you
> knew you could get away with it, would you sell worthless swampland to
> an elderly widow in order to take her life savings?
> --
> Paul Filseth
> Do not flatter your benefactor. - Buddha
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
No! But, not from morality, but because: There would be nothing if
there were no God :)
Remember, God is that uncreated thing which created all other things.
Damscot
Jason
wrote:
>Or, to make it particularly stark, the example Brian used in another
>post - killing a baby to get her lollipop. There is a baby in her pram
>with her sweet, you are a bit hungry. You know no-one will catch you if
>you kill her to prevent her crying and giving the game away. If there
>were no God, would you do this? Do you think the average atheist would
>do this? Why (not)?
This is hard to answer and I'll tell you why.
I believe that everybody (not just Christians) has an innate sense of
right and wrong given by God. In some cases this sense is strong
enough as to be almost universal, in others is isn't as strong and
societies can overcome it with modifications or even reversals. But
this sense (it used to be called Natural Law) is there.
The example you gave (or I guess Brian gave) is particularly strong.
Killing a baby for a lollypop. (The baby is an innocent. Killing is
never regarded as a thing to be done lightly. The lollypop is such a
small reward.) I cannot think of a single society which has attempted
to overrule the Natural Law which rides against such an act.
Trying to imagine that God didn't exist (and thus his Natural Law) is
like trying to imagine our life without gravity. We can get some
fuzzy sense of what it would be like (well, we'd be floating around),
but it would be pretty impossible to imagine how far reaching the
effects would be.
In that way, I cannot judge what I would be like if God really didn't
exist. If he did exist and I didn't believe in him, I would say I
would be like the average atheist today. Perhaps my rules would vary
slightly, but not by a huge margin. These questions, to me,
represent different scenarios. I can imagine one, I cannot even
fathom the other.
Paul Filseth
> > Words mean what people use them to mean.
>
> This (your) statement, above quoted, appears meaningless to me, Paul.
But I was using it to mean something meaningful. :-) So if it didn't
correspond to any meaning in your mind, then the meaning to words to
meaning mapping has broken down. We'll have to work on that...
> One person may use a given word with a certain meaning in mind,
> while another may use the same word with a different meaning in
> mind. Since we cannot know what another person has in mind, we
> cannot be sure we have the same meaning for the same word in two
> or more different minds.
One person may sneeze because of a cold and another because of
the flu -- does that mean we can't know what virus another person has
in his nose? Of course we can know what another person has in mind,
if there's enough data to work from. Minds are part of the cause and
effect pattern of the universe, and finding out what another person has
in mind is no different from finding out any other aspect of reality;
we look for evidence, make a hypothesis, and try to refute it. Courts
figure out whether a killer intended to kill; translators figure out
what an author meant by a word.
> So, lets face it, we cannot communicate thoughts with absolute
> certainty of their meaning to another mind;
Not a problem -- absolute certainty isn't what science is about.
We identify what other people very probably mean by their words, just
as we identify what elements water is very probably made of.
> Being so handicapped, I would plead that we give each other more
> slack in our feeble fumblings with concepts and words,
Of course. And we ask for and offer clarifications, so we can all
work toward developing more accurate theories of what others mean by
the words they use, thereby increasing the probability of communicating
thoughts correctly between minds.
> and our failures to formulate sound arguments.
This may occur because the argument in the other's mind is unsound,
or because his attempt to translate his meaning into words failed. One
should naturally try to help others debug their programs. :-) And that
means trying to find out what caused the failure.
--
Paul Filseth
Do not flatter your benefactor. - Buddha
Brian Holtz
> >"Absolute" ethical standards can be demonstrated to be either a) the whim
of
> >god(s) unconstrained by any communal or logical or necessary or a priori
or
> >universal ethical standards,
>
> Ok, I agree with this. [..] I'm guessing you mean that God could have
> made it different than he did.
That's a good guess, since that is what I told you exactly two weeks ago:
whether a god could have created the laws of logic (or morality)
to be different than what (you claim) they are.
If you say yes, then you would in an alternate universe call "moral" and
"good" even (what we in this universe would call) an evil god.
If this is your position, I wouldn't call it "absolute morality", but
rather "absolute amorality".
We then spent the intervening two weeks arguing over whether morality that
is determined by mere whim could better be described as (what I at least
call) "amorality" (i.e. a lack of regard for ethical standards).
> >You can't simply stipulate that post-God-quitting ex-Christians are
> >indistinguishable from current atheists. That's called "begging the
> >question".
>
> My feeling is that people are all the same. Therefore People + God -
> God = People.
"People are all the same", therefore atheists are the same as ex-Christians.
As you once wrote to me: whatever, dude.
> I have stated my morality would be "what's
> in it for me". But how different is this from regular secular
> morality?
There's a difference between selfish hedonism and pursuing the values of
one's own choice. For examples, see
http://humanknowledge.net/Thoughts.html#ValueSystems
Now: how different is whats-in-it-for-me from your current morality of
following god's whims? :-)
> >most theists have a basic notion of right and wrong that is
> >independent of the particular dictates of their gods.
>
> [..] I can agree with that.
Do you think such theists are wrong, since they disagree with your view that
morality is defined by the whims of god(s)?
--
Brian...@sun.com
Knowledge is dangerous. Take a risk:
http://humanknowledge.net
Paul Filseth
> The most me-centred country on earth is surely the USA,
> which also claims to be among the most Christian.
Can you explain the method by which you measured me-centred-ness
and became sure of this? Or were you just dissing my country because
it's fashionable to? :-)