Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Plump-DJ · 10-29-2002, 02:24 PM

This is an intersting post i must say.

Quote:

Intensity : By definition, belief in God is irrational because it is not based on any reasoned evidence or rational argument. It is based on faith: unquestioning belief.

Really? That's news to me. Maybe we should ask Jeffery Jay Lowder for clarification, since he runs this place? Is it irrational to believe in God by mere definition?

My own view is that this statement sounds like a rather smelly assertion and is ever so slightly (just a little bit

)question begging.

Quote:

So to act based on the rules purpotedly underlined by this deity (whatever his definition) is not a rational act but an act of piety. It would involve killing ones son when told to do so (thanks to Abraham).

Right.. more question begging.

Quote:

So any ethic based on a deity is bankrupt in terms of rationality for the precise reason that piousness has no room for rationality but total obedience. And because if one were to start reasoning, it would discount the need to rely on the deity's wishes as a basis for morality or ethics: it would be a claim of ones ability to determine the best course of action based on his/her own reasoning ability.

And more question begging...

Quote:

But we would sure like to see you lay out how God can provide a valid foundation for a rational ethic.

This is not what this is about. It's about metha-ethical foundations. He's suggesting God cannot provide a foundation *not* because of any of the question begging reasons you mention but because if God is justified in allowing evil to go forth then an ethic based on this being is moraly bankrupt. I am questioning that.

Quote:

Intensity : To have a nature is a constraint and thus God can NOT be said to be omnipoent if he has a nature, because he must then act ONLY according to his nature.

If God is above logic then he could be and not be at the same time in the same sense, hence we can have no thoughts about him since all ratioanl thought presupposes this.

However you wish to define God, this is part of the accepted definition. Omnipotence does not mean anything, even absurd things. I mean he could create the universe and not create the universe given that -- which is absurd.

Quote:

Intensity : Man is to blame for the holocaust. But man was acting on his God-given instincts and with the abilities that he was given by God.

That just begs the question at hand. Part of the definition here is freedom, free wiil. Man has been given the freedom to *choose*. If any one of us denies free will then this whole issue of moral accountability is over.

Anyway.. I hate to cut this short but i'm quite tired. We can respond on these points and leave the rest for later if you like. Small discussions make for good discussions.

Primal · 10-29-2002, 04:07 PM

Well, actually this a good question.

So far my understanding of mainstream theistic morality is this:

God decides arbitrarily something is good-----> that's now a moral.

i.e. morals are just God's opinion basically that one better follow "or else".

That means morality is a mere matter of obediance to He who has the most power. Kind of like the Sophists view of justice as something invented by the strong to exploit the weak. In any case, is obediance to power really all there is to morality?

If so, do the orders of dictators in other countries constitute a "less morality" as they hold the power in that country?

The whole viewpoint sounds very disturbing to me.

Primal · 11-08-2002, 11:57 AM

Still waiting for cocky theists to respond. *sip coffee*

Bible Humper · 11-08-2002, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Well, actually this a good question.

So far my understanding of mainstream theistic morality is this:

God decides arbitrarily something is good-----> that's now a moral.

i.e. morals are just God's opinion basically that one better follow "or else".

That means morality is a mere matter of obediance to He who has the most power. Kind of like the Sophists view of justice as something invented by the strong to exploit the weak. In any case, is obediance to power really all there is to morality?

If so, do the orders of dictators in other countries constitute a "less morality" as they hold the power in that country?

The whole viewpoint sounds very disturbing to me.

If it all comes down to obediece to the will of God, isn't it amoral by definition? Even if God is moral, it still seems to be.

Is a medical machine moral because it saves lives when you push it's buttons or what?

luvluv · 11-09-2002, 07:35 AM

Primal:

Quote:

Still waiting for cocky theists to respond. *sip coffee*

Well, I'm pretty cocky so I'll give it a shot.

I think the best argument comes from the definition of omniscience.

It is, by definition, impossible for an omniscient being to hold an opinion that is wrong.

Therefore, if God held the position that certain activities are morally right or morally wrong, by the definition of omniscience, they would actually be morally right or morally wrong.

If God could be wrong about such a thing, He would not be omniscient, and if He were omniscient, He would not be wrong.

SRB · 11-09-2002, 08:00 AM

Luvluv
It is, by definition, impossible for an omniscient being to hold an opinion that is wrong.

Therefore, if God held the position that certain activities are morally right or morally wrong, by the definition of omniscience, they would actually be morally right or morally wrong.

SRB
How does God determine if an activity is morally right or morally wrong? Does he assess whether or not the given activity possesses certain properties?

SRB

[ November 09, 2002: Message edited by: SRB ]

KnightWhoSaysNi · 11-09-2002, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:

Well, I'm pretty cocky so I'll give it a shot.

I think the best argument comes from the definition of omniscience.

It is, by definition, impossible for an omniscient being to hold an opinion that is wrong.

Therefore, if God held the position that certain activities are morally right or morally wrong, by the definition of omniscience, they would actually be morally right or morally wrong.

If God could be wrong about such a thing, He would not be omniscient, and if He were omniscient, He would not be wrong.

Ah, but when you say "God held the position that certain activities are morally right or morally wrong," it's contingent on morality being something indepedent of God. God's omniscience to what is "right and wrong" confines him to a standard that is not under his control.

If we accept your argument, then we must conclude that morality does not flow from God, but rather God is confined to morality. Since morality is not dependent on God, would you agree with us that there is nothing incompatible between atheism and moral realism?

luvluv · 11-10-2002, 07:46 AM

No, because atheism would have to prove moral realism within it's own system, it can't piggy back onto a theistic explanation.

Yes if there is a God and He knows something to be good, then goodness, in a certain sense, exists independant of God. But while that might put some theists in a position they don't like (I don't particularly have a problem with it) it doesn't help the atheist a bit, because it only demonstrates that goodness can exist without God within the theistic context. It wouldn't really help an atheist establish the existence of moral realism within the worldview of atheism. You have to establish moral realism without mention of God or the supernatural at all. It might help you in an argument with a theist, but it still does not help you rationally justify moral realism.

In other words, the theist can only come to the conclusion that good exists apart from God only because God has perfect knowledge of what is good. Our knowledge that goodness exists is still therefore rationally justified given our belief in an omniscient God who has perfect knowledge of goodness. The atheist has no independant grounds on which to even begin to make the claim that good exists.

KnightWhoSaysNi · 11-10-2002, 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by luvluv:
No, because atheism would have to prove moral realism within it's own system, it can't piggy back onto a theistic explanation.

Yes if there is a God and He knows something to be good, then goodness, in a certain sense, exists independant of God. But while that might put some theists in a position they don't like (I don't particularly have a problem with it) it doesn't help the atheist a bit, because it only demonstrates that goodness can exist without God within the theistic context. It wouldn't really help an atheist establish the existence of moral realism within the worldview of atheism. You have to establish moral realism without mention of God or the supernatural at all. It might help you in an argument with a theist, but it still does not help you rationally justify moral realism.

In other words, the theist can only come to the conclusion that good exists apart from God only because God has perfect knowledge of what is good. Our knowledge that goodness exists is still therefore rationally justified given our belief in an omniscient God who has perfect knowledge of goodness. The atheist has no independant grounds on which to even begin to make the claim that good exists.

I don't think your conclusion follows here. How does not having omniscience about something make it non-existent or possible to know about? For example:

1. Hank knows all there is to know about how to win a game of poker.

2. Therefore, without Hank, there are no independent grounds on how to win a game of poker.

Obviously, we have plenty of good poker players out there who never met Hank before or appealed to him. Especially if he's an imaginary character.

Likewise, atheists can recognize morality without appealing to the supernatural. With a nontheist/humanist view on morality, actions with consequences that are beneficial to humanity are good, while those that are harmful are bad -- not based on the dictates of alleged revelation from a particular deity of what is good and bad.

Therefore, I see no inconsistency between these two claims if you accept that morality is independent of God:

1. God does not exist.

2. Torturing little children is morally wrong.

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: Nightshade ]

luvluv · 11-10-2002, 11:08 AM

Quote:

I don't think your conclusion follows here. How does not having omniscience about something make it non-existent or possible to know about?

Because you could be wrong about what you hold to be true while God could not. The fact that you believe something to be true does not establish it's truth, but the fact that an Omniscient Entity knows something to be true would establish it's truth. Again, it is by definition impossible for an Omniscient Being to hold a false belief.

Quote:

1. Hanks knows all there is to know about how to win a game of poker.

2. Therefore, without Hank, there are no independent grounds on how to win a game of poker.

Obviously, we have plenty of good poker players out there who never met Hank before or appealed to him. Especially if he's an imaginary character.

Well, Hank could be wrong and not know all there is about poker. Hank may think he knows how to win at poker only to discover that the game he has actually been playing was bridge. In short, Hank's knowledge does not establish the truth of anything, but the knowledge of an Omniscient Being does. It is the fact that God's omniscience can establish the truth of His beliefs that makes the point, any analogy you draw which does not involve an Omniscient Agent will lead you to false conclusions.

Quote:

Likewise, atheists can recognize morality without appealing to the supernatural. With a nontheist/humanist view on morality, actions with consequences that are beneficial to humanity are good, while those that are harmful are bad -- not based on the dictates of alleged revelation from a particular deity of what is good and bad.

Okay suppose one atheist is a social darwinist and the other is a secualr humanist. They run across an abandoned retarded newborn. The secular humanist wants to take the child in and help it to survive because he believes the greatest good is to recognize the dignity and potential of every human life, the social darwinist wants to leave it to die because he believes the greatest good is the evolution of the species (and the elimination of any weak strains).

Who is right? The social darwinist would be just as right, within his values, to leave the boy to die as the secular humanist would be to pick the child up and care for him.

So, without begging the question, how would the secular humanist rationally justifiy the proprieity of his values?

Quote:

2. Torturing little children is morally wrong.

Nonsense. Prove it.

[ November 10, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]

11-09-2002, 08:00 AM	#26
SRB Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: UK Posts: 227	Luvluv It is, by definition, impossible for an omniscient being to hold an opinion that is wrong. Therefore, if God held the position that certain activities are morally right or morally wrong, by the definition of omniscience, they would actually be morally right or morally wrong. SRB How does God determine if an activity is morally right or morally wrong? Does he assess whether or not the given activity possesses certain properties? SRB [ November 09, 2002: Message edited by: SRB ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-29-2002, 04:07 PM	#22
Primal Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Marcos Posts: 551	Well, actually this a good question. So far my understanding of mainstream theistic morality is this: God decides arbitrarily something is good-----> that's now a moral. i.e. morals are just God's opinion basically that one better follow "or else". That means morality is a mere matter of obediance to He who has the most power. Kind of like the Sophists view of justice as something invented by the strong to exploit the weak. In any case, is obediance to power really all there is to morality? If so, do the orders of dictators in other countries constitute a "less morality" as they hold the power in that country? The whole viewpoint sounds very disturbing to me.

11-08-2002, 11:57 AM	#23
Primal Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Marcos Posts: 551	Still waiting for cocky theists to respond. sip coffee

11-10-2002, 07:46 AM	#28
luvluv Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Planet Lovetron Posts: 3,919	No, because atheism would have to prove moral realism within it's own system, it can't piggy back onto a theistic explanation. Yes if there is a God and He knows something to be good, then goodness, in a certain sense, exists independant of God. But while that might put some theists in a position they don't like (I don't particularly have a problem with it) it doesn't help the atheist a bit, because it only demonstrates that goodness can exist without God within the theistic context. It wouldn't really help an atheist establish the existence of moral realism within the worldview of atheism. You have to establish moral realism without mention of God or the supernatural at all. It might help you in an argument with a theist, but it still does not help you rationally justify moral realism. In other words, the theist can only come to the conclusion that good exists apart from God only because God has perfect knowledge of what is good. Our knowledge that goodness exists is still therefore rationally justified given our belief in an omniscient God who has perfect knowledge of goodness. The atheist has no independant grounds on which to even begin to make the claim that good exists.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.