NumberTenOx

Typhon,

Thanks for the post, I smiled all the way through it. We are in violent agreement, as they say. It's a limitation of the medium, I think, that we appear otherwise.

What I've been trying to do is understand Tercel, who seems intelligent and rational yet says things that make no sense to me. I think partly it's a fundamental difference in life experience. From Tercel's first post in this thread: "My own religious experiences are sufficiently convincing for me for my own belief." I personaly don't have any such experiences to contradict my atheism.

But, here on the board, we all meet in a logical realm. Tercel has not been arguing about his religious experience, he has been arguing against exactly what you posted; that believing in a subjective morality is logically inconsistent.

My reaction to this has been - I think - identical to yours. How dare he say I need to believe in God to be a moral person? I have, since I was 17 (I'm 43), understood that my feelings of morality have been shaped by evolution. Of course, atheists can be moral, can enjoy life and be productive members of society!
(And on a further note: my father died more than 20 years ago, but he was an interested, loving, wonderful person, and we had a great relationship. I hope that my son - a lurker on this board and a thoughtful, secure atheist - feels the same way about me.)

But... I still think that Tercel has a point. If you assume there is an absolute moral authority (please, just for a minute), then there is no question that your approach to morality is self consistent. If you believe there is no absolute moral authority, then there is no way to argue the ultimate morality of an action, right or wrong, without appealing to emotion, taking a poll, or some other completely subjective activity.

You and I say "So what?" We understand! We just concede the point: our morality is relative.

However let's be charitable, Tercel's morality is more logically, internally self-consistent. It is based on the assumption that there is an ultimate moral authority, and I don't agree with that assumption.

I'm not sure that we can take this line of argument any further? Maybe if we had a few pints of Guiness first?

[ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: NumberTenOx ]</p>

Philosoft

NTOx, if I may,

Do you think that simply assuming there is a metaphysical foundation for one's moral system is enough to give it greater logical consistency? Suppose I held the assumption that my morality was based on a particle called a moralitron that is emitted by giant monoliths buried far beneath the earth's surface. Does that make my moral system more logically consistent?

NumberTenOx

Philosoft,

Umm, yes, actually. I would agree with you that those are equivalent, internally consistent views.

Pomp

Tercel, Typhon, sheathe the claws, would you? This is(or, rather, is supposed to be) a friendly discussion.

Thanks, guys.

Philosoft

Curious. What is it about a mere claim that lends logical legitimacy? Does that not reduce the power of logical consistency to nothingness?

Typhon

Well ox,

You raise a good point.

I just for one, don’t think that morality is anything but a messy lot at best.

However, I’m sure you’re right that a lot of people think, even those who aren’t theists, that there is fundamental “right and wrong.” Why is this?

Partly, it’s because people tend to be rather monoculturally and locally focused. So, some of these folks just haven’t thought a lot outside their cultural sphere (which itself, is normally highly influenced by the local religions, which in turn are more often than not, chock full of such ambient absolutes).

Some folks however, do look outside their specific conditions, and still feel they can say something authoritative about what makes people good or bad, across all cultures or in spite of at least. They might argue that such a moral being has any number of qualities. Are they right? Perhaps.

Personally, if you started from a basis of totally committed empathy for all your fellow living creatures, applied the Golden Rule, made love, non-violence, tolerance, and understanding the four corners of your moral platform, you’d be pretty close to a perfectly “good,” universal (or at least pan-human) morality.

However, this is clearly, a type of philosophical, somewhat abstract sort of morality. Nothing wrong with that, one might say it is the highest type of morality at all, derived not from the superstitions and fears of gods, nor the blind necessities of natural selection, but from pure and perhaps unique to humans, philosophical reasoning. I’m not sure that most folks would follow it. Furthermore, I’m not sure that if we as a species always had in the past, we’d necessarily be here today.

But who knows, look at the differences between bonobos and chimps. The former are much more “moral” by such a standard, loving, cooperative, highly sexual, rarely if ever aggressive or violent with each other, compared to chimps who are far more “human” in their societies, waging war, killing each other, raping, expressing social hierarchies in brutal tactics of aggression, and in general, being more like the high-strung sobs we are (though they too, still spend more time and social interaction cooperating, grooming, and being nice to each other). Perhaps its just a roll of the dice that we didn’t come up through the savanna settling our social conflicts by waging love, instead of war.

Of course, there are I think, something like only 5,000 bonobos still living in the wild, and there are over 6 billion of us.

Anyway, getting back to the topic, perhaps you are right and we can, as in my above example, potentially agree on a universal system of right or wrong. However, I don’t choose to. In part, it’s because I don’t think its practical. I also know that it hasn’t always existed, and I don’t want to judge other cultures and other time periods too harshly by standards not their own.

Thoughts?

.T.

Pomp

Tercel,

I have two large points of contention with your thoughts as presented in this thread. I'll address them here.

First, you say:

Try proving the world exists and that we're not in a Matrix-like world for example! You can't prove it, yet you still live your life based on the assumption that the world really exists. Is that self deception? Why should then living your life based on the assumption that god exists be self deception?

Of course, we cannot prove that the Universe as we perceive it is real, but I think that there are a number of good reasons to operate under the assumption that it is, none of which apply to the assumption that a god of any sort exists.

I am fully cognizant of the fact that, in a very real sense, I am just a brain (or, rather, a consciousness) in a jar. I am conscious only of what I am conscious of, and I have no real control over what perceptions I become aware of; I am completely at the mercy of my jar. Whether my jar is a biological jar (i.e. my physical body, if it exists) feeding me data about a physical world or a technological jar feeding me data about a digital world or, in the case of The Matrix a biological jar feeding me the data being fed to it, in turn, by a technological jar, makes little difference to me because I have no way of knowing the difference. Note that, in any case, the data I am being fed, by its apparent consistency, seems to be a reliable representation of some world, even if it turns out to be an "imaginary" world, as in The Matrix.

This raises an interesting question: how do you know that your god hasn't created a "matrix" of his own? Why do you believe that he has actually created a physical world in which we interact, rather than creating an "imaginary" world populated by disembodied consciousnesses to which he feeds all the necessary data to create the impression that we are interacting in a physical world? Could you tell the difference? Does it matter? How would your actions change if you somehow discovered that you were contained in a divine jar rather than a biological jar? Is the Matrix (technological or divine) any less real to its inhabitants than our world is to us?

The parsimonious solution, in my view, is simply to assume the fewest number of jars between consciousness and reality that sufficiently explains perception. Until I see some evidence that my immediate jar is nested inside another jar, from which it is being fed data, I have no reason to believe that I am in the (technological) Matrix, although I am forced to admit that it is possible. This isn't self-deception, it's honesty.

What of a non-nested Matrix? Is it possible that I am an elaborate computer simulation of a being in a physical world, or a dream in the mind of god about a being in a physical world? Certainly but, as I've already implied, I don't think it matters. In either case, how could I ever tell the difference and how would my actions change even if I could? I believe that the world I perceive does exist because its actual existence is entirely epiphenomenal with regards to my behavior. Provided that the simulation (or dream) remains consistent, there is no difference between living in it and living in a real world. Again, this is not self-deception but, rather, an honest appraisal of the limits of my own ability to discern truth.

Your Xian god, on the other hand, is emphatically not epiphenomenal. Belief or non-belief in your god alters our actions in a significant manner. Such belief, therefore, is not a “safe” assumption, as is belief in the reality of the world we perceive.

My second point of contention:

Yeah evolution provides a great umbrella for "explanations" doesn't it? Anything where a person acts selfishly can be "explained" by the fact that this is an evolutionary advantage to procure the continuation of their own genes over that of others. Anything where a person acts unselfishly can be "explained" by the fact that this is an evolutionary advantage to procure the continuation of the genes of their species.

Not quite true. Species selection is largely discredited these days. At any rate, the point of evolutionary explanations is that, given the specific pressures of survival faced by social primates, neither complete selfishness nor complete selflessness are ideal strategies. Thus, we would expect human beings to be imperfect altruists and this is, in fact, just what we see.

ie Your statements should read:
With evolution we can explain anything.
Stuff's happened.
Therefore evolution can explain it.

I’m sorry, but this is one of the sillier comments I’ve seen recently. Any such criticism applies, in spades, to theories that involve a creator of any sort.

The creator could have created anything he/she/it wanted.
We see stuff.
Therefore, creation can explain it.

NumberTenOx

The way I see it, logic is like math. You make assumptions, you make deductions, you can be logically consistent.

I think that Typhon's viewpoint is more logically consistent than mine. He assumes a moral authority, he deduces a moral code, he is logically consistent. I assume there is no moral authority, yet I live by a moral code (umm, mostly), so I am logically inconsistent (perhaps it is a character flaw).

Of course, we are asked to prove our assumptions. I have yet to believe, as Tercel does, that the existance of a moral code requires the existance of a moral authority. And I see no real evidence of a moral authority. But I think that my actions, my following of my own myopic moral code, must be in a way inconsistent because I cannot point to a moral authority.

It's ultimately OK, in the face of uncertainty about the origin of all things, to say "I don't know." Understanding what you don't know is one step closer to discovering the answer. To say "I know, the answer is God" takes you one step back.

Thanks,
Ox

Philosoft

Agreed.

<strong> I assume you refer to Tercel and not Typhon here. The problem with his assumption of a moral authority is that the premise is either empty or circular. Either God simply defines what is right and what is wrong or the only way we know God's morals are intrinsically good is because he says they are.

<strong> You aren't giving yourself enough credit. You have accepted the theist definition of morality without challenge. It is not a necessary characteristic of a moral code that it must be given by a moral authority. Only if you accept that as one of your premises does your argument hold water.

<strong> You're on the right track then.

<strong> You're pretty dissonant here. You should be able to do something to reconcile these divergent opinions. Either moral codes don't require moral authorites or they do. If you really subscribe to the former, you should have no problem defeating your self-actualized inconsistency.

<strong> Well said.

Tercel

I’ve had a read through this thread, and I’d like to clear up some misunderstandings that seem to have arisen about my position and what it is I’m saying.

Well, firstly I haven’t actually been arguing any one argument in this thread so I’m not surprised NumberTenOx is slightly confused. But as far as my beliefs and purpose in this thread goes:

I am not trying to prove objective morality exists
I am not saying atheists are immoral
I am not saying you need to believe in god to be a moral person
I am not denying the truth of evolution
I accept that moral behaviour can be explained by evolution
I accept that society and evolutionary forces shape moral behaviour
I accept that different societies have different beliefs on what is right and wrong
I accept that not everyone has the same moral code
I accept that there is no single moral code which is blindingly obvious to everyone
I accept that the Bible has some not nice stuff happening in it
I accept that Christians haven’t always acted nice

I wanted to keep the discussion on track and avoid the above things, but to that end I have been unnecessarily curt with those posters who have brought them up. Pompous Bastard is right to reprimand me for my behaviour. Even further to this, I knew that responding in such a way was unhelpful and unloving. Yet accepting that it was so, I continued to deliberately post in such a way that was uncharitable simply because of my own feelings of annoyance. Such is unacceptable and I take full responsibility for my actions. I am sincerely sorry, and as such would like to apologise to all participants and readers of this thread but especially to Vorkosigan, Typhon and most especially Technos. Sorry for my behaviour.

There can of course be no excuse for my behaviour: I acted of my own will and to blame it on others is only to deny my own responsibility for my actions - which I will not do. However, in order to prevent such happening again, I humbly ask that posters take note of the points I listed above and endeavour to do their best not to argue against positions which are not being held. Typhon would also do well in my opinion to be less inflammatory in his posts, though having said and admitted to the above, I accept that I am hardly in a position to make suggestions on this matter.


Moving on to my arguments.
Primarily I have asserted three (sometimes overlapping) arguments in this thread. The difficultly of coherently maintaining three arguments at once without having the thread degenerate completely was the primary reason I attempted to keep discussion on track. (I say this as an explanation not an excuse)

1. That accepting objective morality entails the acceptance of God. My most complete statement of this argument came in my first post of this thread, and though it was discussed briefly it seems to have been dropped from discussion.

2. That if something does not exist forever it is meaningless. I made a mistake here: When I meant to introduce argument number 3, I gave this one instead. I still think this is a nice argument - it is the second main reason (of about five) why I believe Metaphysical Naturalism to be an untenable position. However it was actually completely unrelated to this thread and my introducing it served only to confuse things. (No wonder NumberTenOx has had a hard time understanding my position!)

3. NumberTenOx seems now to have fully understood this argument. The argument may be presented something like as follows:
It is stated by many atheists that morality can be derived and explained completely by evolution.
They believe there is not objective morality.
However they act as if objective morality exists.
This is inconsistent.

If I may rephrase in order to make sure I am not being misunderstood:
They have explained (via evolution or society or whatever) why they feel certain things are right or wrong. Yet they said that they do not believe certain things are actually right or wrong. Yet they act as if there are things which are actually right or wrong. Their actions are hence inconsistent with their beliefs.

What are possible responses to this? Well, the premise that the person acts as if there truly exist things which are actually right or wrong might be legitimately denied. I accept that there might be people out their who truly act out their beliefs in no objective morality consistently. I say: “Well done to such people, I have no complaint with you, please ignore me for the duration of this thread”.
To those who are left, I see no way to avoid the conclusion of inconsistency. However, it might reasonably asked just how powerful the charge of inconsistency is. A person might well simply accept that their application of their beliefs in this area is inconsistent and deny that such inconsistency was important. I cannot show they are wrong to do this, and so again they are free to go merrily on their way: Save that I would politely ask them to refrain from charges of inconsistency against Christianity in the future.

To those who are left, I will say that I personally view inconsistency of belief as something very important. This might be just me of course (It’s always intrigued me that the basic personality tests I have taken seem to turn up “desire for consistency of beliefs” among the list of things that characterise my personality type). However I must wonder what the point of having beliefs is if you aren’t going to apply them consistently. To this end I would say that given that non-objective morality cannot be applied consistently, that non-objective morality cannot therefore be believed in.


Finally, NumberTenOx says he is trying to understand why I believe in God. I’m not sure that is a sensible aim. I believe that my belief in God is supported by a large number of rational and evidential arguments of reasonable quality. I also believe that I base my acceptance of the truth of the proposition that God exists in a large part on the basis of these arguments. However, me believing that to be true does not make it the case. Not only might I be mistaken, but I also believe I base my acceptance of Christianity for the most part on the basis of my own experiences and the experiences of others which I have heard personally and read - all of which is unreproducible to you. To truly understand why I believe in God would require a complete understanding of my life, and of the influences up it, to a level which not even I have. But all this is getting a bit pedantic, I suppose.
Seriously, I really appreciate that you think I’m intelligent and rational and think it’s worth the effort to determine why I believe what I believe. I’m sorry if things I say don’t always make sense. It’s probably my fault for not explaining very clearly: I have a tendency to do intuitive thinking and assume everyone else agrees with me on my premises and go straight to the conclusion without bothering with the explain a lot of the logic behind it. I can understand things in my own mind but when asked to explain them I have a tendency to not be very good at explaining things. While this generally works well in the real world for giving me the correct answers to problems, it probably doesn’t help anyone who’s trying to follow my reasoning! I think (or at least I like to think) I’m becoming more aware of this problem and to this effect I’ll attempt to explain things better in future.


I hope this post serves to clarify any misunderstandings, I also reiterate my sincerest apologies for my behaviour in this thread.
Tercel

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]

[ June 12, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>