Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JGL53 · 07-10-2003, 01:32 PM

Keith, I was really looking forward to you explaining to me what all I've been missing by not believing in the christian god (or any god, for that matter) for the last 26 years. Likewise, I was also looking forward to you explaining what I've been missing for having no belief in any 'objective' moral standards associated with any god or supernatural religion for this same period of time.

So preach to me Keith - I'm all ears.

Keith?

Keith?

Keith · 07-10-2003, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth

"So, does this mean that you think that you interpret the bible "rightly and unselfishly"? Isn't that your subjective opinion of what the bible means? Doesn't "interpret" imply subjectivity? Don't others interpret parts of it differently than you? What makes your subjective interpretation more "objective" than the next guy's?

What it boils down to is your subjective interpretation of God (and his word) are your subjective standard for morality."

The fallacy you seem to be defending here, is that the mere existence of several diverse interpretations of some particular document means that there cannot be one, and only one, correct interpretation of it.

Keith · 07-10-2003, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DigitalChicken

"This is where we get into the aspects of Euthypro's Dilemma.

That is if I know that God is moral then clearly I already understood moral principles well enough to make that decision. If I can say "God is good because he is just, compassionate, etc" then I already know what good is apart from god. If so then I don't need God to know what is Good."

Your assumption is that "moral goodness" and God are really two separate things. I do not make that assumption, and when such an assumption is made, moral goodness becomes arbitrary.

[/QUOTE]"On the other hand, if I say that morals arise from god and don't exist apart from Him, then clearly I know what properties of God apply to morality and which are not. ("compassion","Forgiveness" as opposed "infinitness", "all-knowing") Clearly, we don't say that one needs to be "infinite" or "all knowing" to be moral but expressing compassion and forgiveness is commonly said to be part of moral frameworks. Thus, we still have to have knowledge of the properties of morality apart from god."[/QUOTE]

Again, you are just assuming that attributes such as compassion and forgiveness can exist without God. This has not been proven.

dangin · 07-10-2003, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith

Again, you are just assuming that attributes such as compassion and forgiveness can exist without God. This has not been proven.

Jesus Christ man! God has not been proven. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Ensign Steve · 07-10-2003, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by brighid
(just a note: I will be leaving shortly and won't return until Tuesday so I will be unable to answer outside of the next hour.)

By the way, brighid, if you get this in time, I hope you have a great trip.

Pyrrho · 07-10-2003, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by brighid
I think this is a terrible statement. One may be wrong, without being immoral. You can supply the wrong answer to a question, based upon the knowledge one has without being immoral.

There is a vast difference between, say, making a mistake in a mathematical problem, and believing things without bothering with evidence. The former is innocent, while the latter is not; the former is an honest mistake, while the latter is carelessness. If you really want to pursue this, perhaps we should start a new thread with this as the topic. But I will want you to read Clifford's essay, as he has already explained the position quite well.

http://ajburger.homestead.com/ethics.html

Quote:

Originally posted by brighid

I do agree that beliefs affect action and one should be careful about those beliefs, but then one should be judged by action as a result of those beliefs. If those beliefs don't result in immoral action can one be immoral for holding a misinformed, or ignorant belief?

First, I deny that people have beliefs that do not, in some way, affect their actions:

Quote:

For it is not possible so to sever the belief from the action it suggests as to condemn the one without condemning the other. No man holding a strong belief on one side of a question, or even wishing to hold a belief on one side, can investigate it with such fairness and completeness as if he were really in doubt and unbiassed; so that the existence of a belief not founded on fair inquiry unfits a man for the performance of this necessary duty.

Nor is it that truly a belief at all which has not some influence upon the actions of him who holds it. He who truly believes that which prompts him to an action has looked upon the action to lust after it, he has committed it already in his heart. If a belief is not realized immediately in open deeds, it is stored up for the guidance of the future. It goes to make a part of that aggregate of beliefs which is the link between sensation and action at every moment of all our lives, and which is so organized and compacted together that no part of it can be isolated from the rest, but every new addition modifies the structure of the whole. No real belief, however trifling and fragmentary it may seem, is ever truly insignificant; it prepares us to receive more of its like, confirms those which resembled it before, and weakens others; and so gradually it lays a stealthy train in our inmost thoughts, which may some day explode into overt action, and leave its stamp upon our character for ever.

http://ajburger.homestead.com/files/book.htm

Second, by being careless about what one believes, one is thereby being careless about the actions one will take. This is somewhat analogous to reckless driving; you would not tell us that only when someone is actually injured that the person was immoral, would you? Likewise, if one is careless about what one believes, the particular belief may not directly result in a bad consequence, but one is still risking bad consequences when one is careless about what one believes.

Quote:

Originally posted by brighid

One could believe in God and yet be an honest, forth right, good person in all other respects. Should these things be ignored in deference to his God belief to judge the individual immoral?

If someone is a murderer, but not a rapist or a thief, does that mean it is wrong to judge that person as immoral?

Quote:

Originally posted by brighid

Or should the individual be judged as mistaken?

As an atheist the same standard can be applied to you. Do you wish to be judged as immoral because you disbelieve in Gods? Are you more then your lack of belief?

That is not the same standard at all. It would only be the same standard if my "atheism" were based upon insufficient evidence; then it would be comparable. What I am saying is that people should believe all of those things, and only those things, for which they have sufficient evidence. ("Sufficient" evidence is a fairly complex idea, which Clifford starts discussing in the second section of his essay. If it helps, think of it this way: believe things in proportion to the evidence. So, the more evidence one has, the more certain one can reasonably be.)

Quote:

Originally posted by brighid

What if one has never been provided the opportunity to see other evidence, and all the evidence they have had the privilege of reviewing points to a God existing?

If there really were actual evidence that god existed, and one knew about it, and had no evidence that god did not exist, then one should believe. One would then be wrong to be an atheist, or even an agnostic, if there were very much evidence. That, however, is not likely to be an accurate description of any actual person, living or dead.

Of course, the direct outcome of my position is this: The default position, before any evidence on any subject is gathered or examined, is to be an agnostic about it. Only after one has evidence, pro or con, should one form a belief about it, whatever the subject matter might be.

Quote:

Originally posted by brighid

What about those people who have been indoctrinated, or brainwashed into believing something .. are they immoral because of it? Is a cult victim immoral for falling victim to mind control, social coercion, etc.?

Brighid

This idea of "indoctrination" and "brainwashing" would need to be fleshed out a bit. But whatever we say about such matters, if we are going to still hold them responsible for their actions, then they must still be responsible for their beliefs. This is because people always base their actions on their beliefs (along with their desires). It would be absurd to say that people may have the beliefs that result in their actions, but they may not do those actions caused by those beliefs.

From a later post:

Quote:

Originally posted by brighid
I would agree. However, all Christians do not hold the same beliefs and cannot be said to hold anything more then a belief in a specific God. Some people can self-identify themselves as "Christian" without believing in Christianity the religion (or the Bible) and hence the slippery slope in determining ALL Christians are this, that, or the other.

There is a difference between the set of those who call themselves "Christian" and those who are. I am speaking of Christians, not those who, for whatever reason, call themselves "Christian". And yes, one would need to be careful to not put someone into a category in which they do not belong.

(As a side comment, I wish you would not endorse the fallacy known as "slippery slope"." It is a fallacy, not good reasoning at all.)

Quote:

Originally posted by brighid

I am completely ignorant of quantum mechanics and therefore I have no opinion. I could however, hold false ideas (based on limited information I might have) about quantum mechanics and make a positive claims about QM and according to your reasoning this would make me immoral.

Brighid

It would depend upon the basis for your beliefs. One can make honest mistakes without being immoral. But, if you based your beliefs upon inadequate evidence, such as a rumor from someone who you have no reason to believe knows what he or she is talking about, then it would be wrong of you to believe whatever it is that you believe.

Mageth · 07-10-2003, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
The fallacy you seem to be defending here, is that the mere existence of several diverse interpretations of some particular document means that there cannot be one, and only one, correct interpretation of it.

OK, where is that one and only one correct interpretation; do you claim to know it and, if so, how do you (objectively) know it's the one and only one correct interpretation?

The fallacy you're making is in not recognizing that something one claims as a basis for an "objective" moral standard that has the attribute of being so vague as to be interpreted in countless diverse ways, with no one knowing the supposed correct interpretation except through their subjective opinion (resulting in countless "correct" interpretations), can hardly be put forth as truly being "objective".

Unless you can provide this "one, and only one, correct interpretation" and tell me how we can objectively determine that it is indeed the correct interpretation (your opinion is, of course, not objective), your claim that I'm defending a "fallacy" is baseless.

Mageth · 07-10-2003, 02:28 PM

Again, you are just assuming that attributes such as compassion and forgiveness can exist without God. This has not been proven.

As someone else mentioned, god has not been proven, and in addition it's not been proven (or even reasonably argued) that [a] god is necessary for attributes such as compassion and forgiveness to exist. ("A god" because, in addition to proving a god exists, one would also have to prove that your definition of God exists. Lotsa luck).

Keith · 07-10-2003, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ensign Steve

"Even if you could prove beyond a doubt that "atheism is stupid," it does not automatically follow that "christianity is not stupid."

And before you try to say again "That's not what I'm saying" this is what you said..."

Christianity is stupid/not stupid compared to what? How stupid is it? All I'm saying is that before calling a particular viewpoint "stupid" it might be a good idea to compare it against at least one other viewpoint.

Keith · 07-10-2003, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth

"The "morals" of the "world court" or consensus of most nations in the world is that terrorism is wrong, and our response should be to bring those responsible to justice. That seems pretty obvious (and we didn't need God to tell us that)."

Bring those responsible to justice? Who's justice? God's, George W's, Osama's?

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

07-10-2003, 01:32 PM	#81
JGL53 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Outer Mongolia Posts: 4,091	Keith, I was really looking forward to you explaining to me what all I've been missing by not believing in the christian god (or any god, for that matter) for the last 26 years. Likewise, I was also looking forward to you explaining what I've been missing for having no belief in any 'objective' moral standards associated with any god or supernatural religion for this same period of time. So preach to me Keith - I'm all ears. Keith? Keith?

07-10-2003, 02:28 PM	#88
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Again, you are just assuming that attributes such as compassion and forgiveness can exist without God. This has not been proven. As someone else mentioned, god has not been proven, and in addition it's not been proven (or even reasonably argued) that [a] god is necessary for attributes such as compassion and forgiveness to exist. ("A god" because, in addition to proving a god exists, one would also have to prove that your definition of God exists. Lotsa luck).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.