TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- This website is so ass-backwards it's funny
Pages (14): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 »

Sorry for the late reply. I had a thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Ok. First of all, none of the philosophers you mentioned are worth reading OVER Aquinas or Augustine. Modern theology hasn't hit some sort of wall just because it still promotes the readings of these two geniuses.

I'm not particularly inclined to defend the philosophy of Descartes or Kierkegaard against attacks from any direction, but come on: are you really going to pretend that the philosophy of Kant - and the almost prescient insight he had into a wide range of disciplines - doesn't at all eclipse the rather constrained (both in context and in scope) philosophy offered by Aquinas or Augustine? The latter two had influences on the trajectory of theological thought, sure, but that about covers it.

And - like I said - this speaks more to the poverty of theology than it does to the purported "genius" of these two thinkers. In their particular time and place, they were undoubtedly quite shrewd thinkers: in the field of medical science, we could say the same of Hippocrates and Pasteur. Still, medical science has progressed since their time: much of what they believed was false. Theology surely stands alone in promoting the timeless truth of beliefs held by 4th and 13th century thinkers.

quote:

It's like saying mathematics has hit a wall because we still teach pythagoras or the multiplication tables.

Although mathematics has progressed a great deal since that time, Pythagorean geometry and multiplication tables still have a certain objective, demonstrable truth supporting them. The same cannot be said for the theological claims of any time or place.

quote:

Essentials are essentials and I somehow doubt you've read much into either of those two men if you hold such a low opinion of their works.

I willingly admit that I've never read anything by them, but I have certainly read plenty of them. Still, even that is completely beside the point: if you feel that any of their work is worthy of special consideration then please post it here and I will be happy to respond. "Read this book" is - like I have already said - not a valid substitution for an argument.

quote:

I'm beginning to think all you're capable of doing is the usual internet nonsense of looking on Wikipedia, seeing one thing you don't like and then lumping it all into one "this isn't worth anything" category simply because you were too ignorant to give it a shot in the first place.

The onus really isn't upon me to research the claims that you've made. If the burden of proof lay - as a universal maxim - with the skeptical party then it would be practically impossible to disprove any claim. Give me some special insight posited by Kreeft (or Aquinas, or Augustine, or any of the other names you've dropped) and I will happily give them the special consideration that you've afforded them. Until then, I'm treating all your argument as one big "Courtier's Reply".

quote:

He's a republican, big deal! If you think that is a reason to not listen to someone, I am sorry but I am answering an ignorant fool.

I was only joking... kinda...

quote:

Also, I suspect you've taken Philosophy 101 at most if you are trying to claim that Thomas Aquinas' notions are "widely known" without actually offering a single one of them as evidence of this.

You'll be happy to know that I've never taken a philosophy class in my life, but I'm not really sure what the relevence of that is. Off the top of my head I'm familiar with Aquinas' notion of the "unmoved mover" (borrowed from Aristotle) or the more Platonic notion of there being a necessary source of perfection in the universe - both of which I'd be happy to address - but I couldn't address them any better than, say, Bertrand Russell (or any number of great thinkers) already have. Maybe I'd recommend that you should take a first year philosophy class so that you might become better exposed to these sorts of critical arguments that have existed for hundreds of years?

quote:

You've heard the name, big deal, I've heard of lots of Philosophers whom I know absolutely nothing about.

Oh, I don't doubt that for a second.

quote:

The difference between you and I is I've kept an open mind and have explored deeply both the atheist points of view and those of theists.

If you'd read my goodreads page you'd note that I've read two Christian apologetic books (Best Christian Writing of 2000 (which I picked up for 50c) and Twighlight of Atheism) in the past three months. What is the last atheist literature that you've read?

quote:

You claim you're after theist arguments, yet the ones I offer you (which have been used to pummel atheist mindsets into the ground time and time again, if you'd read Aquinas at all you'd realize this)

haha... I, um...

quote:

and you come up with any excuse you can not to find them valid... BEFORE EVEN READING OR LISTENING TO THEM!!!

I don't need an excuse. In any serious debate (which apparently precludes this one) it is not my responsibility to go to any great lengths to find out what your arguments are: you should be presenting them to me. If you are privy to arguments that "pummel atheist mindsets into the ground time and time again", this shouldn't really be a problem, should it?

quote:

This is classic fingers in the ears screaming NANANANANANANA stuff, I'd be more than happy to debate these things with you if you do truly have an open mind, but I feel these posts will go back and forth to no where. An actual conversation is the only way to regulate these types of things.

What's wrong with this format?

You've given me the same answers again, no surprise there. You also have not answered the only question I really wanted answered and that is if you wanted to discuss this further away from the boards where you can sound overly authoritative and conclusive given it takes a certain amount of time for the other person to read everything and determine what was BS and what wasn't.

Fine, we'll call it a wash then. Just please indulge me by answering this one question:

Specifically which theological arguments are you familiar with that "have been used to pummel atheist mindsets into the ground time and time again"?

LOL, theist / atheist brawl!

Hint: Debate is for primarily formulating policy, discussion has a very different mindset. But it's probably pointless to mention this on PDD .

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Fine, we'll call it a wash then. Just please indulge me by answering this one question: Specifically which theological arguments are you familiar with that "have been used to pummel atheist mindsets into the ground time and time again"?

The morality argument?

quote:

Originally posted by Alex The morality argument?

What, that morality cannot be explained without recourse to the existence of a divine being? Could you expand on this a little please?

im sorry i didn't click on this thread until now. awesome logic renegade (as usual). that philosophy 101 class you didn't take sure helped a lot

Well I would rather we discuss this over IM or something because PDD seems to be at the very least 99% atheist or agnostic but ok;

The morality argument is an interesting one to me because it raises quite a few questions, not all of which I have an answer to obviously but I can say what I currently believe anyway:

A popular Atheist argument is that morality or moral values are mere conventions. Some atheists reduce the entire notion of morality to something as simple as which side of the road one country drives on, mere human convention and nothing more.

To me this makes very little sense, as if the idea were true we as humans would have absolutely no reason to act morally most of the time. Why act moral when it conflicts with your self interests? It often does doesn't it? Not to mention the notion that morality is (in my view) independent of the basic human belief system, that is to say that if genocide was committed during a conflict and the one committing the genocide eventually went on to win the war, brainwash the people and convince them all what was done had been in fact good, it would still be wrong.

Theism also dictates as we well know that there is a God and that morality is ultimately created and dictated by him. According to Thomas Aquinas God is the being that set forth the universe into motion, but not to move in circles. God set the universe on a course, more specifically mankind is on a course of some sort. The course is ultimately ending at our ascension to a status similar to that of God. Now I know there was just a lot of philosophy there but what I'm trying to point out is that according to theism there is an ultimate goal and therefore our actions here on earth have to be held to a standard. We have to be held accountable by a standard that is set forth by the ultimate moral and just being because if left to our own devices no one would ever be accountable to anyone because there simply would be no standard.

quote:

Contrast this with the atheistic hypothesis. First, if atheism is true, objective moral values do not exist. If God does not exist, then what is the foundation for moral values? More particularly, what is the basis for the value of human beings? If God does not exist, then it is difficult to see any reason to think that human beings are special or that their morality is objectively true. Moreover, why think that we have any moral obligations to do anything? Who or what imposes any moral duties upon us?

Response:

quote:

The position of the modern evolutionist . . . is that humans have an awareness of morality . . . because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth . . . . Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says 'Love they neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves . . . . Nevertheless, . . . such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory . . . .

Ok so that brings us to the obvious argument of the herd morality. The argument summed up rather quickly is that of humanity's evolutionary need to establish it's own "morality" or as I prefer to call it a "mentality" in order to ensure it's survival in the world. But I don't think this explains everything, actually I think it explains very little. Atheists do not believe in a God or a Godly law maker therefore how is moral obligation important?

quote:

The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that, in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well.

Now an atheist would describe humanity or human kind as just another species. We are not special, we simply play our part in the world like the animals do. I'm sorry, this simply does not make sense to me. Theists and atheists have a mutual understanding of the basic rights and wrongs in our world. We should not murder, we should not steal and we should not lie to each other. Why the hell would it matter if we did these things if we were just like the other creatures on earth? Which brings me back to the accountability argument (with a new twist): The morality argument is tied in with the life after death notions of theists. If, as some atheists believe, there is simply nothing after our death, then why would any person act in a moral manner during their life time? What purpose would it serve in the long run? Actually, given there is no long run, it most likely (in my view) serves no purpose whatsoever to be a moral person or to abide by any sort of natural norm. Fyodor Dostoyevsky put it quite nicely in my opinion: "If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted."

That's all I've got time for right now sadly, I will of course read your response and do my best to answer the questions (as I'm sure there will be plenty, we both seem to be fans of the Socratic Method)

I quoted stuff from these two guys:

Michael Ruse
&
Richard Taylor

now, i won't pretend to have anywhere near the breadth of knowledge nor depth of understanding as renegade, but i'll give it a crack anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Well I would rather we discuss this over IM or something because PDD seems to be at the very least 99% atheist or agnostic but ok;

screw IM, im enjoying your posts

quote:

Originally posted by Alex To me this makes very little sense, as if the idea were true we as humans would have absolutely no reason to act morally most of the time. Why act moral when it conflicts with your self interests? It often does doesn't it?

i think this is a little misguided. whilst atheists might not agree that morality comes from god, there are many many reasons why acting "morally" can (and is) seen as the right thing to do. as you mentioned, such "conventions" allow human beings to co-habit together without constantly being at each other's throats. not killing or not stealing etc have a rather inherent positive effect on the rest of society.

why do we need an absolutist deity to dictate what is wrong or right to us, when such concepts are deduced with reason? even if you are correct in asserting that a lack of god means that there is no "reason" not to act improperly whilst fulfilling our own selfish desires, why does "morality" have to be an immutable concept in the first place? surely what is wrong/right can be determined by the individual/society/culture at the time? yes, it can be argued (and has been by arbiter and shaolin in a recent thread) that there is no objective sense of morality, and actions are not inherently bad or good. but i am just left with "so?"

social constraints, even if they are misguided or incorrect, still act as a medium for dictating acceptable behaviour. whether they are supported by the will of god (or not) doesn't seem particularly important to me. what IS important is that we have structures and cultural norms that inform the individual on what is and isn't acceptable behaviour.

dawkins makes a compelling argument when he says that morality derived from, say, the bible is really just a process where mankind has used reason to decide what is and isn't right. there are a multitude of conflicting ideas in the bible, how are we to determine what is right in the face of such contradictions? we use our rational mind! there is no need for a reference, because we pick and choose which parts of that reference have meaning and which do not. morality expressed in the bible is merely a representation of our own concepts "we" believed at the time of writing. i for one do not consider homosexuality immoral, but god supposedly does. do i need him to decide what is wrong or right? nope.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Theism also dictates as we well know that there is a God and that morality is ultimately created and dictated by him.

but which dictation should we be paying attention to? the god that says forgive and forget, or the god that cruelly punishes those for the smallest of transgressions? it is ludicrous to suggest that human beings did not have a sense of morality before god chose to illuminate us.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex According to Thomas Aquinas God is the being that set forth the universe into motion, but not to move in circles. God set the universe on a course, more specifically mankind is on a course of some sort. The course is ultimately ending at our ascension to a status similar to that of God. Now I know there was just a lot of philosophy there but what I'm trying to point out is that according to theism there is an ultimate goal and therefore our actions here on earth have to be held to a standard. We have to be held accountable by a standard that is set forth by the ultimate moral and just being because if left to our own devices no one would ever be accountable to anyone because there simply would be no standard.

but what if tomorrow, you discovered there really was no god. would you really behave any differently because there was no objective, all-powerful standard? i don't think you would. what keeps us "moral" when left to our own devices is our own internal moral compass. even if it isn't objective or inherently correct, i don't see that it has to be. cultural norms prevent us from acting however we wish, and when they don't prevent, then we are punished by them.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Ok so that brings us to the obvious argument of the herd morality. The argument summed up rather quickly is that of humanity's evolutionary need to establish it's own "morality" or as I prefer to call it a "mentality" in order to ensure it's survival in the world. But I don't think this explains everything, actually I think it explains very little. Atheists do not believe in a God or a Godly law maker therefore how is moral obligation important?

you've answered your own question. moral obligation is important because it allows us to survive in the world. even if there were no "godly laws", why would it matter? do you really think people would be off running amok? as an atheist, i do not believe in ultimate judgement, but i still manage to be a decent person. i don't believe in god nor god's laws, so how do you think im able to behave "nicely" to my fellow man? good socialisation, a rational mind and the belief that i shouldn't do harm to others, because i do not wish harm to befall me.

i hope that you note that i haven't even touched on the subject of how much damage those preaching the word of the lord have done to their fellow man. in this sense, i find the concept of god = morality to be deeply disingenuous.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Now an atheist would describe humanity or human kind as just another species. We are not special, we simply play our part in the world like the animals do. I'm sorry, this simply does not make sense to me. Theists and atheists have a mutual understanding of the basic rights and wrongs in our world. We should not murder, we should not steal and we should not lie to each other. Why the hell would it matter if we did these things if we were just like the other creatures on earth?

i think you're using a brush that's a little too broad. personally, i believe we're a superior species to the rest of the known creatures. which is why i have no problem ordering a big mac. if animals were able to make laws that would prevent them from killing each other, then perhaps they would? but, as lesser beings, they are governed merely by instinct, not rationality or significant intelligence.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Which brings me back to the accountability argument (with a new twist): The morality argument is tied in with the life after death notions of theists. If, as some atheists believe, there is simply nothing after our death, then why would any person act in a moral manner during their life time? What purpose would it serve in the long run? Actually, given there is no long run, it most likely (in my view) serves no purpose whatsoever to be a moral person or to abide by any sort of natural norm. Fyodor Dostoyevsky put it quite nicely in my opinion: "If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted."

why does there have to be a "purpose"? as ive already stated, im an atheist and i dont go around raping or murdering anyone. where do you think my concept of right/wrong derives if not from god? and since i do not believe or fear him, why aren't i running crazily through the streets fulfilling my every evil desire?

in an objective sense, all things MIGHT be permitted. but that doesn't mean that everyone would like to engage in sadism, nor that a lack of inherent moral truth means we can act how we like. we form societies, and societies have rules. these rules dont need an inherent religious basis to function or become generally accepted.

oooh, time for another beer and by beer, i mean girly vodka drink.

Ok you've touched on a point that I forgot to really get into.

You brought up the notion that, because you are an atheist and you don't murder people or rape women that the theist theory of divine law is flawed because you don't believe in God.

You also mentioned that morality existed before God passed down his biblical teachings, or at least that's what I think you meant. Well of course it did! While the Bible states that many men lead wicked and evil lives at the time, no where does it say that it is the origin of morality. As a theist I believe that god was the immaterial entity that put the universe in motion, therefore I believe that he instilled morality into man long before he informed Moses of the 10 commandments in Exodus. Both Genesis and Exodus tell tales of men who existed before the 10 commandments that lead good and moral lives, so it seems silly to me to believe that God created morality during biblical times. The bible serves as both a reminder and a moral guide, but the writers did not copy down the invention of morality, and God certainly (in my view) existed prior to the bible. (No I'm not a fundamentalist that believes Genesis is purely factual)

I assume, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that your world view is that of a naturalist. Most atheists are naturalists, and naturalism is the counter-argument to most theist views on morality. A naturalist would agree with your view on finality in death, which raises a huge number of questions in my mind.

Why would human beings care about being morally good, to survive? To prosper? Why survive or prosper when the fruits of your labor end, finitely, at death? What exactly have you accomplished?

If you still believe in the prosperity theory, what about the ultra rich? They have achieved power and great wealth, why should they care about doing what is morally right? Rich people have the ability to just sit back and self indulge all day long, for the rest of their lives. Of course there is the argument that being socially moral is beneficial simply because it makes us feel good, self-gratification so to speak... But surely there are easier ways to feel good about one's self? Why does a man like Bill Gates who has billions of dollars donate so much to charity? Why does he work so hard for kids dying in Africa? The man could just sit back and self indulge all he wants, and don't tell me it's for the tax write offs because he is well beyond caring about that.

So this brings us to the question of self-sacrifice. This could mean a number of things, it could mean literally sacrificing yourself for another person, which by a naturalist's (or survivalist's) point of view is BEYOND impractical... Or it could mean simply sacrificing our time, our hard earned money, or our feelings to better someone else' life. Self-Sacrifice is stupid, according to the naturalist's view. To an animal it might serve a purpose, but to humanity it really does not serve any purpose whatsoever to sacrifice our life for another or to really give a shit about "doing the right thing" as more often than not, it simply does not serve our purposes.

The separation between humans and animals is defined in our morality. Lions can steal food from one another, just as they can kill one another and it wont be seen as wrong or morally wrong by the other lions it is simply a means to survive. So why then, in an atheist view, would theft or murder be considered wrong amongst humans? "I killed him because I wanted his job, I wanted his job because I wanted more money". How many things are wrong in that statement? Why are they wrong according to an atheist? If humans are simply smarter animals with the herd morality as their basis for standard behavior, why is murder with purpose wrong? Why is theft with purpose wrong?

We haven't even mentioned the society factor, which is much more recent (IE: biblical times). I don't mean to say that because of the bible, societies came into existence. My point is simply that, passed down through the ages, our sense of morality has taken form as a result of the specific directions of a purely moral, purely justified entity (God) that for the good of mankind, reminded us of the morality he instilled in us in the first place. A morality (in my view) far different from the survival instincts of an animal.

bump

quote:

Originally posted by Alex A popular Atheist argument is that morality or moral values are mere conventions. Some atheists reduce the entire notion of morality to something as simple as which side of the road one country drives on, mere human convention and nothing more.

I'm sorry, but this really isn't true. Atheists agonise over moral decisions as much as any person of faith and it's difficult to take you seriously when you claim otherwise. In fact, in the absense of any prevailing moral tradition to fall back on in the event of a genuine moral quandry, it could be argued the atheist is probably more likely to agonise over his decision than a person of faith, who has the far simpler option availble to him of simply aligning his own moral beliefs with that of some centralised religious dogma. The atheist has no such luxury, hence the emphasis in atheistic existentialism on concepts like "responsibility" and "authenticity" in the context of moral choice: as Sartre put it, "In defining myself, I choose for all men, since I affirm the value of what I choose".

In practice, of course, I don't think that moral decisions come any more or less easily to an atheist than to a believer and I believe that religious affiliation (or lack thereof) is an incredibly poor predictor of moral behaviour. For me, that is no problem: I do not claim that my theological disposition privilages me in the making of moral decisions. For those who claim that a religious affiliation is important in the making of moral decisions, however (including yourself, presumably), then the complete lack of universal correlation between religious beliefs and predilection towards moral behaviour is something that you might find a little awkward to explain.

quote:

To me this makes very little sense, as if the idea were true we as humans would have absolutely no reason to act morally most of the time. Why act moral when it conflicts with your self interests? It often does doesn't it?

It depends on the context. In an evolutionary sense, our minds have been molded for existence in relatively small social groups. Here, in this context, there is a high probability that moral behaviour will be reciprocated in kind and that there are likely to be eventual benefits for treating other group members well. In our closest primate relatives, for instance, we needn't revert to divine arguments to explain the self-effacing behaviour exhibited by chimpanzees during the act of grooming. When one chimpanzee sits down to groom another, he / she is sacrificing time and energy now (which could be spent eating, or mating, or engaging in any other type of activity that would confer an immediate benefit) in exchange for important social benefits later. A member of this social group who does not act morally towards others (or who does not reciprocate the moral behaviour of others) cannot expect to be treated well in the future. This is the origin of human morality, predicated (by evolutionary necessity) on principles of "self-interest".

However, depending on what you mean by "act morally", then in an urban setting - where the majority of interactions we have are with people who will not have the opportunity to reciprocate our behaviour in kind - then yes, under certain circumstances it could be argued that moral behaviour in this context is at odds with direct self-interest. It needs to be said, though, that positing the existence of a god does nothing to solve this problem. In either case, the threat involved is merely a punitive one and in either case the likelihood of that threat ever being carried out is entirely ambiguous.

For instance, in a Christian context, would stealing someone's TV land me in hell? What if I didn't actually believe in hell? What if I repented after the fact? What if I believed in the Evangelical notion of salvation without works (or, in this case I suppose, deeds)? In any of these cases (which - when added together - would probably amount to the beliefs held by the majority of Christians) there is not even the threat of punitive retribution, so what incentive is there - on the basis of self-interest - for the average Christian to act morally?

quote:

Theism also dictates as we well know that there is a God and that morality is ultimately created and dictated by him.

That "morality is ultimately created and dictated" by God - even if such a proposition were true - solves nothing in the conext of our current debate. You're essentially arguing that God simply declares that which is moral by fiat, backed up with the punitive threat of damnation for those who transgress, and that is as far as our curiosity into the matter should extend. I have three major objections to this.

The first is that any punitive system of morality - no matter how universal or absolute - offers no solution to the problems you're posing: that is, why we should strive at all to be moral (the threat of punitive retribution aside) and what it is that makes something moral in the first place. That a divine being has the power to invent moral laws on a whim and punish transgressions accordingly offers no solution. A state - it should be pointed out - has these exact same powers (though, obviously, to a more constrained degree) but that says nothing about whether the laws it invents can be said with any certainty to be "moral". If, to use your example, god were to declare genocide to be moral under certain conditions (as he is depicted as doing in the OT) then, by that logic, we could have no objections.

Secondly, there is the not so small consideration as to what, exactly, the nature of God's moral dictates might be. It goes without saying that different religions (and even different denominations within the same religion) come to different conclusions on this issue and regardless of what rationalisations you invoke to escape this reality, we're left with the inescapable conclusion that divinely inspired morality is still at least partially dependent on the faculties of human reason, judgement and interpretation (whether this takes the form of theology, textual exegesis, philosophy or anything else). To the extent that moral theology is subject to the constraints of human volition, the theist is in no more privilaged a position than the atheist in terms of staking claim to absolute moral insight.

Finally - and most importantly, in my opinion - I refer you to the argument posed by Socrates in Plato's Euthyphro. I won't quote the whole thing (the relevant passages can be found here) but the question is, essentially, is something considered holy because it is loved by the gods, or is something loved by the gods because it is holy? Or, rephrased for the context of this discussion, is a given action considered moral because it is favoured by God, or is a given action favoured by God because it is moral?

If a given action considered moral because it is favoured by God, then this is nothing more than an example of "morality by fiat" that I argued against in my first point and the same arguments still stand. If a given action is favoured by God because it is moral, then we have some admission of moral standards existing independently of God, which poses the question of why God is at all necessary to the discussion of morality in the first place. I'd be genuinely interested to know which side of the fence you'd take on this question.

quote:

According to Thomas Aquinas God is the being that set forth the universe into motion, but not to move in circles. God set the universe on a course, more specifically mankind is on a course of some sort. The course is ultimately ending at our ascension to a status similar to that of God.

But neither you or Aquinas can offer any proof for this proposition, much less "know" that it is true. Again we find ourselves dumped at the feet of human imagination, without any reliable insight at all into the nature of the absolute.

quote:

Now I know there was just a lot of philosophy there but what I'm trying to point out is that according to theism there is an ultimate goal and therefore our actions here on earth have to be held to a standard. We have to be held accountable by a standard that is set forth by the ultimate moral and just being because if left to our own devices no one would ever be accountable to anyone because there simply would be no standard.

We are held to standards, though. There are generally consequences for immoral behaviour, whether those consequences are legal or social (i.e. in the form of ostracism or something more severe) in nature. The consequences of transgressing divine law are typically held to be much more severe than the consequences of transgressing secular law, but that is a distinction of degree rather than kind. In either case, simply positing the existence of a god does not give us any unique, objective insight into how (or why) we are to treat each other "morally", beyond the threat of punitive retribution.

quote:

Contrast this with the atheistic hypothesis. First, if atheism is true, objective moral values do not exist. If God does not exist, then what is the foundation for moral values? More particularly, what is the basis for the value of human beings? If God does not exist, then it is difficult to see any reason to think that human beings are special or that their morality is objectively true.

I disagree, and have already argued for the existence of objecive morality in this recent thread. Specifically:

quote:

The truth value of a moral claim lies in the objective consequences of the actions it gives rise to. If the acting out of a moral belief can be objectively demonstrated to cause suffering, for instance, then we have to reject its claim to being a "moral" belief in the first place. Consequentially, beliefs and actions cannot in themselves be moral or immoral, but must rather be judged entirely by the consequences they arrive upon other human beings. [...] Let's say I believe (as I happen to) that my getting poked in the eye is likely to lead to suffering on my part. I don't disagree that such an assertion is entirely subjective: no-one else can make such a judgement for me, and that judgement is therefore inherently subjective in construction. However, the second you poke me in the eye and I start crying like a little girl, my suffering is no longer subjective: it is an objective fact, apprehensible to anyone who happens to possess functioning mirror-neurons. Given the universality of the human anatomy, I can therefore project my suffering onto others and argue that - as an objective rule of thumb - poking people in the eye leads to suffering and is therefore something we should seek to avoid during the natural course of daily affairs.

I'm happy to expand on this if you wish.

quote:

Now an atheist would describe humanity or human kind as just another species. We are not special, we simply play our part in the world like the animals do. I'm sorry, this simply does not make sense to me.

We are ("just") a species of animal, though. Whether it makes sense to you or not, this simple proposition cannot be denied without denying basic, observable fact. That all animals are our evolutionary cousins and share many of our faculties is not a reason to treat other human beings badly, it's a reason to animals well.

quote:

Fyodor Dostoyevsky put it quite nicely in my opinion: "If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted."

Coincidentally, I'm currently reading the novel (the Brothers Karamazov) that this (mis)quote originated from.

More pertinently, I actually happen to believe the exact opposite. If we were to base our morality on the objective metric of human suffering (and - more importantly - actually lived by that standard) then I'm struggling to think of any moral transgression that could not be reliably denounced. If, however, we posit the existence of a god as the sole prescriber and arbiter of moral norms, then - ironically - the determination of moral transgressions becomes much more ambiguous and our condemnation of such transgressions become necessarily shrouded with superfluous qualifications.

When you no longer have to justify actions in the context of human suffering but can rather just point to some "higher" set of principles (pertaining to God or country, usually) as justification for your actions, then no amount of human suffering is relevent to the determination of the morality of said actions. The men behind the September 11th attacks justified their actions on the belief that they were carrying out "God's will" - on what grounds can we then say that they acted wrongly? Fellow Muslims (or believers of any other faith, for that matter) can simply argue that they were "mistaken" in their beliefs, as though the 3,000 deaths they caused were merely the result of faulty exegesis or an overly naive application of theology, but in making these concessions we let them off too lightly.

Their failure was in treating the suffering of human beings as a means to an end, not an end in itself. Theologians may denounce the actions of fringe-dwellers in their respective faiths, but they share that common fallacy: if the favour of God is the ultimate justification for every action, then no action can be reliably denounced to the extent that it can be said to have won the favour of God. This is what Dawkins, Harris, et al. mean when they say that moderate religious belief facilitates fundamentalist religious belief: if theologians propogate the notion that only God may decide what is moral, then - given the absense of any possibility of knowing the mind of God - we have no objective metric upon which to denounce the lunacy of religious fundamentalists.

Fatuous claims to privilaged theological information aside, if God does exist, then - and only then - can we say that "all things are permitted". Basic human decency is sufficient to denounce the rest.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Their failure was in treating the suffering of human beings as a means to an end, not an end in itself. Theologians may denounce the actions of fringe-dwellers in their respective faiths, but they share that common fallacy: if the favour of God is the ultimate justification for every action, then no action can be reliably denounced to the extent that it can be said to have won the favour of God. This is what Dawkins, Harris, et al. mean when they say that moderate religious belief facilitates fundamentalist religious belief: if theologians propogate the notion that only God may decide what is moral, then - given the absense of any possibility of knowing the mind of God - we have no objective metric upon which to denounce the lunacy of religious fundamentalists.

awesome.

Religion is just simply stupid!

quote:

Originally posted by Lemonad Religion is just simply stupid!

Thank you for that enlightening statement.

Sorry Renegade I haven't had time to respond yet, it's coming! Just bogged down with school and more school and ya... school.

To: Renegade (all the things I quote are from your post, if it's got " " it's from an outside source)

quote:

then the complete lack of universal correlation between religious beliefs and predilection towards moral behaviour is something that you might find a little awkward to explain. [/QUOUTE] Ok, so, this you just simply made up. You mentioned you had C.S. Lewis' book on order or something, I suggest you read it before even trying to defend this argument again because you will quickly realize the number of things wrong with it. I'll point out the obvious one, which is from a culture standpoint that is of course either directly or indirectly affected by religious beliefs worldwide: The fact that there is no notable society on Earth that looks favorably upon thieves, murderers, rapists, cheats etc is evidence enough that while religious practices worldwide may vary, there IS a strong correlation. So if humans simply came up with their own notions, obviously separated by miles and miles of land/seas/mountains etc, of morality then surely there would be more variation? Would we not be seeing to this day a society that freely allowed it's citizens to kill each other at will? I'm sorry but to try and claim that if religion of any kind had not been part of humanity's progression that people would have simply come up with their own morality system is foolish. What would it have been based on? If you want to return to the animal example, fine, but as a well read person you must understand that humans do not have animal instincts surely? And to claim that a worldwide invention of morality is somehow our animal minds triggering a survival mechanism is beyond foolish. You have to look no further than the example of a child and his/her parents: A child needs to be taught EVERYTHING, whereas my pet dog who was taken from it's mother at only 2 or 3 months of age knows how to eat, drink, chase squirrels, bark at strangers, dig holes in my backyard and hide things, clean his own wounds, roll over on his back when he needs to submit (to my epic alpha-male-ness ) etc etc. Whereas a baby of a proportionate age, if taken from it's mother and then stuck in a room with food, water, exercise equipment and books would not be able to develop. Morality is tradition, and all tradition begins somewhere, I argue that it begins with God and that it has been passed down. The fact of the matter is we have a justice system (moral system) that IS based in religion, to speculate as to the possibility that humanity could have or would have come up with their own system is something else entirely. Our morality is passed down to us and was solidified and originated in one form of belief in God or another. [QUOTE]For instance, in a Christian context, would stealing someone's TV land me in hell? What if I didn't actually believe in hell? What if I repented after the fact? What if I believed in the Evangelical notion of salvation without works (or, in this case I suppose, deeds)? In any of these cases (which - when added together - would probably amount to the beliefs held by the majority of Christians) there is not even the threat of punitive retribution, so what incentive is there - on the basis of self-interest - for the average Christian to act morally?

Alright, I'm impressed that you dare travel into more theological waters here, and you seem to have a very basic understanding of Protestant beliefs. I am not a Protestant, however I do understand their theology quite well, so I'll try to clear this up as best I can. Stealing a TV probably would land you in hell if you simply didn't think it was wrong to do so, despite having been taught otherwise. However, as a Catholic I believe that through a GENUINE (emphasis on Genuine) repentance you would be able to return to God's favor. That being said, it isn't an easy task and because I do not believe in faith alone that person would have to work towards their salvation and not just steal more TVs and ask for more forgiveness. Now, an Evangelical (which could mean any number of Protestant denominations by the way) believes that Scripture alone and Faith alone will earn him salvation. This is an idea of the Calvinist train of thought which was actually originated with Luther. I believe that it's a bunch of nonsense and goes against scripture, and there is endless evidence in my favor. The fact that the protestant bible simply omits section after section of things they found were contrary to their new belief system is evidence enough that Faith alone and Scripture alone are concepts that have grown out of an original misconception. So you brought up some ok points, but when you claimed there was no threat of punitive retribution I sort of went "huh?" I don't see how your train of thought lead you there at all. Do you believe that Christians don't respect the laws of THIS world and are only concerned about what the higher power thinks? God always taught that following the law was extremely important in the long run and there is evidence of that in every single book of the bible, you need only open to any page and see that. Additionally though, Christians DO answer to a higher power and of course that is their primary concern when making moral choices. In the Christian mindset, our lives here are merely a test and that our true lives begin upon our deaths, therefore I return to my first point: If I believe in an all knowing, all powerful God that can read me like a book and see through every lie I tell others or to myself, it requires a truly GENUINE act of repentance to return to his good favor, and true repentance requires a complete 180 so to speak in how I go about making moral decisions from that point on, it's not an open system like ours on earth. IE: You break the law, you go to jail. You lie to the parole board and say you're different, 6 months later you're back in jail, you get out, a year later you're back in... Etc etc. When dealing with God's favor, it is not finite while on earth, but upon our deaths it becomes a 100% finite decision as to whether or not you truly lead a good life or whether you truly were sorry for the horrible things you did and asked forgiveness for.

Now, I was going to stop there, but then I read this bunch of nonsense you came up with that didn't really seem all that relevant to what we were originally talking about :

quote:

When you no longer have to justify actions in the context of human suffering but can rather just point to some "higher" set of principles (pertaining to God or country, usually) as justification for your actions, then no amount of human suffering is relevent to the determination of the morality of said actions. The men behind the September 11th attacks justified their actions on the belief that they were carrying out "God's will" - on what grounds can we then say that they acted wrongly? Fellow Muslims (or believers of any other faith, for that matter) can simply argue that they were "mistaken" in their beliefs, as though the 3,000 deaths they caused were merely the result of faulty exegesis or an overly naive application of theology, but in making these concessions we let them off too lightly. Their failure was in treating the suffering of human beings as a means to an end, not an end in itself. Theologians may denounce the actions of fringe-dwellers in their respective faiths, but they share that common fallacy: if the favour of God is the ultimate justification for every action, then no action can be reliably denounced to the extent that it can be said to have won the favour of God. This is what Dawkins, Harris, et al. mean when they say that moderate religious belief facilitates fundamentalist religious belief: if theologians propogate the notion that only God may decide what is moral, then - given the absense of any possibility of knowing the mind of God - we have no objective metric upon which to denounce the lunacy of religious fundamentalists.

Now are we really going to just sit here and assume that the people who instigated the 9/11 attacks were doing so based purely on religion? What a bunch of bollocks. It was a political attack, not a religious one, and any one with any common sense can see that. Now as for the people in the planes, the actual hijackers, I imagine some of them knew as well that the attack was POLITICAL in nature and not simply a matter of Islam vs The USA. The hijackers WERE mistaken, and just because you add the word "merely" before your point about them being mistaken in their exegesis doesn't make that claim at all wrong. Both the Bible and the Qu'ran have been used to justify heinous deeds, and that is because both books suffer from the same condition Jesus Christ did. They are both divine and human. The Bible and the Qu'ran are works inspired by the word of God, an insight into his plan that we can only begin to understand, and they are also written by human beings like ourselves. So I refer you to the point of all this again, a person can interpret the Bible incorrectly and it's moral teachings and do something that the vast majority of Christians think is wrong. Just like a regular member of society can stand up in court and justify why he killed his wife, but the jury, the judge, the media and all those following that said case can reject his reasoning and condemn him anyway. Now, how can we say he is wrong? After all, according to Atheists laws are a man made invention open to the authority of mankind only, so while we all believe he is wrong and we interpret our law in such a way that says he is wrong, he still thinks he's right. That is where the authority of a higher power ultimately comes into play that will, in the end, decide whether the action of our wife killer or those of the 9/11 instigators and hijackers were wrong. The deaths of 3000 innocents is tragic, but as a Christian I believe that those people are probably now in a far better place and it is something I pray for on a frequent basis.

Your point:

quote:

no action can be reliably denounced to the extent that it can be said to have won the favour of God

Does not make any sense. Of course it can, and I disproved this notion in my comparison of the misinterpretation of the bible vs the misinterpretation of the legal system. The vast majority of Christians adhere to a Bible that is more or less the same on the most important issues, yes Sola Scriptura and Faith Alone are issues that have put a wedge in common Christianity but ultimately they do not affect the Christian man or woman's interpretation of the most basic of concepts in the Bible. IE: The 10 commandments, and the commandment Jesus taught "Love thy neighbor as you love yourself". The supporters of the 9/11 attacks used the argument of a "Just war" to defend the actions of the hijackers, saying it was merely an act of war that resulted in the atrocity that was 9/11 and therefore God would not frown upon it. I can argue until I'm blue in the face about this, but both me and countless devout Muslim friends of mine have poured over hundreds of pages of both the Old and New Testament as well as the Qu'ran in search of anything that would indicate that their position was justified and we haven't been able to find anything that (from a religious standpoint) could POSSIBLY have lead them to genuinely believe what they were doing was right. As I said, the 9/11 attacks were political and religious extremism/fundamentalism is something that gets people very fired up about politically.

In regards to your statement about moderates acting as a gateway to fundamentalists without there being any sort of standard to discern whether one is right or wrong is kind of funny to me. The standard is there, and like I said the vast majority of religious people abide by it, just like the vast majority of people abide by the law. But human beings have free will, it is our great gift, and therefore there will always be argument, discussion and debate concerning doctrines we all once thought were very obvious to the reader and sound in principle. To damn all religion because the actions of a few people who claim to be doing what they are doing for God is silly, you would not apply the same standard to ANYTHING else in life and therefore it is unfair and not logical to do so when it comes to religion.

Also, if you're going to regurgitate arguments from the God Delusion, please be warned that while Dawkins has become the Atheist Pope of sorts, he changes his mind about as often as Hollywood does hairstyles. He says what sounds good to him at the time and is possibly the most inconsistent atheist of all time, especially since recently he has admitted in an interview with John Lennox (the guy that he has debated many many times) that "There is a strong case for the existence of God". I'm too lazy to get the article, it's all over the net, just google it.

LOL this thread always had such long long lonnnnnggg posts.

I'm an atheist myself (actually had a 3hr "discussion" on it at 5am a week ago) but heard this recently relating to the defense of religion which did strike a cord with me:

"When you're a drowning man, your head bobbing down for the third time and get thrown a life line, then you don't question the quality of the rope."

Anyone who can name the philosopher who came out with that peach gets a big e-cookie.

The biggest problem when arguing with indoctrinated people is that they're incapable of rationally analyzing arguments. Therefore they have the capability of instantly accepting all arguments from other sources that even remotely fit their cause and can throw them at their opponents much faster than the opponents can respond. An average creationist, for example, usually only needs to see a title of a source in order to conclude whether it confirms his beliefs or not. Therefore such a person can instantly provide dozens of youtube videos, blogs, and articles to crush the opposition. On the other hand, a rational person usually takes time to disassemble every such source and to cohesively respond to each point raised. Such detailed responsiveness usually takes tens of minutes per each single opposing article, and is therefore futile against a "creationism truth" Google search that takes a fraction of a second to complete and returns thousands desired supporting arguments.

That being said, with all respect for renegade and Opus in their discussion, I'll just quickly comment on three major issues I haven't seen closely examined already, them being morality, Thomas Aquinas, and monkeys with typewriters.

Morality is not only observed in humans, it is observed in various other species, not all of them even being primates. Dolphins, for example, chase away sharks when they endanger other animals, and even do so when it is not a member of their species that is endangered. There have been numerous occasions when they helped humans lost at sea survive. Vampire bats, which live in huge colonies equal in size to our largest cities, often give some of the blood they collected to their less fortunate comrades who failed to successfully feed that night.

Thomas Aquinas, with all due respect, is plain silly if you read him nowadays. I have a book at home that contains his conclusions on various philosophical questions, and beside the fact most of them are silly (like the question of free will of angels and the like), his main problem is that he takes the bible as a viable source and bases some of his conclusions on that book.

As for the idea of a million monkeys given a million typewriters and a million years writing Hamlet, now, thanks to the internet, we know that is simply not true.

Gosh, this brings back memories. I was wondering where the quality people from this forum disappeared lately, but I suppose that we're all lying around dormant and that it just must take a fundie to reignite the long lost debating passion in all of us...

I don't think Aquinas is silly at all, and where did you get this notion that he constantly uses the bible as a finite source of authority in his philosophy? That's BS mate, you need to read into him a bit more because he often assumes that the Bible doesn't even exist.

I wonder where he got all those ideas about angels from if it were not from the bible...

quote:

Originally posted by Alex I don't think Aquinas is silly at all, and where did you get this notion that he constantly uses the bible as a finite source of authority in his philosophy? That's BS mate, you need to read into him a bit more because he often assumes that the Bible doesn't even exist.

+1

Aquinas is actually quite good as a philosopher, and I can't recall reading anything by him about the Bible.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 As for the idea of a million monkeys given a million typewriters and a million years writing Hamlet, now, thanks to the internet, we know that is simply not true.

quote:

Originally posted by Lemonad Religion is just simply stupid!

Please, if you've got nothing substantial to add to the discussion, keep lurking.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov +1 Aquinas is actually quite good as a philosopher, and I can't recall reading anything by him about the Bible.

Well he has written about the bible, of course, what made Aquinas so great was his prowess as both a philosopher AND a theologian.

As for his works on angels, yes, clearly this is an example of him working with the bible, however my point was in relation to the arguments going on in the past few pages IE: God's existence/Divinely inspired morality etc. In these instances, Aquinas goes much further than the Bible and relies heavily on philosophy and physics to make his points.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Well he has written about the bible, of course, what made Aquinas so great was his prowess as both a philosopher AND a theologian. As for his works on angels, yes, clearly this is an example of him working with the bible, however my point was in relation to the arguments going on in the past few pages IE: God's existence/Divinely inspired morality etc. In these instances, Aquinas goes much further than the Bible and relies heavily on philosophy and physics to make his points.

I do agree with you that Aquinas went further than the bible in his attempts to prove his theological concepts. But from reading his discussions it's pretty obvious that, whether consciously or not, a lot of his work was not really questioning the bible, but was instead aimed at proving the christian doctrine as a legitimate fact. In some of his discussions, like the one on angels I mentioned earlier, he often takes that doctrine for granted and builds up conclusions on that, which why I mentioned earlier that his writings are sometimes silly.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.