|
Are you bored? Why don't you tell God how you feel about Him? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| woscar |
Here are my results...
| quote: | You responded that there are moral standards independent of God's will. This response has been given by 70% of the 121 people who have completed this activity to date.
Tensions
We have identified 2 tensions in your reponses, which represents a tension quotient of 25% (where lower is better). The average tension quotient for this activity is 69%.
It is important to be clear about what we mean by "tension" here. We use the term in two senses, neither of which involves the claim that there are necessarily logical contradictions between particular beliefs or responses. The first sense of the word refers to a lack of fit between beliefs: so, for example, two beliefs will be designated as being in tension if some (farily) sophisticated reasoning is required in order to reconcile them with each other. The other sense in which the term is used is to describe a situation where a response has an implication that many people would find strange, incredible or unpalatable. Of course, there is plenty of room for disagreement here, since what strikes many people as extraordinary or bizarre can strike others as normal.
Note: Since you do not believe that God exists, you should read the analysis below as referring to 'Anything that counts as God...' rather than 'God'.
Tension 1 (potential): God has freedom of will
You claimed that God has freedom of will, in that he is at liberty to exercize his power in any way he chooses. However, assuming that it is morally wrong to command what is evil, then God cannot command people to do what he knows to be morally wrong unless you accept that God is capable of immorality (which it is possible you do, since you do not think God is omnibenevolent).
Tension 2: God can obligate?
You claimed that there are moral standards independent of God's will. This claim sits uneasily with the widely held belief that any being that counts as God must have the ability to obligate through its commands: in other words, that it is necessarily morally wrong to disobey a command given by God. This view suggests at the very least that some aspect of morality flows from God. Although there is no logical inconsistency in conceiving of a God whose comamands do not obligate (see note, above, about "tensions"), it would nevertheless be a rather strange or unusual conception of God. One possible way of resolving this tension is to argue that while there are independent moral standards, it is also true that some of God's commands impose obligations. This is the position held by Christian philosopher of religion, Richard Swinburne, for example. |
|
|
|
| ivofivo |
| This is a static conversation here, please. Mentioning and factorising unknown powers and ideas is as fulfilling as the concept of paranormal experiences. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by bas
The only thing I didn't really like about this is when they asked if God can make torture right and just. I don't think it's a very fair question to ask. Can he make it right and just? I'm sure he can, but didn't God also give mankind free will? This test makes it sound like one day God says "oh by the way go ahead and torture the innocent" given what we as mankind already believe to be wrong. Would a lot of people just say "well it is God's will" and go with it? Yes of course, there are plenty of idiots in the world...does that make it right and just? I don't think so. |
Then you don't think He can make it right and just. Here's how it works:
- One day God declares torture is okay. Yeah, just like that. He comes down from Heaven and tell us something like "Hey, guys, on second thought, torture is totally okay! Never mind what I said before, I changed my mind";
- You have the opportunity to torture an innocent child, and you've got a good reason to do that (the child has some information that, if not disclosed, may lead to the death of millions, because his father is the leader of a terrorist group and he ended up telling the kid where he'd go... but he wants to protect his daddy). God said it's totally all right to teach him a lesson, keep this in mind. So, if you go on and show the child what it is like to be waterboarded, you save the day - if not, millions may die;
- In the end, you're free to do whatever you want in this scenario. Would God's permission change anything? If you think it does, torturing the child would be as fine to you as it is to God; if you think it doesn't, then morality is invariably human, and we're to decide what counts (and what doesn't count as moral) no matter what God tells us.
Did Oscar's explanation and my example make this clearer to you? :) |
|
|
| Lomeli |
| This accomplishes nothing. |
|
|
| dj_alfi |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
[*]You have the opportunity to torture an innocent child, and you've got a good reason to do that (the child has some information that, if not disclosed, may lead to the death of millions, because his father is the leader of a terrorist group and he ended up telling the kid where he'd go... but he wants to protect his daddy). God said it's totally all right to teach him a lesson, keep this in mind. So, if you go on and show the child what it is like to be waterboarded, you save the day - if not, millions may die;
|
Just give that little sandmonkey-kid a gameboy and some playboys and he'd spill his guts. Then torture him. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Then you don't think He can make it right and just. Here's how it works:
- One day God declares torture is okay. Yeah, just like that. He comes down from Heaven and tell us something like "Hey, guys, on second thought, torture is totally okay! Never mind what I said before, I changed my mind";
- You have the opportunity to torture an innocent child, and you've got a good reason to do that (the child has some information that, if not disclosed, may lead to the death of millions, because his father is the leader of a terrorist group and he ended up telling the kid where he'd go... but he wants to protect his daddy). God said it's totally all right to teach him a lesson, keep this in mind. So, if you go on and show the child what it is like to be waterboarded, you save the day - if not, millions may die;
- In the end, you're free to do whatever you want in this scenario. Would God's permission change anything? If you think it does, torturing the child would be as fine to you as it is to God; if you think it doesn't, then morality is invariably human, and we're to decide what counts (and what doesn't count as moral) no matter what God tells us.
Did Oscar's explanation and my example make this clearer to you? :) |
I thought it was obvious morality is human? If we didn't exist how could the idea of morality exist? I didn't even need to come up with a stupid multiple choice test to steer you into the conclusion I wanted you to reach. |
|
|
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
I thought it was obvious morality is human? If we didn't exist how could the idea of morality exist? I didn't even need to come up with a stupid multiple choice test to steer you into the conclusion I wanted you to reach. |
Good for you then. However, the vast majority of religious people claim the source of their morality is their god. Therefore, atheists like Lira and myself are immoral, baby-eating perverts.
As compelling as it may seem to you, "It's obvious" is not an argument. If you want to prove that they are wrong, a well constructed logical argument supported by empirical facts has to be put forward, which is what moral philosophers (and now neuroscientists) have been doing for centuries. |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
Good for you then. However, the vast majority of religious people claim the source of their morality is their god. Therefore, atheists like Lira and myself are immoral, baby-eating perverts.
"It's obvious" is not an argument. If you want to prove that they are wrong, a well constructed logical argument supported by empirical facts has to be put forward, which is what moral philosophers and now neuroscientists have been doing for centuries. |
Wait, I'm the only atheist who eats babies? :( |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
However, the vast majority of religious people claim the source of their morality is their god. Therefore, atheists like Lira and myself are immoral, baby-eating perverts.
As compelling as it may seem to you, "It's obvious" is not an argument. If you want to prove that they are wrong, a well constructed logical argument supported by empirical facts has to be put forward, which is what moral philosophers (and now neuroscientists) have been doing for centuries. |
Apparently, some "moral" people fail to understand and appreciate the pious virtues of logic. I've written about that, before. They are my least favorite type of 'religious' people. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by woscar
As compelling as it may seem to you, "It's obvious" is not an argument. If you want to prove that they are wrong, a well constructed logical argument supported by empirical facts has to be put forward, which is what moral philosophers (and now neuroscientists) have been doing for centuries. |
That's because I was stating a fact. Since humans are the only living creature on earth who has the ability to think of things in terms of good/bad aka morality. I didn't know it warranted an argument? |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
I didn't know it warranted an argument? |
It doesn't, really. If your target audience is sane, rational human beings, no argument is necessary. If, on the other hand, it includes the type of people who believe that, after they die, they will be able to see without eyes and think without a brain, then any argument is futile. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
If, on the other hand, it includes the type of people who believe that, after they die, they will be able to see without eyes and think without a brain, then any argument is futile. |
This has always struck me as so absurd I think it's fascinating folk psychology has taken us this far. Dualism is so pervasive in human thought across the globe it's staggering... although, in all fairness, not all religions that postulate the existence of a soul believe we "see without eyes and think without brain". Buddhism theorises about some sort of electromagnetic karmic transfer, which doesn't seem to be as relevant to my identity as a molecule of water that has passed through my bladder, but nevertheless refrains from assassinating all known laws of physics :p |
|
|
|
|
