Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Life without God
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 76 of 85 (608907)
03-15-2011 5:57 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by slevesque
03-15-2011 5:03 AM


But suffering, and death, is a key component of natural selection. In a world where ''everything just IS'', well 'natural selection also just IS', and I don't see how you can justify it is bad in the case of some general concept of suffering, yet claim it 'just is' in the case of natural selection
Well, suffering is bad. This includes suffering caused by those forces such as famine, disease, and predation which exert selective pressure.
Of course, some of the final results (such as myself) are gratifying, but this does not reconcile one to the suffering qua suffering. (By analogy, I'm glad that I was born but regret the pain this caused my mother.)
You must remember that unlike you no atheist is obliged to worship the forces that brought him into being, nor even approve of them. Nor, of course, does he have to approve of their other productions --- I don't have to pretend that the bubonic plague or the tapeworm are the product of wisdom and benevolence; I can concede that nature is often blind, cruel, and stupid.
Your own take on this suffering would be rather more interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by slevesque, posted 03-15-2011 5:03 AM slevesque has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 77 of 85 (608910)
03-15-2011 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by slevesque
03-15-2011 4:59 AM


Of course, my contention is that I know this moral absolute is found in the Bible.
And this would also have been contended just as vigorously by your co-religionists when they set fire to you for being a heretic.
An absolute morality cannot exist if only matter and energy exists, therefore if an absolute morality is to exist it can only be in the case where not only matter and energy exists. ie supernatural exists.
Well, there's that "absolute" of yours again. What do you mean by it? If by "absolute morality" you just mean "that moral system which is preferred by God over all other conceivable moral systems", then it is trivially true that an atheist does not believe in absolute morality, and that at least one supernatural being, namely God, is necessary for there to be "absolute morality". (Just as if you used "absolute bicycle" to mean "God's favorite bicycle".)
If you mean something else by it, then this is not so clear.
It's a form of reductio ad absurdum; given the premises of atheism, it is a logical consequence. One arrangement of atoms is not intrinsically more valuable then any other.
But the same would seem to apply in your system: one arrangement of atoms, or indeed of supernatural entities such as souls and angels and demons, is not intrinsically more valuable than another --- rather you seem to suppose that this value is in the mind of God, and if you took him away, while leaving everything else the same, no value would remain. The moral value of (for example) me hitting you over the head with a brick is (according to you, if I have understood you correctly) not inherent or intrinsic to that situation in itself, but rather depends on whether there is a God and if so what he thinks of it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by slevesque, posted 03-15-2011 4:59 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by slevesque, posted 03-15-2011 4:50 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 78 of 85 (608932)
03-15-2011 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by cavediver
03-14-2011 7:27 PM


Re: Not convinced
cavediver writes:
Hi GDR, been a while since we've chatted.
It has, but I read your posts regularly and I'm grateful for your physics lessons, not just for what you say but also for your ideas pointing me towards various authors.
cavediver writes:
Yes, it is an interesting conundrum, where the real deity of Christianity becomes the Bible itself. There is this unfounded assumption (naive readings of Timothy not withstanding) that the Bible has divine properties, regardless of its blatent human authorship and redaction.
I contend that the primary reason for this is that as humans we don't like ambiguity. If we hold the view that the Bible is essentially ghost-written by God then we can go there to get drfinitive answers to all questions without having to look or think further. This kind of thinking in my view actually works at cross purposes to what the Christian message is all about.
I contend that Christianity is about developing a heart that rejects self love and embraces altruistic love. If there is no ambiguity then altruistic love becomes virtually impossible when we know that there is a reward at the end of the tunnel. What God wants IMHO for us to love kindness, justice and (sorry about this ) humility for their own sake and not for personal reward.
cavediver writes:
Simply that as I finally removed the last layers of inconsistency and obvious bullshit from the Christian god, I was left with a simple deist entity. I never had much use for such a concept: while a Christian I would often point out that I did not see a need for God to have the Universe, just that the simple fact was that we had both. And so here I am, back as an atheist as I was at age 13.
I wound up coming to other conclusions. After converting to Christianity in my 30’s largely based on reading C S Lewis I decided 10 years ago that I wanted to sort out exactly what it is I believe. In order to do that I started reading books on science and theology.
To this point my reading has definitely changed my views on a number of things about my understanding of the world but also my understanding of my faith, but in the end I became convinced of the essential truth of Christianity.
The two things that I have become convinced of which is the basis for both my religious beliefs and my worldview is that there is a creative intelligence that has caused the universe to exist and secondly that the resurrection of Jesus as an actual historic event.
With all of the complexities of the universe, of any life form, of morality etc the idea that there is an external creative intelligence seems far more likely than not.
Secondly then, if I accept the fact that this creative intelligence does exist then I am prepared to accept the possibility that this intelligence might very well intervene in what goes on in the world he/she/it brought into existence.
On that basis I read a number of books that looked at the resurrection from an historical point of view. I found the debates between Dom Crossan and N T Wright as well as Marcus Borg and Wright particularly useful. If one is open to the possibility that the resurrection was historical then I viewed Wright’s argument for, much stronger than the arguments against. I found that the proposals made by Borg and Crossan of why Christianity took the shape it did, or even that it came into existence at all, very weak.
So in the end what was central for me was the resurrection and it wasn’t necessary to twist my ideas in pretzel like fashion to try and prove the literal accuracy of the Bible. As a result I find the Bible far more instructive than I did previously.
cavediver writes:
Well, I was never big on humility - but as Meatloaf so wisely said, two out of three ain't bad...
Definitely a good start. Humility isn't a problem for me because, to paraphrase Chruchill I have so much to be humble about.
Edited by GDR, : typo cleaned up
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by cavediver, posted 03-14-2011 7:27 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 79 of 85 (608939)
03-15-2011 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by slevesque
03-15-2011 5:03 AM


The chemical reactions it produces is of course different in both cases.
Oh don't give me that Slevesque!
I don't believe for a moment that were you to witness a massacre, your first thought would be "My, what an interesting chemical reaction!" and nor would mine be. No, you would be naturally horrified by the spectacle and whilst you might be moved to exclaim "Oh my God!" or some such, there is no real need to make reference to gods to feel that reaction. It is an intrinsic part of being human and it is one that has positive effects. The only assumption one need make is that our instinctive dislike of suffering (in yourself and others) is correct.
I think your version makes far more, far greater assumptions.
But suffering, and death, is a key component of natural selection. In a world where ''everything just IS'', well 'natural selection also just IS', and I don't see how you can justify it is bad in the case of some general concept of suffering, yet claim it 'just is' in the case of natural selection
You are always keen to accuse others of engaging in fallacies, so why are you encouraging me to embrace this one?
Just because I believe that natural selection is, does not mean that I think it ought to be.
(unless you are of the view that Natural selection is bad)
Abso-frickin'-lutely I am.
One of my major objections to a creator god is that I cannot believe that a morally good entity would create so cruel and wasteful a set-up as evolution.
quote:
I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.
--Charles Darwin, from a letter to Asa Gray, 22 May 1860
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by slevesque, posted 03-15-2011 5:03 AM slevesque has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 80 of 85 (608964)
03-15-2011 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by slevesque
03-15-2011 4:59 AM


quote:
Of course, my contention is that I know this moral absolute is found in the Bible. So it does reveal to be a key difference
Which only proves that I was correct - belief in an objective morality is NOT a key difference.
And to take the Bible as a good guide to morality is rather questionable.
quote:
Not at all, it is a direct conclusion from the atheist claim ''everything just IS''
I'm sorry but making blatantly false assertions won't help you.
quote:
You haven't really thought this out, did you ?
You just keep on getting things wrong, don't you ?? In fact I have thought it out quite carefully, which is why I am confident that I am correct.
quote:
An absolute morality cannot exist if only matter and energy exists, therefore if an absolute morality is to exist it can only be in the case where not only matter and energy exists. ie supernatural exists. (the next step that can be taken from absolute moral laws to lawmaker is trivial at this point)
Firstly, atheism does not entail rejection of the supernaturalism. Secondly there are atheists such as Sam Harris and the Objectivist movement who argue for objective morality without the supernatural. Finally the "trivial" step that you refer to is a major obstacle as you would know if you were better informed on the issue (see the Euthyphro dilemma - which has yet to be adequately answered).
quote:
Question-beggin epithet
It certainly doesn't beg any questions.
quote:
It's a form of reductio ad absurdum; given the premises of atheism, it is a logical consequence. One arrangement of atoms is not intrinsically more valuable then any other.
Obviously that is NOT a logical consequence, unless you deny the whole concept of inherent value (you might like to consider the relevant prices of diamond and graphite before you insist on that). I suppose that if you assume that atheists both deny inherent value AND make moral judgements on the basis of inherent value (a rather silly view) you would be correct. But the mere need to make those assumptions shows that your claim that it is a "logical consequence" is completely false.
But let me say that someone who sees no value in humans as they are and considers a book that glorifies acts of genocide (and a murdering vigilante) as a source of "absolute morals" - and who makes remarks like that is sitting in a greenhouse, throwing very large stones.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by slevesque, posted 03-15-2011 4:59 AM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 81 of 85 (608977)
03-15-2011 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Dr Adequate
03-15-2011 6:24 AM


And this would also have been contended just as vigorously by your co-religionists when they set fire to you for being a heretic.
I would have suggested to apply the biblical principle that ''A goof tree produces good fruit'' I guess.
What I'm saying is that even though each person has his own view of what is morality, in a christian worldview there is a common ground, the Bible, that we all agree does contain the right moral absolute.
Well, there's that "absolute" of yours again. What do you mean by it? If by "absolute morality" you just mean "that moral system which is preferred by God over all other conceivable moral systems", then it is trivially true that an atheist does not believe in absolute morality, and that at least one supernatural being, namely God, is necessary for there to be "absolute morality". (Just as if you used "absolute bicycle" to mean "God's favorite bicycle".)
If you mean something else by it, then this is not so clear.
By absolute I mean that it applies to every human being no matter what they think/believe, and that on any given disagreement on morality one person will be wrong and the other right (even if in some situations it will be difficult to know which is which), and that this will not be the result of popular voting or fighting contests.
But the same would seem to apply in your system: one arrangement of atoms, or indeed of supernatural entities such as souls and angels and demons, is not intrinsically more valuable than another --- rather you seem to suppose that this value is in the mind of God, and if you took him away, while leaving everything else the same, no value would remain.
Within a God-creating worldview, one arrangement of atoms can have more intrinsic value then another. For example, God created humans in his image, and this gives them higher value then anything else.
The moral value of (for example) me hitting you over the head with a brick is (according to you, if I have understood you correctly) not inherent or intrinsic to that situation in itself, but rather depends on whether there is a God and if so what he thinks of it.
You hitting me on the head is wrong because, as a human being, I am made in God's image and this is what makes it intrinsically different then hitting a fly.
Atheism, rather can give value to human life, but this will be relative. ANd if so one day we all decide that asian people have no more value then dogs, then it is so. And this becomes no more, or no less, right or wrong then before.
Try thinking of this strictly from the worldview you claim to have, and go on from there. The reason I say this is because most of the times, atheist come down to ''well I too think that stealing is wrong, see, I can be just as moral as you''. But this is a red herring; the issue is not if an atheist can have the same moral views as me, but rather, if he has the basis to justify this from his worldview. This is particularly true in countries with a christian heritage, because people will take for granted things such as human rights, private property, etc. when in fact these are things that came from the christian worldview, that they were simply brought up to believe to be 'the right thing to do'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-15-2011 6:24 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by PaulK, posted 03-15-2011 5:17 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 83 by Taq, posted 03-15-2011 5:22 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 84 by jar, posted 03-15-2011 7:20 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-15-2011 9:22 PM slevesque has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 82 of 85 (608979)
03-15-2011 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by slevesque
03-15-2011 4:50 PM


quote:
Within a God-creating worldview, one arrangement of atoms can have more intrinsic value then another. For example, God created humans in his image, and this gives them higher value then anything else.
Any inherent value must be in the arrangement of atoms itself, not in it's relationship to anything else. Therefore the inherent value of any particular arrangement of atoms is independent of whether a God exists or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by slevesque, posted 03-15-2011 4:50 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 83 of 85 (608980)
03-15-2011 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by slevesque
03-15-2011 4:50 PM


What I'm saying is that even though each person has his own view of what is morality, in a christian worldview there is a common ground, the Bible, that we all agree does contain the right moral absolute.
The problem is that you are not speaking of morality. You are speaking of obedience. The Bible is held as a moral absolute, an unquestionable authority. If the Bible says that something is immoral then it is immoral because the Bible says so, and you must follow that ruling. Period.
Morality is something quite different. Morality is the process of using reason and empathy to determine what is wrong or right. Morality is not bowing to the edicts of an authority. When you give up the process of judging morality for yourself and instead follow the edicts of an authority the best you can claim is that you are obedient.
Atheism, rather can give value to human life, but this will be relative.
At least it is based on reason and empathy instead of edicts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by slevesque, posted 03-15-2011 4:50 PM slevesque has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 84 of 85 (608998)
03-15-2011 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by slevesque
03-15-2011 4:50 PM


Biblical moral absolutes?
slev writes:
What I'm saying is that even though each person has his own view of what is morality, in a christian worldview there is a common ground, the Bible, that we all agree does contain the right moral absolute.
What Biblical Moral Absolutes?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by slevesque, posted 03-15-2011 4:50 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 85 of 85 (609010)
03-15-2011 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by slevesque
03-15-2011 4:50 PM


I would have suggested to apply the biblical principle that ''A goof tree produces good fruit'' I guess.
I believe I've met some of the fruits of the goof tree ...
Seriously, though, they'd have said just the same thing about you. Then they'd have pointed out that you had borne the bitter and abominable fruit of heresy. Then they'd have referred to Jesus cursing the fig tree, then they'd have moved on to the usual passages justifying the burning of heretics, then they'd have set fire to you.
One wishes that Jesus had left more detailed instructions.
By absolute I mean that it applies to every human being no matter what they think/believe, and that on any given disagreement on morality one person will be wrong and the other right (even if in some situations it will be difficult to know which is which), and that this will not be the result of popular voting or fighting contests.
Oh, well, in that case my morality is as "absolute" as God's.
Within a God-creating worldview, one arrangement of atoms can have more intrinsic value then another. For example, God created humans in his image, and this gives them higher value then anything else.
You hitting me on the head is wrong because, as a human being, I am made in God's image and this is what makes it intrinsically different then hitting a fly.
I think you're just misusing the word "intrinsic". If the same arrangement of atoms (me hitting you with a brick) can have a different moral value depending on whether or not there's a God, external to that situation, in whose image we're made, then that is not intrinsic value.
(A good analogy might be two identical pens, one of which is much more valuable because Madison used it to write the Bill of Rights with. They have the same intrinsic value; but one of them has greater extrinsic, historical, or sentimental value.)
The reason I say this is because most of the times, atheist come down to ''well I too think that stealing is wrong, see, I can be just as moral as you''. But this is a red herring; the issue is not if an atheist can have the same moral views as me, but rather, if he has the basis to justify this from his worldview.
That would be a "yes". There is nothing inconsistent with my disbelieving in God and possessing moral preferences and acting on them --- any more than it is inconsistent to be an atheist, to have preferences as to what color I should paint my bathroom, and act on those. I do not need to add to my own feelings the idea that somewhere there is a supernatural being who also has preferences as to what color my bathroom should be --- preferences which might differ from mine just as well as agree with them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by slevesque, posted 03-15-2011 4:50 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024